Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council votes to end high‑cost outside legal services after debate over $600,000 in fees
Summary
Loveland City Council voted to end its engagement with outside law firm Lewis & Roca (now associated with Womble) after extended debate over costs, timing and legal strategy; the city attorney will manage the transition and may retain outside counsel for future appellate work if necessary.
The Loveland City Council voted on Jan. 8 to end its use of the outside law firm Lewis & Roca, a controversial move that council members said would save professional services costs and return more litigation control to the city attorney’s office. The motion, introduced by Councilor Laura Samson, passed after extended debate and a tied amendment.
Councilor Samson framed her motion around the city’s recent legal spending, saying the city would have spent roughly $600,000 in 2024 on Lewis & Roca-related legal work and that the city attorney’s office could handle future needs at lower cost. “We do not have the resources to continue to pay Lewis & Roca,” Samson said, proposing the termination take effect at city attorney discretion so as not to compromise ongoing cases.
The council’s city attorney (Vince) cautioned against an immediate severing while a fees motion and related litigation remain active. He recommended retaining Lewis & Roca through a January 31 hearing on a fees motion so as not to jeopardize the city’s position on the current trial work, while allowing appellate work to be handled by more-cost‑effective counsel. An amendment to suspend rather than terminate the firm’s services failed on a tie vote; the main motion then passed on roll call.
Supporters of the motion argued the city should prioritize in‑house counsel and lower-cost outside counsel for appeals. Opponents said it was premature to cut ties before a pending fees hearing and suggested an executive session to hear directly from the outside counsel about the status and potential exposure. The city attorney said he would retain discretion to reengage Lewis & Roca (or a similar firm) if an adverse appellate ruling required their trial expertise.
The council vote returns decision-making about outside engagements principally to the city attorney’s office and signals a desire on the dais to reduce professional services spending. The motion’s passage does not immediately remove Lewis & Roca from active matters; city staff will work out a transition timeline that the city attorney said would avoid compromising ongoing motions and preserve the city’s litigation posture.
The council meeting included multiple related disclosures: commissioners discussed the professional services budget (noted to be about $100,000 for 2025), and the city attorney said the office may have to request supplemental appropriations if outside fees continue before the transition is complete. The city also discussed the possibility of short-term appellate counsel at lower cost should appeals proceed.
Next steps: staff will coordinate the transition and report back to council, including any possible need for budget adjustments or limited outside counsel for appellate work.
