The role of the LA city attorney could be weakened under the proposed charter change
In a few days, Los Angeles voters will be voting for city attorneys — and in a few months, they may be voting to significantly reduce the city attorney’s authority.
The City Commission for Charter Reform proposed the division of the city attorney’s office into two parts – an elected city prosecutor, who is responsible for handling criminal cases, and a city attorney appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council who will represent the city in civil cases and advise the Mayor, city council and city departments.
The City Council is reviewing the recommendation as part of sweeping changes to city government, including expanding the council from 15 to 25 seats, which could go before voters in the Nov. 3 general election.
The proposed changes to the city attorney’s office, however, come amid a heated campaign, in which incumbent Hydee Feldstein Soto faces three challengers, including a deputy state attorney and a deputy district attorney.
Both opponents say the plans to split the city attorney’s office are rooted in longstanding disputes between Feldstein Soto and the City Council.
Council members have expressed frustration with his handling of rising costs from an outside law firm, where the bill has ballooned to nearly $7.5 million — with some attorneys charging the city as much as $1,300 an hour.
Last year, the City Council took a 12-0 vote to direct Feldstein Soto to withdraw an effort to stop a federal judge’s order that prohibits LAPD officers from targeting reporters with crowd control weapons.
“When I first heard about this idea, I thought it was probably the biggest case against a city attorney I’ve ever heard,” said John McKinney, a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who is running for city attorney in Tuesday’s primary.
McKinney opposes this argument, saying it would create overlap and confusion. “If you were doing a good job… we wouldn’t even be having this conversation,” he said.
Marissa Roy, another candidate in the race, has not taken a position on the split but said Feldstein Soto’s actions are what caused the proposed change.
“The only reason that the bifurcation, or division of the city attorney’s office, is going to go before the voters is because we had an incumbent city attorney who went too far to play a political role,” said Roy, the deputy state attorney.
Roy said he accused Feldstein Soto of improperly blocking an affordable housing project in Venice. And in his office’s role of writing ordinance language, Roy said, Feldstein Soto has returned to city council ordinance language that is “unfaithful to the intent of the drafter.”
Feldstein Soto said the proposal to separate the office has nothing to do with his work.
“This issue comes up every time there are charter changes,” Feldstein Soto said. “For me, all of this is political opportunity.”
Feldstein Soto has opposed the split, and former city attorneys have also come out against it, saying the appointment threatens the independence of the city attorney’s office, deprives voters of the right to elect a city attorney and would cost taxpayers money to split the office.
In a March letter to the Charter Reform commission, Feldstein Soto said a lawyer “working at the pleasure” of the mayor and city council will face “natural, human pressure to align legal advice with the political goals of elected officials.”
“I have been able to provide honest and accurate legal advice to the Mayor, City Council, Comptroller and departments – even if that advice is unpopular – because I am an independently elected official with a major public duty,” he wrote. “The appointed City Attorney, who serves at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council, faces enormous political pressure on all of these issues, behind closed doors, with rights barred from an independent voice.”
Burt Pines, a former city attorney who served from 1973 to 1981, strongly opposes the bifurcation proposal, citing the threat to liberty as the biggest issue at stake. As city attorney, he said, he had the authority to tell city officials if a proposed action was illegal and refused to support it.
“You want to be able to call the shots as you see it, you are right in the law,” Pines said in the interview.
Advocates say some cities have separate offices, and separating them would reduce conflicts and provide a clearer definition of roles.
After consulting with experts and governing bodies, the commission agreed that the benefits of bifurcation outweighed the negatives, and unanimously passed the commission.
“It was easy to agree on this,” said Raymond Meza, the chairman of the commission. The commission’s proposal calls for the city attorney to be appointed by the mayor, and confirmed by the City Council.
In its report, the commission said “the current structure creates conflicts where the same office advises the city and prosecutes cases. The separation provides clear roles, reduces conflicts, and allows each task to be done more effectively.”
Some cities have different models for the city attorney’s office: Long Beach has a uniform dual-function model, while New York City has legal representation that is divided in several ways. The San Francisco City Attorney provides legal representation for the city and county of San Francisco, and the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office handles criminal cases in the city and county.
Mike Bonin, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute, said he has seen the question of office separation come up with at least three city attorneys at different levels.
“Because city attorney is an elected position, there’s always someone you don’t like,” said Bonin, a former city council member. “You need to separate the question from the resident and focus on the role – the role is not about a specific person, the role is about the work of the office.”
