Lawyer Criticizes L.A. Vote to Pay Police Damages : Lawsuits: Stephen Yagman says council members themselves can now be held liable in the case, which involved the 1990 killing of three robbers in Sunland.

An attorney who won a $44,000 civil rights judgment against Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates and nine officers said Thursday the City Council made a possibly costly mistake in deciding to pay the damages for them, against the jury’s wishes.

The council members themselves can now be held liable in the case, attorney Stephen Yagman said. A city attorney disputed Yagman’s claim but declined to comment in detail because the case is continuing.

Yagman won the judgment March 30 in a suit over the killing of three robbers at a McDonald’s restaurant in Sunland by the Special Investigations Squad in 1990.

After a three-month trial, a federal court jury agreed with a surviving robber and relatives of the dead men. They contended in their suit that the SIS had violated the robbers’ civil rights by shooting them without cause. The suit maintained that Gates was responsible because he fostered and condoned excessive force by his officers.

After finding for the plaintiffs, represented by Yagman, the jurors said they set a relatively low damage assessment--about half of which Gates was ordered to pay--because they believed the money should come out of the pockets of the police chief and the officers personally--not the taxpayers.

In past such cases, however, the city has usually paid damages assessed against officers for actions taken on duty. The City Council, which was not legally bound to abide by the jury’s wishes, decided in a closed-door session a month ago to foot the bill, it was revealed Wednesday.

Yagman said Thursday that he will use that decision in a second suit, similar to the first, that seeks damages from council members as well.

Yagman filed the second suit three days after the verdict--this time including council members as defendants--on behalf of the 2-year-old daughter of one of the men killed in the police shooting. That case is still pending and has not yet been set for trial.

“The City Council members’ decision to indemnify Gates and the officers constitutes their ratification of the LAPD policy of excessive force,” Yagman said. “It’s a basis for the jury in the second case to find both the City Council and the city liable for that bad conduct.”

Yagman said the city’s decision to pay the damages and not to appeal the verdict will mean that Gates and the officers will automatically be liable in the second case.

Deputy City Atty. Don Vincent, in charge of a unit that defends the city against police-related suits, said he was unsure that legal precedents would allow Yagman to make such arguments in the second case but declined to discuss the case in detail.

The council’s decision to pay the damages was revealed this week when Yagman received checks for his clients from the city. A top official in the city clerk’s office said the council’s decision was made in executive session and the votes cast were not a matter of public record.

Councilman Mike Hernandez said the city attorney recommended that the council pay because “we had a track record” of indemnifying officers in similar cases, and that he followed this advice reluctantly.

“It was a real difficult decision because I believe the unit is wrong to operate like it does,” Hernandez said. But, he said, his decision was governed by precedent and by the prospect that if the council did not pay, the officers would elect to appeal--thus incurring additional legal costs for the city.

Councilwoman Joy Picus said she voted to pay the damages because she believed the officers had “acted in the line of duty” and because she did not want the council to “appear to be intimidated” by Yagman.

Councilman Joel Wachs said he believed the jury verdict against the officers was wrong and wanted to appeal it. “The officers were up against criminals and used the force they thought they had to use under the circumstances,” Wachs said.

Once the council decided not to appeal, Wachs said he was not ready to saddle the officers, including Gates, with the burden of paying the damages.

Several council members had said in the days after the verdict that they favored making Gates and the officers pay the damages. The most outspoken was Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, who council sources said was among those who finally voted to have the city pay.

Yaroslavsky declined comment Thursday and was immediately criticized by Yagman.

“Yaroslavsky should come out of hiding and try to defend his reprehensible conduct in voting to give money to an arrogant, wealthy chief of police,” Yagman said.