Board of Appeals denies bid to disqualify City Attorney’s Office in massage‑parlor appeal; recusal motions continued

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on a 5–0 vote declined to disqualify the City Attorney’s Office from advising on an appeal by Lee’s Oriental Massage challenging a Department of Public Health permit revocation.

Appellant counsel Jeffrey Rothwein argued the board had been compromised by ex‑parte advice and moved “to recuse the entire board,” saying the city attorney had advised the hearing officer and other teams in related proceedings and that published due‑process memo documentation left gaps. He asked the board to appoint outside counsel under the San Francisco Charter, Section 6.102, and to continue the merits hearing until the disqualification questions were resolved.

Cecilia Mangoba, representing the Department of Public Health and the City Attorney’s Office, told the board the office had implemented a due‑process screen and that any limited contacts were unrelated to the revocation proceedings. Mangoba said the office had not shared protected information with the hearing officer and that the matter before the board now is de novo, allowing the board to consider all evidence anew.

Commissioners pressed for factual records to evaluate the adequacy of the due‑process screen, asking for sworn declarations from several deputies the office had not named in an August 2005 memorandum. The board directed that those declarations be produced before the continued hearing.

The board adopted a motion to deny the appellant’s request to disqualify the City Attorney’s Office from advising the board (5–0). Members then voted to continue the separate question of whether the City Attorney’s Office should be disqualified from representing the Department of Public Health and the request to recuse the Board of Appeals. The related hearings were continued to allow the city attorney’s office to submit declarations and for the parties to prepare, with the matters set for further consideration in September.