CITY OF LOS ANGELES MIGUEL A. SANTANA CALIFORNIA ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS

Transcription

1 CITY OF LOS ANGELES MIGUEL A. SANTANA CALIFORNIA ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER m, BEN CEJA PATRICIA J HUBER ERIC GARCETTI MAYOR March 29, 2016 REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION (d)(1) REPORT RE: REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE ATTORNEY CONFLICTS PANEL COUNSEL, TERM EXTENSIONS, AND REASSIGNMENT OF CASES The Honorable Budget & Finance Committee of the City of Los Angeles Room 1010, City Hall 200 N. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA Honorable Members: Pursuant to California Government Code Section (d)(1), the Office of the City Administrative Officer wishes to meet in closed session to discuss the need for additional funding for the Attorney Conflicts Panel counsel, contract extensions, and reassignment of cases. We ask that the matter be placed on the Budget and Finance Committee's closed session agenda for its meeting of Monday, April 4, 2016, and on the closed session agenda of the City Council as soon as practicable. MAS:VTP:ZSA: Sincerely, 1 c.xjf- Miguel A. Santana City Administrative Officer Enclosure an equal employment opportunity-affirmative action employer 1300 CITY HALL EAST, UOS ANGELES, CALIF TEL. (2 1 3)

2 REPORT from OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Date: March 29, 2016 CAO File No. Council File No. Council District: To: Budget and Finance Committee From: Reference: Subject: Miguel A. Santana, City Administrative Officer Attorney Conflicts Panel REQUEST TO AMEND ELEVEN LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACTS WITH NINE LAW FIRMS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM CONTRACTUAL COMPENSATION, REQUEST TO AMEND THE TERM FOR TWO LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACTS WITH TWO LAW FIRMS, AND REQUEST FOR CASE REASSIGNMENT AND FOR ONE CONTRACT WITH DENTONS US, LLP SUMMARY The Office of the City Administrative Officer (CAO) requests authority to: 1) Amend eleven legal services contracts under the Attorney Conflicts Panel (ACP) program to increase the maximum compensation for each contract by a cumulative amount of $2,372,000; 2) Amend the term for two legal services contracts under the ACP program; and 3) Reassign one ACP case from the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP to the law firm of Dentons US, LLP. The ACP program is responsible for retaining outside counsel to handle conflict-of-interest matters which the City Attorney s Office is precluded from handling, and the retention of conflict counsel is made from an established list of pre-qualified law firms readily available based upon assignment needs and criteria. The ACP has ceiling authority to fund its legal service contracts up to $100,000. Beyond this amount, City Council authority is required for further funding needs. Request to Amend s to Increase the Maximum ual Limit The eleven contracts that require amendments to increase the maximum compensation are for the following nine law firms: 1) Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, LLP; 2) Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP; 3) Collinson Law; 4) Ferguson, Praet & Sherman; 5) Hurrell & Cantrall, LLP; 6) Klein Hornig, LLP; 7) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore; 8) Lozano Smith; and 9) Richards Watson & Gershon. The reason for the requested increases is due to the higher than anticipated expenses related to discovery and preparation of the cases for trial. Also, the matters regarding the former Community Redevelopment Agency properties and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

3 PAGE 2 audit and litigation related to the American with Disabilities Act is ongoing. Attachment A provides a brief case description, case status and funding summary of each contract assignment in this request. The proposed cumulative increase for the eleven contracts is $2,372,000. This amount will cover both incurred and projected costs through the end of FY The increase in the contract limit for these contracts and the anticipated increase in expenses for other current contract assignments will not require additional funding for the ACP Fund No. 46T in FY Request to Amend s to Extend the Term The two contracts requiring amendments to extend the contract terms are for the following two law firms: 1) Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, LLP; and 2) Ferguson, Praet & Sherman. Attachment B provides a brief case description of the contract assignment. Request to Reassign Case The one case requiring reassignment is Brian C. Mulligan v. James Nichols, et al., Case No. CV This case assigned to McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP which merged with Dentons US, LLP in June Reassigning this case to this firm will go outside the pre-established ACP Panel. The CAO has verified the merger of McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP with Dentons US, LLP. The CAO believes it is in the best interest to the City that this case be reassigned on the basis that: 1) there is no change to the staff assigned to Case No. CV ; and 2) the lead attorney on Case No. CV continue to work on this case and it would be more efficient and cost effective for continued representation by Mr. Jules Zeman. By doing so, this action would entail entering into one legal service contracts with Dentons, LLP which has been budgeted for the initial funding of $80,000 for the Brian C. Mulligan v. James Nichols, et al. case. The contract shall be identical in all respects, including the terms and conditions and the attorney billing rates, as currently in place with all ACP contracts. Dentons US, LLP will also be subject to the City s compliance policies and procedures, and the proposed contracts would be subject to review by the City Attorney's Office as to form. The proposed contracts and contract amendments are in compliance with City Financial Policies and the CAO has complied with all applicable City procedures in awarding the contracts. The ACP Fund No. 46T was provided an adopted budget of $4,125 million for FY for contract related expenditures. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council, subject to the approval of the Mayor: 1. Authorize the City Administrative Officer to execute amendments and encumber funds totaling $2,372,000 within the Attorney Conflicts Panel Fund No. 46T, Department 10, for the following Attorney Conflicts Panel law firms:

4 PAGE 3 a. $50,000 for Amendment No. 5 to No. C for the law firm of Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, LLP for the matter of James Gordon v. City of Los Angeles. b. c. $400,000 for Amendment No. to No. C for the law firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP for the matter of John Smith v. City of Los Angeles, et al. $91,000 for Amendment No. 1 to No. C for the law firm of Collinson Law for the matter of Jamarr Isom v. City of Los Angeles, et al. d. $50,000 for Amendment No. 1_to No. C for the law firm of Ferguson Praet & Sherman for the matter of Edsell Ford v. City of Los Angeles, et al. e. $25,000 for Amendment No. 3 to No. C for the law firm of Ferguson, Praet & Sherman for the matter of Emmanuel Bracy v. City of Los Angeles, et al. f. $80,000 for Amendment No. 2 to No. C for the law firm of Hurrell & Cantrall, LLP for the matter Clinton Alford, Jr. v. City of Los Angeles. g- h. i. J- $158,000 for Amendment No. 2 to No. C for the law firm of Hurrell & Cantrall, LLP for the matter of Tara McMahon v. LAPD Officer Luis Valenzuela. $350,000 for Amendment No. 4 to No. C for the law firm of Klein Hornig, LLP for legal services and support relating to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance and enforcement matters. $500,000 for Amendment No. 5 to No. C for the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore for the matter Stephen Miller v. City of Los Angeles, et al. $113,000 for Amendment No. 1 to No. C for the law firm of Lozano Smith for the matter of John Smith v. City of Los Angeles, et al. k. $605,000 for Amendment No. 2 to No. C for the law firm of Richards Watson & Gershon for the matter of Marlton Recovery Partners, LLC v. Community Redevelopment Agency/Los Angeles, et al. 2. Authorize the City Administrative Officer to execute amendments to amend the term of the following contracts with the following Attorney Conflicts Panel law firms: a. Amend the term of No. C (James Gordon matter) with Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, LLP to May 12, b. Amend the term of No. C (Brian C. Mulligan matter) with Ferguson, Praet & Sherman to March 18, 2019.

5 PAGE Authorize the City Administrative Officer to reassign one case matter, Brian C. Mulligan v. James Nichols, et al., Case No. CV to Dentons US, LLP, and execute one legal services contract commencing on a date to be determined, in the Brian C. Mulligan case matter in which the amount of $80,000 has been established, with the funds to be encumbered within the Attorney Conflicts Panel Fund No. 46T, Department 10. Authorize the City Administrative Officer to prepare Controller instructions and to make any technical adjustments needed to implement the intent of the Mayor and Council action, and authorize the Controller to implement these instructions. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT The proposed contract amendments are in compliance with City Financial Policies. The recommendations in this report will not have an impact upon the General Fund. MAS:VTP:ZSA:SCL Attachments

6 Office of the City Administrative Officer Attorney Conflicts Panel (ACP) - Proposed Amendment Funding Case Case Status & Purpose for Funding Current Proposed Amendment Revised Law Firm Case Name No. Case Type Request No. Amount Amount Total Police Employment summary judgment Litigation Retaliation motions and potential Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, LLP James Gordon v. City" 6C and Discrimination appeal of motions C $ $ 50, QQQ Complex Police Tort motions and trial prep CV Litigation - Wrongful through trial in April Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP John Smith v. City*, et al. MMM Incarceration C $ 400,000 $ 435,000 Attachment A Collinson Law Jamarr Isom v. City*, etal. CV Police Tort Litigation - Excessive Force and discovery, motions and up Wrongful Arrest through trial in April 2016 C-125S56 S 25,000 $ 91,000 t 116,000 Complex Police Tort Litigation - Excessive discovery, motions and Ferguson, Praet & Sherman Edsell Ford v. City*, et al. CV Force trial prep. $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 150,000 Complex Police Tort Litigation - Excessive trial Ferguson, Praet 6 Sherman Emmanuel Bracy v. City*, et al. CV Force prep through trial. C $ 100,000 I 25,000 $ 125,000 motions and trial prep through trial. Trial to be rescheduled pending CV Police Tort Litigation - resolution of criminal Hurrell & Cantrall. LLP.Clinton Alford, Jr. v. City* FMO Excessive Force action on this mafter. C $ 50,000 S 80,000 $ 130,000 Tara McMahon v. LAPD Officer Luis CV Complex Police motions and trial prep through trial in March Hurrell & Cantrall, LLP Valenzuela CAStAGRx) Litigation -Coercion C $ 100, ,000 $ 258,000 Klein Hornig. LLP Legal services and representation to the City relating to ADA non-compliance matters with HUD and CRA/LAI N/A CFSMA-ADA Non compliance continued HUD and DOJ settlement negotiations. C ,000 $ 350,000 $ 1,132,000 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Stephen Miller v. City*, et al. CV Employment - Diuscrimination and Harassment Additional funds Tor summary judgment rnolions and potential appeal of motions C $ 900,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,400,000 Complex Police Tort Litigation - Wrongful motions and trial prep through trial in June Lozano Smith John Smith v. City*, et al. CV MM Incarceration 2016, C $ 35, ,000 $ 148,000 Complex Business drafting and negotiating and General Litigation appraisal and pending Marl ton Recovery Partners, LLC v. CRA/LA, - Rights of Property invoices for case closeout. Richards Watson & Gershon etal.,bc Use C Li 560,000 $ 605,000 $ 1,165,000 *CHy represents the City of Los Angeles Total $ 2,372,

7 Office of the City Administrative Officer Attorney Conflicts Panel (ACP) - Proposed Amendment for Extension of Term Attachment B Case Expiration Revised Law Firm Case Name No. Case Type Case Status No. Date Term Police Employment Before Court of Appeal, plaintiff is trying to Litigation - Retaliation overturn summary Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, LLP James Gordon v. City BC and Discrimination judgment motion C /12/2016 5/12/2017 Complex Police Tort Defense verdict, but case Ferguson, Prael & Sherman Brian C. Mulligan v. City CV Litigation on appeal C /18/2016 3/18/ W0045B