Legal Page 02/15 File Office of the City Attorney Rivlrside July 10, 2013 The Honorable Mark A. Cope, Presiding Judge*

The Grand Jury finds that the City Attorney does not consider a supervising deputy city attorney and the remaining deputy attorneys, professionally capable of performing legal advisory duties. Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the City of Riverside wholly disagrees with the finding. Riverside City Charter section 702 specifically delineates the powers and duties of the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall have the power and may be required to represent and advise the City Council and all City officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices. The City Attorney shall also have the power to represent and appear for the City in any or all actions or proceedings in which the City is concerned or is a party, and represent and appear for any City officer or employee, or former City officer or employee, in any or all actions and proceedings in which any such officer or employee is concerned or is a party for any act arising out of such 3900 Main Street = Riverside, CA 92522 = 951.826.5567 = fax 951.826.5540 = www.riversideca.gov 10/24/2013 07:48 9518200752 LEGAL /15 The Honorable Mark A. Cope, Presiding Judge July 10, 2013 officer's or employee's employment or by reason of such officer's or employee's official capacity. In the discharge of my duties as the City Attorney, I became aware that Committee #5 ("Committee") of the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury also known as the Law Enforcement Committee was investigating an officer-involved death which had occurred on March 1, 2012. The Committee requested and obtained copies of the investigative reports regarding the incident and subpoenaed and obtained testimony from six Riverside police officers. When I became aware that the Committee was seeking the testimony of the members of the City's Community Police Review Commission and Community Police Review Manager, I made the substantive policy and managerial determination to undertake the representation myself. While I generally believe that my attorneys are professionally capable of performing legal advisory duties, I have a legal and ethical obligation to my client to ensure that the lawyers assigned a given task are competent to do so and possess the requisite legal knowledge and skill. The lawyers of the City Attorney's Office have various competencies and specialize in different areas of municipal law. Their talents are utilized as relevant and necessary to serve the client. Rule 1.1 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct requires that a lawyer provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the presentation. Moreover, Rule 3-110 of the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct provides that an attorney ". . . shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence." Rule 3-110 defines "Competence" in any legal service as the ability to apply the diligence, learning and skill, and mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonability necessary for the performance of such legal service. The Grand Jury's report neither addresses nor considers an attorney's ethical obligation to his or her client to perform their duties with the requisite legal knowledge and skill. In this instance, I made the determination as the City Attorney to represent the Community Police Review Commission myself since I have been its primary legal advisor since its creation in 2000. It should also be noted that I personally assisted the City Council's Governmental Affairs Committee in developing the powers, duties and functions of the Commission in 1999 and 2000. Furthermore, I have personally handled all civil grand jury inquiries and investigations for the City Attorney's Office over the past 20 years. Consequently, I made the discretionary managerial decision to provide the Commission with the best legal representation possible. While my attorneys are professionally capable of performing legal advisory duties, it would have potentially been a breach of my ethical duty to my client to have delegated representation to a subordinate attorney under the circumstances present here. As the City Attorney, I have an obligation to provide my client with the best possible legal advice and counsel and to assign the work to the attorneys as I deem necessary and appropriate. 10/24/2013 07:48 9518200752 LEGAL /15 The Honorable Mark A. Cope, Presiding Judge July 10, 2013 On April 22, 2013, I was interviewed by the Grand Jury regarding my representation of John C the Community Police Review Commission. On April 22, Commission Member Ken Rotker was interviewed by the Committee. On April 23, Commission Chair Dale Roberts was interviewed by the Committee. However, I was unavailable to represent the other commission members whose interviews were to take place on April 24 and 25 since my wife was having surgery. On April 16, 17 and 18, I advised the Grand Jury that I was unavailable to represent the commission members and requested that the interviews be rescheduled. These requests are documented in letters dated April 16 and April 18 to the Grand Jury Foreperson. I also strongly urged the Committee to consult with representatives of either the Riverside County District Attorney's Office or the County Counsel's Office regarding the reasonableness of my request to reschedule the interviews. Unfortunately, I was forced to file a motion to modify four of the subpoenas after efforts to informally resolve the scheduling issue failed. Attached is a copy of the motion and its exhibits which include my letters of April 16 and April 18. On May 1, 2013, I sent a letter to County Counsel Parnela Walls and Assistant District Attorney Creg Datig requesting a resolution of the scheduling issue without any further court intervention. I advised them of my interest in expediting the interviews in order to allow the Grand Jury to complete their work prior to the expiration of their term at the end of June. I requested that the interviews of the four remaining witnesses be rescheduled to mutually agreeable dates and times as soon as possible. I did not receive any response to my May 1 letter until I received a phone call from County Counsel on the morning of May 20, 2013 asking to reschedule the interviews and to take the motion off calendar. On May 20, 2013, a Notice of Taking Motion to Modify Subpoenas off calendar was filed with the court avoiding the necessity for the hearing on May 23, 2013. Attached is a copy of the notice. County Counsel requested that the remaining interviews be rescheduled for May 23. I was then able to facilitate the scheduling of the interviews with the Committee and they proceeded as requested. Also attached are the emails between County Counsel and myself regarding the rescheduling of the four remaining interviews. In sum, I do not believe that it is within the Grand Jury's power or otherwise appropriate for the Grand Jury to question the discretionary managerial decision of the City Attorney as to how to best discharge his duties and obligations under the Riverside City Charter and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Grand Jury found that the City of Riverside, Office of the City Attorney, did not recognize the responsibilities of the Grand Jury and did not honor the secrecy of the Grand Jury. 10/24/2013 07:48 9518200752 LEGAL /15 The Honorable Mark A. Cope, Presiding Judge July 10, 2013 Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the City of Riverside wholly disagrees with this finding. The Grand Jury incorrectly asserts that the inclusion of my letters of April 16 and April 18 to the Motion to Modify the Subpoenas constituted a violation of Penal Code section 939.22. Section 939.22 has no application to the factual circumstances presented here. Section 939.22 precludes an attorney representing a witness under oath before a Grand Jury from disclosing or using anything heard in the Grand Jury room other than in the representation of the witness he or she represents. The Grand Jury does not allege that I disclosed or used anything heard in the Grand Jury room other than in the representation of the witness that I represented. Moreover, Penal Code section 939.22 applies to an attorney representing a witness whose testimony is taken under oath. Since I appeared as a witness before the Grand Jury with separate legal counsel representing my interests, section 939.22 does not apply to me. That section applied to the attorney representing me before the Grand Jury. The only secrecy admonition to which I am bound as a witness was that which was given to me on April 22. Given my concerns as City Attorney that the Grand Jury may seek information protected by the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges contrary to established law, I sent my $9 · · letters of April 16 and 18 to the Grand Jury and copied the Presiding Judge as well as representatives of the District Attorney's Office and County Counsel's Office. As the court is aware, the Grand Jury is not a wholly independent body. Rather, it is under the control of the Superior Court and its Presiding Judge. At no time did the Presiding Judge or the District Attorney express any concerns with the manner and/or content of my communications with the Grand Jury. All of the information set forth in the letters and motion was derived from sources outside of the Grand Jury room and I at no time violated the secrecy admonition related to my testimony before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury does not allege nor cite to any information derived from my interview before the Grand Jury. In fact, the correspondence of concern to the Grand Jury dated April 16 and April 18 occurred before my interview with the Grand Jury on April 22. It was legally impossible for me to have violated the secrecy admonition given on April 22. On May 20, 2013, County Counsel sent a letter advising me of Penal Code section 939.22. Not referenced nor included within the Grand Jury's report is my letter of May 21, 2013 to County Counsel. In the attached letter, I specifically advised County Counsel that the reference in my correspondence to the nature of the pending Grand Jury investigation was derived from information obtained outside of the Grand Jury room and was made in order to assist the District Attorney, County Counsel, and the Presiding Judge in their evaluation as to the appropriateness and legality of the Grand Jury's conduct. I received no response to my letter of May 21 from County Counsel or the Grand Jury. In sum, I was well within my legal rights as the City Attorney to share my concerns with the Presiding Judge, District Attorney and County Counsel. I have at all times complied with section 939.22 and there is no factual basis for an allegation to the contrary. LEGAL 10/24/2013 07:48 9518200752 /15 The Honorable Mark A. Cope, Presiding Judge July 10, 2013