Sheriff's request to hire outside litigation counsel stalls after DA warns of conflicts

The Oklahoma County Board of Commissioners declined to approve authorization for the sheriff's office to hire outside litigation counsel after a district attorney's opinion raised conflict and statutory‑authority concerns.

During discussion of item 27, the sheriff's office representative asked the board to approve a contract that would allow outside counsel to handle litigation related to transportation and other operational disputes. The board heard that the request would authorize counsel to litigate on the sheriff's behalf as needed.

The district attorney, speaking to the board, said the relevant statutes permit the district attorney's office to contract with outside private counsel primarily for defensive representation and cautioned that approving the sheriff's requested authority could make the county a necessary party to resulting lawsuits. "If that defendant is going to be the BOCC, my advice to you is that is ill advised to give your opponent money to sue you with," the district attorney told commissioners, explaining that the DA’s office would have to recuse itself if the county were named.

Commissioners pressed the sheriff's representative on whether the board could be guaranteed not to be a party; the representative said he could not provide such a guarantee and described the request as a practical way to secure counsel while minimizing expense. Commissioners also noted budget and precedent concerns about using county funds to underwrite potential litigation by another elected official.

After discussion, Commissioner (speaker 3) moved to approve the sheriff's request but no commissioner seconded the motion; the motion died for lack of a second.

Because the board did not vote to authorize the contract, no outside counsel engagement was approved and the matter remains unresolved. The board moved on to other business and deferred further action on some agenda items to a later meeting.