Attorney Rescinds Offer to Drop Council Suit : Courts: The deal hinged on officials forcing the police chief to pay damages. The lawyer denies that he backed down.

Attorney Stephen Yagman, who angered City Council members when he offered to drop them from a lawsuit involving a fatal shooting if they made Police Chief Daryl F. Gates pay damages assessed against him in the same case, withdrew the offer Thursday.

“I was being too nice,” Yagman said. “It seemed to me inappropriate to reward a bunch of hack politicians. They shouldn’t get any special benefit for doing what they should do.”

The civil rights attorney denied that he changed his mind in response to criticism of the offer, which some council members viewed as an intimidation tactic.

“I don’t care if anybody got angry,” Yagman said. “I don’t back off from anything.”

But some council members said Yagman was doing just that.

“I think he has egg on his face,” Councilwoman Joy Picus said. “It’s plain to me he is backing off.”

Yagman filed a $20-million lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of the 2-year-old daughter of a man who was killed by police along with two others after robbing a McDonald’s in Sunland two years ago. A fourth robber was shot but recovered and is now in prison.

The lawsuit is identical to a suit Yagman filed after the shooting on behalf of the survivor and four members of the dead men’s families. That case, which contended that police used excessive force and that Gates was ultimately responsible, went to trial this year. On Monday, a federal court jury found for the plaintiffs.

The jury assessed punitive damages of $20,505 against Gates and $23,937 against nine members of the department’s Special Investigations Section.

The verdict touched off debate among City Council members over whether the city should pay the bill, even though jurors in the case said they assessed a relatively low damage award because they believed Gates and the officers should pay it out of their own pockets.

The new lawsuit, which named City Council members as defendants, came with a letter warning council members to “think twice” and offered to drop them from the case if they refused to authorize city funds to pay the damages assessed against Gates in the first case. Yagman followed it Thursday with the new letter.

“Upon reflection, we regret to advise you that since it is your duty to vote to deny indemnification to Gates, it would not be proper for you to receive any special consideration for doing your duty,” the letter says. “Therefore, whatever action you may take . . . you will remain as defendants.”

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky said he believes Yagman’s new letter was an attempt to repair the damage caused by the first.

“His tactic was bush league, and I think he has figured that out,” Yaroslavsky said. “It was a tactical blunder.”

The effect of the Yagman letters may be little more than a sideshow to the council’s eventual decision on whether to pay damages for Gates. Those interviewed this week said they will decide the issue independently of the actions taken by Yagman. No decision has been scheduled. The city attorney’s office must first decide whether to ask the council to appeal the verdict.

Yaroslavsky, chairman of a budget committee that will first consider the issue, said he will meet with city attorney’s officials today to discuss the case. Yaroslavsky, who currently favors making Gates pay the damage assessment out of his own pocket, said he believed there was not yet a majority of council members favoring that course of action.

“I don’t think there is a majority yet, but it is getting close,” Yaroslavsky said. “It is going to be an issue.”