San Benito County has paid an outside law firm at least $564,000
over the past two years for services that have included high
profile court cases and legal advice, county records show.
San Benito County has paid an outside law firm at least $564,000 over the past two years for services that have included high profile court cases and legal advice, county records show.
That’s how much the county Board of Supervisors has approved for Sacramento-based Hyde, Miller, Owen and Trost on at least three civil cases – along with various other matters since March 2002, according to an itemized report obtained by the Free Lance.
The Board authorized those services though the county has maintained its own legal office – which includes County Counsel Karen Forcum and three deputy county counsels. Forcum’s salary is $113,000 a year.
The spending on private lawyers also comes at a difficult time, financially, for the county. In August the Board approved a slimmed down, yet balanced, $64 million budget for 2003-04.
The county, though, hires the lawyers for cases that demand expertise, according to Nancy Miller, a partner with the firm.
Miller, who has handled a majority of the action, specializes in governmental law and said she may have saved the county millions on her cases.
Regardless, the costs raised eyebrows of a government watchdog organization and other residents. The figure is much higher than any amount of private lawyers’ fees previously made public.
“Five hundred sixty-four thousand dollars?” exclaimed Jaime De La Cruz, recently certified as the winner in the District 5 supervisor race by 10 votes. “That’s how much money these guys are spending on legal fees?”
The documents show:
– The county spent $282,000 on legal representation in a $23 million civil case – Ridgemark versus San Benito County – which the county won. Of that, Miller said two expert witnesses cost the county about $100,000.
– The county paid $25,400 for Rebecca McGovern versus the Board of Supervisors. It involved two suing parties, including the anonymous group that financed the private investigation.
– In Juan Monteon versus Richard Scagliotti, the county has paid $46,000 to the firm, according to documents. That case is under a judge’s submission. But Miller believes, she said, “The judge should rule any day now.”
– Forty-seven bills itemized only as “professional services rendered” or “legal defense fees” came to $210,000, according to documents. Those included an array of different issues for which the county commissioned the firm’s services, Miller said.
For instance, she said, she recently reviewed contracts for a renovation of the county-owned building at 321 San Felipe Road.
Most recently, Miller and another of the firm’s partners, William Owen, have defended the county in two civil matters. Both cases’ allegations stemmed from an investigative report, released in October, claiming a series of corrupt acts by county officials.
Miller is also advising the Board on a challenge to the District 5 supervisor race involving De La Cruz. She commissioned investigations – by the Secretary of State’s Office and the San Benito County District Attorney’s Office – into allegations of improper voting.
“I think my work is pretty much done,” she said of the election issue.
A precise cost beyond the $564,000 is unknown, however, because the itemized report’s latest statement was Feb. 29. Since then, Miller and Owen have been in court on the Monteon case and have advised the Board on the election.
De La Cruz, a focus of the investigations, expressed displeasure when told Friday of the county’s private legal expenditures. If he survives the court challenge, he would be the new District 5 supervisor in January.
“I hope that when Jan. 5 comes around next year,” De La Cruz said, “that the new (Board), whoever that is, does not spend that kind of money on legal fees.”
Four of five supervisors did not immediately return phone calls. Supervisor Bob Cruz, whose wife Marian filed the election contest, declined to comment on the matter.
In a previous interview Feb. 5, Miller told the Free Lance that the county – to that date – had paid her firm about $32,000 for both the McGovern and Monteon cases.
It is unclear how much of the $46,000, from the Monteon case, the county had paid the firm by that time.
“I don’t think I gave you an estimate of how much it would cost,” Miller said.
She also estimated during that Feb. 5 interview that the Ridgemark bill was about $100,000. The county paid the latest bill from the Ridgemark case on Feb. 29 for $353. Before that, the most recent billing for the Ridgemark case was November 30, according to documents.
“Isn’t that awful?” said Dennis Madigan, a former planning commissioner fired by the Board in September, of the nearly $600,000 overall cost. He recently spearheaded a watchdog organization to oversee local government.
Madigan said he requested the same documents, regarding private lawyers’ fees, from the County Counsel’s Office on Wednesday of last week. But he had not yet received them when informed of the expenditures Friday, he said.
Forcum did not return phone calls placed to her office Friday.
The 2003-04 budget did not include any layoffs, but two vacant deputy positions in the Sheriff’s Department were not filled. And there is a possibility, officials say, of layoffs in 2004-05.
By comparison, the City of Hollister budgeted $30,000 in 2001-02 for hiring outside lawyers – either for expertise or if the city attorney’s workload is hefty, according to City Manager Dale Shaddox. The city spent $27,000 during that fiscal year, he said.
Shaddox did not have figures available for the past two fiscal years. Each year is different, he said.
