Lancaster City Attorney Cleared on Conflict Issue : Government: A state oversight agency finds that David McEwen can legally give advice on redevelopment matters and also serve as bond counsel.

Ruling in a long-simmering dispute, the state Fair Political Practices Commission has declared that Lancaster City Atty. David McEwen does not automatically have a conflict of interest by serving as the city’s attorney and its bond counsel.

Critics have taken issue with McEwen’s dual role as Lancaster’s contract city attorney. He is paid as the city’s general redevelopment attorney to advise the city council on potential bond issues. Then, as the city’s bond counsel, he is paid again, getting a percentage of the value of bonds he has helped prepare for sale.

But in a 20-page advice letter released Monday, the FPPC held that hired city attorneys can give advice on redevelopment matters and then also serve as bond counsel, provided both duties are spelled out in a single contract with their government employer, as is the case with McEwen.

However, if such attorneys have one contract to provide bond counsel work and another contract for their regular work, or if they are planning to bid for a city’s bond counsel contract, then they may not participate in city decisions on bond issues, the FPPC added.

McEwen, a partner in Newport Beach-based Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth, has been Lancaster’s redevelopment agency attorney and bond counsel under one contract since 1979. The firm handled all 56 city financings through mid-1992 and earned more than $1.6 million in city bond counsel fees alone.

Even so, the FPPC cautioned that its ruling, which came after six months of deliberations, is only based on the state’s Political Reform Act, which specifies when public officials must disqualify themselves due to conflict of interest.

The FPPC said it was not ruling on how McEwen’s situation would fare under other state laws dealing with conflicts of interest and public officials holding multiple offices. The FPPC urged McEwen and other attorneys to seek a ruling from the state attorney general on those issues.

McEwen has consistently maintained his dual jobs do not pose a legal conflict of interest. He could not be reached for comment Monday about the FPPC ruling, which stemmed from a request he initiated in October. Aides said Lancaster City Manager Jim Gilley also was out of the office Monday.

Meanwhile, the FPPC ruling was criticized by another redevelopment attorney who has a legal challenge pending against the city. Kathryn Reimann of the Los Angeles law firm of Kane, Ballmer & Berkman said the FPPC used the right legal analysis but came to the wrong conclusion.

Reimann, whose law firm represents the redevelopment agency in Los Angeles, said a contract city attorney should not be able to participate in the formation of bond issues for government agencies and then be paid again to serve as bond counsel for the same issues, on the grounds that the advice he gives in the first role creates income for him in the second role.

In a pending lawsuit challenging Lancaster’s proposed use of redevelopment funds in connection with two highway overpass projects, Reimann has argued the plan is illegal in part because McEwen’s dual role is illegal under the state’s other conflict-of-interest law.

Superior Court Judge David Schacter ruled against the lawsuit last August and rejected the argument that McEwen was violating the law.