4 It is the Interim City Attorney's opinion, based on a review of the previous attorney’s invoices for the past two years and the amounts paid by other jurisdictions, that the previous attorneys failed to provide efficient legal services and representation. A significant factor contributing to the overly high fees is the use of multiple attorneys for meetings and legal matters. The previous attorney firm averaged 360 hours per month, with as many as nine attorneys billing for legal services on a single personnel matter. The Interim City Attorney considered the time commitment required for legal services and determined that 40 hours a week would be sufficient to provide a full range of legal services. This is based on the experience of the last few months, during which the average amount of time required from the Interim City Attorney has been approximately 130 hours per month.
A significant factor contributing to the overly high fees was the overutilization or mis-utilization of the City Attorney’s Office. As a contract provider paid by the hour, it is often deceptively easy to “overserve”. The City asks, and the attorney provides, and provides it quickly. The cycle repeats itself.
However, City Attorneys need to ask whether their office should do all such tasks or whether there is a more economical means of completing them. There was a lot of billing that City staff was capable of doing, that was being sent to the contract attorneys.
If the Council decides to continue outsourcing city attorney services, the City should develop policies and procedures to manage legal expenses. One solution would be the creation of a two-member Council Ad-Hoc committee that would meet regularly with the City Attorney, City Manager, and Finance Director to discuss pending and anticipated work, progress in implementing cost control measures, and meeting budget milestones. Another solution for budget reduction measures would be to use “focused utilization.” This would require legal expenses to be classified as “critical functions” (litigation, significant transactions, and general counsel advice), “valuable functions” (critical but beneficial), and “supplemental functions” (work that could be performed by City staff but was not).
CONCLUSION
Both in-house and outsourced contract city attorneys offer distinct benefits and drawbacks. The choice between them should be guided by the city's specific needs, budgetary constraints, and the complexity of its legal matters. An optimal approach might involve a hybrid model that combines the strengths of both in-house and outside legal counsel to provide comprehensive and cost-effective legal support.
Should the City Council direct to proceed with hiring an in-house city attorney, staff will bring forward a job description and pay scale to reinstate the City Attorney position and seek authorization to proceed with recruitment at the next meeting. The recruitment process typically takes 6-12 weeks.
Staff will begin to identify office spaces and begin to implement necessary changes once an employment contract is entered. Due to time constraints, staff will prepare the FY 25-26 Budget based on the current contract model and will adjust budget details and set up accounting details once the recruitment is complete.
Should City Council direct to continue the contract model, an RFP should be issued. The selection process takes 5 - 8 weeks.
ATTACHMENT(S)
None
Carmel $365,326 $388,646
Pacific Grove $476,134 $755,784
Capitola $372,190 $506,544
Marina $476,898 $299,062
Carpinteria $971,802 $901,083
Hueneme $264,740 $229,705
Half Moon Bay $992,776 $1,272,325