County Paid $400,000 Extra for Legal Advice

Contra Costa County officials removed a spending cap on a contract for legal advice, letting the bill balloon from an initial $140,000 to $556,796, a newspaper reported.

The bill grew after county supervisors extended the contract with the law firm it had hired to review the county’s new development plan, the Contra Costa Times reported.

County Counsel Victor Westman said the supervisors were aware of the scope of the work being performed--even if they weren’t kept posted on the exact bill.

Supervisors, however, disagreed on how much they were told.

“It really is infuriating to me that so many things transpired without the full board’s knowing,” said former Supervisor Nancy Fahden of Martinez, who left the board in January.

But Supervisor Tom Torlakson of Antioch said Westman’s office did keep the board informed on the rising costs of the contract.

The board voted unanimously in February, 1990, to approve a $140,000 contract for Morrison & Foerster, the nation’s 10th largest law firm, to review Contra Costa County’s proposed general plan. The plan, a blueprint for development, was to replace one from the 1960s.

Two months after being hired, the firm told the county that dozens of opponents--landowners, cities and environmental groups--were threatening to sue over the plan.

County officials then extended the contract without setting a spending cap, the newspaper said.

The county, wanting to protect the plan against potential lawsuits, decided to revamp it. Supervisors also told the firm to write an open-space ballot measure that would have been more restrictive than a rival, environmentalist-backed initiative that would have overridden the plan.

The general plan, however, was adopted in January, 1991, and Morrison & Foerster finished its work that March.

Officials involved in drawing up the development guidelines said the legal help was worth the additional cost.

Supervisor Tom Powers of Richmond, one of the two board members most involved in the plan, said in a statement that the additional expense actually saved the county money in the long run by discouraging lawsuits.