City Fights Lawyers’ Bills, Calls Work on Ethics Law Unneeded

The city is angrily resisting demands that it pay legal bills run up by a group of Los Angeles officials who challenged the city’s ethics law.

Lawyers for the city filed a legal brief this week accusing two firms--including one headed by lobbyist and Library Commissioner Douglas Ring--of trying to “turn a fat profit” on a campaign to change the law.

Ring headed a group of city officials who in 1991 sued the city, demanding revisions in the ethics law. The suit--later joined by unions representing police officers, city attorneys, engineers and department managers--was dropped after the measure was amended. Members of the city’s fledgling Ethics Commission and the City Council, who had admitted from the start that the law was flawed, said they would have revised the measure without the pressure of litigation.

The law firms are seeking more than $330,000 in legal fees. Representatives of the firms say their exhaustive legal work helped save the city from an unconstitutional law that invaded the privacy of employees. They said state law entitles them to collect fees, ranging up to $280 an hour, because their efforts benefited the public.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge is expected to decide the matter next month.

The dispute centers on a 1990 law that placed strict limits on gifts to city workers, imposed revolving-door regulations to restrict lobbying by former employees, and required detailed disclosure of financial holdings--including such matters as a spouse’s salary and the value of home improvements.

Despite officials’ promises that they would change the law, Ring and his supporters went to court seeking an immediate halt to enforcement of the ordinance.

The City Council subsequently approved several revisions to the ethics law, lessening reporting requirements and allowing officials to accept more gifts. The plaintiffs agreed to drop their suits.

But late last year the lawyers for Ring’s firm and for the firm representing the unions--Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & Sommers--demanded that the city pay their legal fees. Ring’s firm demanded $150,000 and the unions’ attorneys more than $180,000.

Ring did not submit a bill for the 200 hours he personally spent on the case.

“We raised a legitimate constitutional challenge,” said Ring’s law partner, Stephen Marks. “We are entitled to be paid for it.”

Margo A. Feinberg, the unions’ lead lawyer, added: “I feel we did the city a service. They have a good ethics ordinance now.”

City officials said they did not need to be sued to amend the ordinance--that changes were already under way before the legal challenges.

“This litigation accomplished nothing, provided no benefit to the public at large and vindicated no important rights,” says the city’s brief arguing against the fees.

City officials said they were particularly troubled by the claim because the city is facing a budget deficit of up to $500 million.

In addition, Council President John Ferraro said Ring had assured him he would not try to recover fees for his fight against the ethics law. Ferraro said he was not appeased later when Ring explained to him that the money was for his firm’s legal work, not his own.

“I don’t think it’s fair,” Ferraro said. “He agreed he wasn’t going to charge any legal fees and I expect him to stick to it.”

Fred Woocher, the lawyer representing the city in the matter, said Ring was the only city employee suing who stood to gain an immediate benefit from changes in the law. Under the original ordinance, Ring had to report income from his legal practice of $350,000 and an interest in two Marina del Rey apartment buildings.

Ring was out of the country and could not be reached.