Page 3
Lawyer Loses Bid to Restore Lawsuit Against Rutan & Tucker
C.A. Says Firm Did Not Breach Government Code Provision Proscribing Self-Serving Legal Representation
By a MetNews Staff Writer
An attorney has failed to persuade the Court of Appeal for this district that a judge erred in dismissing his action under the Political Reform Act of 1974 against the law firm of Rutan & Tucker, LLP, in which he sought a judgment for more than $3 million based on the fees paid to the City of Claremont, trebled, with a half of the recovery going to him.
Presiding Justice Lee Edmon authored the unpublished opinion, filed Monday, affirming a judgment of dismissal following Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephanie M. Bowick’s sustaining of a demurrer, without leave to amend, to a complaint filed by Claremont lawyer James M. Belna.
In 2017, the city had contracted with Rutan to provide legal services on a temporary basis after the city and Best, Best and Krieger (“BB&K”), which represented it for a quarter of a century, had a parting of ways. One of Rutan’s then-partners, Jeffrey Oderman, was designated by the firm as interim city attorney.
Tentative Selection
Rutan was one of six firms that came into contention for a contract to handle the city’s legal affairs for a fixed term. A decision was made to engage its services, subject to City Council approval at its March 13, 2018 meeting of the proposed legal services agreement.
A member of that body asked Oderman if there were any conflict of interest given that the city was contemplating suing BB&K for malpractice in connection with a failed effort to acquire the local water system through eminent domain and Rutan had been brought in to handle matters at the tail end of the dispute. Oderman said that, “speaking as sort of an applicant before you” and not as interim city attorney, he saw no conflict.
The award was made, unanimously, to Rutan.
Government Code Section
Belna sued under Government Code §87100 which provides:
“A public official at any level of state or local government shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use the public official’s official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know the official has a financial interest.”
He invoked two other provisions of that code—§91005(b) which says that a public official “who realizes an economic benefit as a result of a violation of Section 87100…is liable in a civil action brought…a person residing within the jurisdiction for an amount up to three times the value of the benefit”—and §91009 which sets forth:
“If a judgment is entered against the defendant…in an action brought under Section…91005, the plaintiff shall receive fifty percent of the amount recovered. The remaining fifty percent shall be deposited in the General Fund of the state.”
Belna’s Position Rejected
Edmon declared that Belna’s “allegations demonstrate that Rutan’s conduct was not actionable under section 87100 as a matter of law.”
She said that, as urged by Rutan, “Oderman’s verbal assurance to the City Council that there was no conflict of interest” comes under California Code of Regulations, Title 2, §18704(d)(3) which sets forth that there is no proscription on “[a]ctions by a public official relating to his or her compensation or the terms or conditions of his or her employment or consulting contract.”
The presiding justice wrote:
“As Rutan points out, lawyers are subject to special rules of professional responsibility and conduct, under which lawyers owe their clients a duty of loyalty….Where there is a conflict of interest, an attorney must make appropriate disclosures and obtain informed written consent from the client….As the existence of a conflict of interest would impact the scope of Rutan’s representation and perhaps influence whether Rutan could represent the City at all, Oderman’s statements were unquestionably related to the terms and conditions of the legal services agreement, which was a proposed employment or consulting contract within the meaning of the regulations. We therefore conclude Rutan did not violate section 87100 when speaking on that issue at the City Council meeting.”
The case is Belna v. Rutan & Tucker LLP, B336127.
Belna was in pro per. W. Allan Edmiston of Loeb & Loeb acted for Rutan,
Oderman went on inactive bar status last year. Alisha Patterson of Rutan is presently city attorney for Claremont. Sonia R. Carvalho, a partner in BB&K whose services as Claremont’s city attorney were discontinued in 2017, is currently city attorney for Orange County’s City of Santa Ana.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company