📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
LOS Osos Community Services District
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 3 findings
F1
Page 80
Public funds were used to reimburse the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the litigation against the LOCSD and the RWQCB and the defendants in the Measure B litigation.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 80
Neither the new board nor the law firm are willing to provide any detailed information to the Grand Jury regarding the exact nature of the legal services rendered and billed.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 80
The attorneys handling the settlement negotiations did not provide any detailed information to the new board regarding the actual legal services rendered and billed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 81
If information, including billing records, indicates settlement funds included billable work performed in connection with the recall election and Measure B initiative, the matter should be referred to the State Bar of California for evaluation and possible further action. (Finding 3)
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R1Page 80The LOCSD Board of Directors should waive the attorney-client privilege and take other necessary actions to ensure that detailed billing information will be made public to clarify whether, and to what extent, the $488,617 of public funds were used to reimburse the law firm for work performed in connection with the recall election and the Measure B initiative, including the initial drafting of Measure B. (Findings 1 & 2) Pg 78 of 252
Conclusions 2
-
CL1 Page 79During interviews with two members of the new board, who were also members of the old board, we were told they had contacts with CCLO, and they and CCLO were mutually supportive of each other’s efforts during the time prior to the recall election.
-
CL2 Page 79A press release issued by the new board announced the law firm had been retained to represent the new board. The press release further stated that one of the law firm’s attorneys was the author of the Measure B ballot initiative. The Grand Jury made two attempts to obtain the time sheets and billing records directly from LOCSD and the law firm. The first instance was via a subpoena issued by the Grand Jury. The LOCSD responded — claiming attorney-client privilege — by refusing to provide us with the complete billing information for its current attorney and lack of information for the law firm. In the second instance, an attorney from the County Counsel’s office contacted the law firm’s attorneys directly, and requested the detailed time sheets and billing records. The law firm’s attorneys agreed to submit the documentation “... with attorney-client privileged information Pg 77 of 252 redacted.” The Grand Jury received the material and upon examination found that information relating to legal tasks performed and billed had been redacted. For each billable task, the material showed only the date, billable time and initials of the person performing the task. The column showing the actual billable task performed has been left blank. As an example, one page of the material provided is included with this report as Appendix A. The only instances in which detailed information was provided were with regard to out-of-pocket expenses such as travel expense, photocopy, etc. SUMMARY Since public funds were used to settle the five lawsuits, the Grand Jury feels that the public has a right to know what legal services were rendered and billed, and if the billings were proper. Specifically, were public funds used to reimburse the law firm for work done, on the first four lawsuits listed in the above table, in connection with the September 27, 2005 recall election and Measure B initiative and are being included as billings in connection with the litigation work?