Are Legal Bills for Roth Staffers a Public Expense?

The county government’s top attorney said Wednesday that he does not believe county taxpayers must foot the bill for the legal fees of four aides to Supervisor Don R. Roth who were subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury .

The opinion from County Counsel Terry C. Andrus follows a preliminary review by his office and could set up a clash over the issue if the Roth employees decide to seek reimbursement for their legal expenses.

Allan H. Stokke, a Santa Ana lawyer who represents the Roth aides, said the four women have considered asking the county to pay their legal costs since the expenses came in connection with their work for the county.

But he added Wednesday that “there’s been no decision made at this point. . . . My clients haven’t instructed me to submit (the legal bills).”

Since May, the Orange County district attorney’s office has been investigating allegations that Roth may have traded political favors for unreported gifts from local people with business before the county.

Roth has predicted that he will be exonerated, and his attorney has said he does not believe that the two-term supervisor is guilty of criminal wrongdoing.

The four assistants--Wilma (Bunnie) Davis, Marcella Fong, Judi Ortega and Christine Smith--were subpoenaed to testify before the Orange County Grand Jury in recent weeks as part of the probe. Ortega and Smith both appeared before the grand jury after securing immunity from prosecution, and Davis may do the same next month, her attorney said. Fong appeared before the grand jury without getting immunity.

The employees have declined to discuss the case. When asked about the legal fees Wednesday, Ortega said: “I don’t even know what you’re talking about.”

State labor law says that an employer must reimburse a worker for expenses incurred “in direct consequence” of professional duties and instructions from a boss--”unless the employee, at the time of obeying such directions, believed them to be unlawful.”

Andrus said in an interview that it is unclear to him whether the code applies to government employers, or only to the private sector. Even so, Andrus said, the law as he reads it does not appear to entitle the Roth aides to reimbursement.

“We haven’t been presented with a bill, but I will be skeptical,” he said. “I do not believe the county would be required to pay those legal fees. . . . We don’t even know why they hired an attorney.”

Stokke declined to say how much the Roth employees have incurred in legal expenses so far. Roth himself reported earlier this year in a state-required filing that he had set aside $10,000 from his campaign funds--and spent nearly $7,000 of it--to mount his legal defense.

The report covered the six-month period ending June 30, less than two months after the district attorney’s office opened its investigation.