Campbell council directs staff to pursue hiring an in-house city attorney

The Campbell City Council on March 31 directed staff to begin preparing to hire an in-house city attorney, after a staff presentation comparing the city’s current hybrid contract model with a full-time, in-house counsel option.

City Manager Brian told the council the city has operated a hybrid model — a retainer covering a set number of hours with hourly billing for work beyond that — and presented a staff memo outlining trade-offs between contracting and hiring. “I would encourage us to be thinking about the relationship, as much as the cost,” Brian said, noting that litigation-driven spikes can make year-to-year legal costs unpredictable. He also told the council the city budget currently reflects about $174,000 for certain legal costs handled through the city manager’s department.

Why it matters: Council members said day-to-day access and continuity were decisive factors. Several members, including Council member Tara Hines, said an in-house attorney is more likely to be integrated into the executive team and to provide the ongoing oversight the council expects. “The city attorney is a check on city administration,” Hines said, arguing that in-house counsel better preserves that role and long-term continuity.

The presentation and discussion: Staff described two primary options — contract services (a firm or firm-led city attorney) and a full-time employee — and walked through staffing and budget implications. Staff and outside HR/consulting participants said recruiting interest can be robust for city attorney roles; one staff member cited San Jose’s recent search as drawing “a couple hundred applicants.” City Attorney Bill (who was present during the discussion) and staff also flagged workload drivers that affect cost estimates, including litigation tied to Measure K, gun-violence restraining orders and “very extensive” public-records requests that have taken significant staff time.

Council concerns and process questions focused on how costs would be presented in the budget (moving contract line items into personnel costs), whether the city attorney would be exempt from overtime (staff said the city attorney would be exempt), how a recruiter or RFQ/RFP should be structured, and how the council should participate in candidate selection. Staff recommended using an RFQ if qualifications are the primary criterion, and said a professional recruiter could be used to identify department-head-level candidates.

What council decided: The mayor and a majority of council members said they prefer hiring in-house and asked staff to return with a detailed recruitment plan, timeline and options for any transitional contract arrangements to cover the end-of-year handover. The council did not take a formal recorded vote; Mayor Furtado summarized council direction as a request that staff “move forward with an in house” recruitment plan and return with a recommendation.

Next steps: Staff will draft a recruitment schedule and more detailed cost comparisons, including peer-city actuals versus budgeted figures, and return to the council with a recommended timeline and options for transition coverage if the new hire is not in place by the incumbent’s retirement. The city manager said it is reasonable to expect a recruiter could be engaged and a search completed by year-end if the council acts promptly.

A disclosure: At the outset of the discussion, Council member Tara Hines disclosed that Berliner Cohen (an example firm mentioned in staff materials) is an occasional client of Novatech Services and noted the disclosure had been filed (as stated on the record).