1 STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 29, 2024
TO: Justin Hess, City Manager
FROM: Joseph H. McDougall, City Attorney
BY: Ashlee Clark, Senior Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Approval of Informed Consent and Waiver of Potential Conflict of Interest in Legal Representation by Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP , and Authorization for City Attorney to Execute
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Attorney, or their designee, to sign the consent (Attachment 1) waiving any potential conflict with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP (BWS) concurrently representing the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) in defense of tort litigation brought against Metro as well as property acquisition work in connection with various Metro projects which are not located in the City of Burbank while representing the City of Burbank (City) on a variety of unrelated matters.
BACKGROUND
BWS submitted the attached “Conflicts of Interest Letter” (Letter). This Letter follows Rule
1.7 of the State Bar of California’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which imposes an ethical duty upon BWS to inform the City if they intend to represent a client that may have interests that are adverse to the City.
BWS currently represents the City in multiple litigation matters including Johnson v. City of Burbank, Moghaddam v. City of Burbank, Richardson v. County of Los Angeles, Rohani v. City of Burbank, Whitehead v. City of Burbank, Barbarino v. City of Burbank, Giuliano v. Fernandez, Casa Greene, Inc. v. The State of California, The People of the State of California v. ZRP Burbank, LLC, Chandler Bikeway Extension right-of-way and real estate matters, and a variety of personnel investigations.
CITY ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE
2 DISCUSSION
Rule 1.7 permits attorneys to represent multiple clients with current or future adverse interests only after receiving informed written consent of each client, provided the attorney: (1) reasonably believes that the attorney will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; and (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the attorney in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.
BWS currently acts as special counsel to defend the City in the eminent domain lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court for the taking of City property interests in Victory Place and associated improvements ( The People of the State of California (Caltrans) v. ZRP Burbank, LLC, et al., Case No. 22STCV37974 [hereafter, the “Eminent Domain Action”].)
In addition to representing the City, BWS currently represents the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority in connection with the defense of tort litigation brought against Metro as well as property acquisition work in connection with various Metro projects. Per the attached Letter, none of the property acquisition work completed by BWS for Metro is located in the City of Burbank and it does not involve matters between the City and Metro, including the North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project (also known as BRT).
Metro is not a party to the Eminent Domain Action. However, it is the City’s understanding that the City property Caltrans’ lawsuit identifies for taking will ultimately be transferred to Metro. Metro recently indicated its interest in participating in negotiations between Caltrans and the City in the Eminent Domain Act. The negotiations are intended to assist in resolving the matter.
After reviewing BWS’s representations in the Letter, it is the position of the City Attorney’s Office that their representation of the City in connection to potential settlement negotiations in the Eminent Domain Action will not compromise or be compromised by BWS’s representation of Metro on separate matters. This judgment is founded on the fact that BWS’s previous and concurrent work for Metro and the City are unrelated and the parties’ positions in each are not adverse. Additionally, BWS has explicitly warranted that they will not disclose any confidential information to Metro, even if such information exists .
Furthermore, BWS’s representation of Metro does not entail any legal disputes with the City.
Although there is always a potential for a conflict of interest under the State Bar rules, it is unlikely based upon the work described in the Letter, and BWS has advised that should a future scenario arise that would compromise their independent judgment or loyalty to the City, BWS would not represent either Metro or the City in any adverse proceedings and would work with Metro to find separate counsel to advise them on such adverse matter.
3 For the reasons stated above, it is the position of the City Attorney’s O ffice that BWS’s continued representation of the City in settlement negotiations involving Metro related to the Eminent Domain Action will not compromise the firm’s representation of the City and the City may provide the informed written consent as requested by BWS.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This activity has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and, as such, is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Attorney, or their designee, to sign the consent requested by Burke, Williams & Sorens en, LLP related to their concurrent representation of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority , as outlined above.
ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 – Conflict of Interest Letter Dated October 14, 2024