Mayor’s Backers, D.A. Both Claim Legal Victory

Superior Court Judge Alfred Lord Wednesday rejected a request by attorneys for the Hedgecock for Mayor Committee that the San Diego County district attorney’s office be ordered to pay $39,699 in fees the attorneys claim they earned fighting a civil lawsuit filed by the D.A.’s office that was later dropped.

In a four-page letter to the attorneys for both sides, Lord said that based on an earlier state Supreme Court ruling, the committee is not entitled to attorneys’ fees because the civil suit was voluntarily dropped by the district attorney’s office.

Ironically, both the district attorney’s office and attorneys for the election committee claimed victory following Lord’s ruling late Wednesday. The district attorney’s office was pleased because it did not have to pay the fees, although Lord did require it to pay the Hedgecock committee’s $224.74 filing fees. Attorneys for the committee said they were pleased because Lord, in his letter, encouraged them to appeal his decision.

The litigation began with a May 21 civil suit that charged the Hedgecock election committee with “funneling” $375,000 in illegal campaign contributions through Tom Shepard and Associates, a political consulting firm hired by Hedgecock. The district attorney’s office dropped that suit on Oct. 18 when a similar suit was filed by the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

In their civil suit for the legal fees, filed last Thursday, election committee members argued that because they were the prevailing party, they should be granted attorneys’ fees.

Precedent Cited Lord’s decision not to grant the fees was based on a state Supreme Court ruling involving a private company that filed for attorneys’ fees after a man dropped his civil suit against the company. In that decision, the court ruled that litigants would be discouraged from dropping civil suits if doing so would require payment of attorneys’ fees, said Steve Casey, spokesman for the district attorney.

John Wertz, an attorney for Hedgecock, had asked Lord to rule against that decision, arguing that his case is different from the Supreme Court case. That case involved two private citizens, Wertz said Wednesday, whereas this case involves a government agency.

Although Lord refused to ignore the Supreme Court decision, he did say that the law is unclear on dealings with a government agency.

“I invite an appeal from this ruling,” Lord wrote, “so that trial courts will in the future have the guidance of the appellate courts in the proper construction of the Government Code.”

“Obviously we are gratified with the decision,” Casey said. “They were not the prevailing party.

“The only reason the (original district attorney’s) suit was dropped was so that the state could hit them with a bigger hammer.”

Casey said he believes that Lord encouraged the attorneys to appeal simply because the law needs to be clarified.

Wertz disagreed, saying that Lord was obviously sympathetic to his case, yet was unwilling to rule against the Supreme Court.

“His opinion was very sympathetic,” Wertz said. “At this stage, it’s pretty obvious to me that we will be appealing.”