Parrish Fires Back at Jurors on Legal Fees

County Administrative Officer Larry Parrish accused the Orange County Grand Jury Friday of blowing matters out of proportion when it criticized him and the county counsel for allegedly failing to adequately monitor millions of dollars in billings from private lawyers hired to advise or represent the county.

Parrish said he intends to issue a written response before the grand jury’s term expires June 30. In it, he said, “much of what is insinuation and innuendo will be (made) clear and we will have no reason to be alarmed.”

The jury singled out Parrish for not promptly conducting a study--sought two years ago by County Counsel Adrian Kuyper--to determine if it would be cheaper for county staff lawyers to shoulder more of the county’s legal work. Parrish ordered the study Thursday, the day after the jury released its controversial report.

One reason Parrish did not start the study sooner, he said Friday, was because the jury had insisted on doing its report first.

Not Interviewed

Parrish also complained that he had not been interviewed by the jury before it released its 26-page report. If he had been questioned, he suggested, the contents of the report might have been different.

Members of the jury could not be reached for comment Friday.

Among other things, the jury questioned the county counsel’s practice of giving private law firms “open-ended” contracts that resulted in fees much larger than originally anticipated.

The report also noted that the county has paid $4.5 million to private firms so far this fiscal year--more than the $4.1 million budgeted for Kuyper’s entire in-house staff of 39 attorneys and 35 support workers.

Two members of the Board of Supervisors, Harriet M. Wieder and Gaddi H. Vasquez, praised the grand jury’s report Thursday and said that it raised serious, valid issues that must be addressed.

Wieder held an emergency meeting Thursday afternoon with Parrish and Kuyper, at which time she directed the administrator to draft reports examining legal operations in all county departments. She speculated then that problems in the county counsel’s office could be just “the tip of the iceberg.”

Parrish on Friday agreed that some of the matters raised by the jury warrant study, but he took particular exception to its allegation that the billings were not adequately monitored.

“We’re talking about big money, so there is a great deal of oversight,” Parrish said. “I didn’t read in the report one real criticism” of any specific case.

He said requests for the use of private firms by Kuyper’s office have been discussed extensively with Kuyper and others before decisions to hire the firms are made, particularly in recent months.

Parrish said his response to the jury may be incorporated in his cost-effectiveness study of the county’s use of private law firms.