Attorneys Awarded Fee of $378,000 in Brutality Suit : Courts: The ruling could lead to more sparks between lawyer and the City Council.

A federal judge has awarded $378,000 in legal fees to civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman and his partners for their work on a successful excessive-force lawsuit against former Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates and nine police officers.

The ruling released Tuesday sets up another potential conflict in a running legal battle between Yagman and the City Council over the council’s financial support for officers defending themselves from civil suits alleging brutality.

Yagman outraged city officials earlier this year when he submitted a bill that asked for nearly $1 million in fees for himself and two partners who handled the lawsuit over a 1990 police shooting that left three robbers dead and one wounded outside a McDonald’s restaurant in Sunland.

City attorneys, who had argued that the fee award should be about $216,000, said they considered it a victory that Yagman received much less than he asked for, but Yagman said he was satisfied with the amount. A decision has not been made by the city on whether to appeal the decision.

After a three-month trial, the surviving robber and the families of the three dead men won a $44,000 damage award against Gates and the nine officers, all members of the department’s Special Investigations Section. The plaintiffs maintained that the officers violated the robbers’ civil rights by opening fire on them without cause, and that Gates’ leadership fostered such excessive force.

The determination of legal fees by U. S. District Judge J. Spencer Letts on Friday could widen the battle between Yagman and the council over who will pay the lawyers’ fees. Although the jury had urged that Gates and the officers pay the $44,000 damages personally, the council earlier this year voted to pay the awards from the city treasury.

Yagman said Tuesday that the legal fees awarded in the case should also be personally paid by Gates and the officers. Under federal law, an attorney who brings a successful civil rights case to trial must be paid by the defendants, with a judge determining the amount after hearing arguments from both sides.

“We have no judgment against the city,” Yagman said. “We have a judgment against nine SIS officers and Gates. They should pay it. Why should the taxpayers pay?”

Yagman said that if the council pays the $378,000 from city coffers, it will provide him with new ammunition in another lawsuit stemming from the same police shooting.

The second case, filed on behalf of a daughter of one of the dead robbers, names council members as defendants as well as the police. Yagman argued that council members should be held responsible for the officers’ actions on the grounds that their decision to pay the damages in the first case in effect condoned the police misconduct that the jury found.

Yagman has contended that each time the council members vote to shield police officers from personal financial penalties in civil brutality suits they strengthen his argument that they are promoting police brutality and should also be personally liable for damages.

The second case has not yet been scheduled for trial. But Letts last week refused to dismiss the council members as defendants, rejecting the city attorney’s argument that they are automatically immune from civil liability for their official actions.

Deputy City Atty. Annette Keller said council members don’t have a choice over whether to pay such fees.

“It is part of the legal obligation of the city to defend employees sued for action taken in the course and scope of their employment,” Keller said. “We are obligated to pay any judgment for attorney fees. It is not an issue for the council.”

Yagman said his proposed fee was simply a “wish list” and that he was pleased with Letts’ ruling. “This is a lot of money and I am happy to get it,” Yagman said.

In a 24-page order outlining his decision on fees, Letts praised Yagman for taking on the case that he characterized as “peculiarly undesirable” because the plaintiffs were a convicted robber and the families of robbers.

A Times investigation of the SIS four years ago spawned criticism that members of the unit trailing people with long criminal records often watched violent crimes take place without making a move to stop them so that the criminals could be arrested on the most serious charges possible, carrying more severe sentences.

In the McDonald’s case, members of the unit followed the robbers to the restaurant and watched as they broke in and robbed the lone employee inside. She was left physically unhurt but is also suing the officers, claiming that the incident was handled negligently.