ACLU Seeks Another $12,800 in Attorney’s Fees From Duffy-Bird Issue

The ACLU on Thursday filed a petition seeking reimbursement for an additional $12,800 in attorney’s fees it incurred in a successful lawsuit against Sheriff John Duffy--fees that apparently will have to be paid by Duffy himself.

The request stems from the American Civil Liberties Union’s challenge of Duffy’s conduct in a 1985 campaign to oust Rose Elizabeth Bird, then chief justice of the California Supreme Court. In March, 1986, a Superior Court judge ruled that the sheriff had engaged in illegal political activity by using his office and deputies to distribute material urging Bird to resign.

Three months ago, the 4th District Court of Appeal ordered that the ACLU be reimbursed for $18,804 in attorney’s fees that mounted during the Superior Court phase of the lawsuit.

Now the ACLU is seeking, in the petition filed in Superior Court, compensation for costs associated with work done at the appellate level, according to Betty Wheeler, legal director for the organization’s San Diego affiliate.

Distinct and Separate

“This is a distinct and separate request,” Wheeler said. “It is to cover our costs specifically during the appeal portion.”

Until recently, it appeared that the county government would be shouldering the burden of reimbursing the ACLU. But late last week, the county counsel’s office disclosed its opinion that the taxpayers are not liable for the costs because Duffy’s actions were unrelated to his duties as sheriff.

“This activity was something the sheriff handled as a personal individual,” county spokesman Bob Lerner said. “It was not in his job description.”

That legal opinion came immediately after Duffy filed a claim with the county auditor’s office for a $18,804 check to repay his legal opponents. The money was sent off to the ACLU, but when the county counsel’s office got wind of the payment, it issued its opinion and the check was canceled.

Duffy’s Personal Account

On Thursday, Deputy County Counsel Anthony Albers said the latest request for $12,800--or whatever amount the court deems appropriate--would also have to come out of Duffy’s personal bank account.

“The court (of appeal) already has indicated that (the ACLU) would be entitled to their costs on appeal, so as a principle, they have already ruled on that,” Albers said. “So our position would be consistent.”

When asked whether there was any inconsistency in the county paying an employee--the sheriff’s legal adviser, Janet Houts--to represent Duffy in the ACLU lawsuit, but declining to cover his damages in the case, Albers declined to comment.

“I’m not aware of that being an issue before,” he said.

Began With Post Cards

The lawsuit resulted from Duffy’s distribution in February, 1985, of 18,000 anti-Bird post cards supplied by Crime Victims for Court Reform, a group leading the fight to oust Bird in the November, 1986, election.

Arguing the case for Common Cause, the ACLU charged that Duffy overstepped legal limits on politicking by sending a letter to deputies on county stationery inviting them to distribute the anti-Bird cards, mailing the cards to interested citizens, and using on-duty deputies to deliver the cards to substations.

In a decision that drew statewide attention, a judge ruled that most of the sheriff’s conduct was prohibited by law. Superior Court Judge Douglas Woodworth said Duffy could speak out on issues but that during working hours, he and other public officials could not engage in political activities “aimed at influencing the voters.”

Attempts to reach Duffy and Houts were unsuccessful Thursday.