Law Firm’s Roles on Airport Questioned : Legal counsel: O’Melveny & Myers has represented the city and a firm that seeks to lease LAX, raising concerns about a conflict of interest.

A prestigious Los Angeles law firm’s work on behalf of the city and a private company on the possible lease or sale of Los Angeles International Airport has raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest.

On Monday, the Los Angeles Airport Commission asked for more information from the O’Melveny & Myers law firm to determine whether it is proper for the firm to represent Lockheed Air Terminal Inc. in its bid to lease the airport.

The law firm also represented the city of Los Angeles recently in compiling a report analyzing the city’s legal avenues to profit from the airport, including a lease or sale of the facility.

Airport commissioners said they want representatives from the law firm to attend a meeting this month and explain why their representation of Lockheed and the city would not create a conflict.

In letters to the Airport Commission, the city attorney’s office and O’Melveny & Myers stated that the firm would not be violating the California Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys if it negotiates on behalf of Lockheed.

But at least one commissioner and a City Council member said they wanted to explore the matter.

“It seems to me there is inherently a problem when the expert advising the city is also advising other parties,” said Councilwoman Ruth Galanter. “These are parties who at least might have another point of view. . . . At least a significant potential for conflict exists.”

Galanter has opposed the sale or lease of the airport, preferring a proposal to retain public ownership and divert more of the airport’s revenue to city services.

Airport Commissioner Johnnie Cochran asked the five-member commission for a two-week postponement of discussion so that an O’Melveny & Myers representative could respond. The firm had no representatives at Monday’s meeting.

“The issue is not only whether there is a conflict, but whether there is the appearance of a conflict,” Cochran said. “We feel it’s an important issue and they should be here to address it.”

Attorney Stephen J. Stern of the law firm acknowledged in a letter to the commission that O’Melveny & Myers has represented the airport and Lockheed “at various times pertaining to numerous matters.”

Most recently, Stern helped to draft a report describing the legal barriers the city would have to overcome in order to use airport revenue on non-airport projects. The report also discussed the potential of selling or leasing the airport to private owners.

In his letter, Stern said, “no . . . conflict exists” in the law firm’s plan to represent Lockheed in possible negotiations over a lease of the airport.

Neither Stern nor officials in the city attorney’s office could be reached to elaborate.

Galanter said she will continue to question the arrangement.

“There are some different interests at stake here,” she said. “The people at Lockheed are going to obviously want the best deal for Lockheed and the city wants the best deal for the city. And you can’t have the same lawyer representing both.”