County Counsel’s Children’s Unit Criticized

The health and safety of children is endangered daily because of failures within a unit of the Los Angeles County counsel’s office, according to an audit released Thursday.

“I believe we all commit malpractice on a daily basis . . . and we hope children don’t get hurt as a result of it,” an attorney who represents children for the county counsel’s office told the auditors.

Although the management audit found that, overall, the 120-attorney county counsel’s office “is generally well-managed” and “provides quality legal services,” it found problems of varying degrees within the agency, which represents Los Angeles County government in litigation and counsels dozens of government agencies.

The auditors employed particularly sharp language to describe difficulties in the critical Children’s Services Unit, which represents county social workers in child abuse and foster care cases.

Saying that “fear and paranoia” pervade a unit perceived as “a dumping ground,” the audit warns: “Immediate action is needed . . . to preclude undesirable consequences to the county and to the children the division serves.”

The new county counsel, Lloyd W. Pellman, was at a conference Thursday and could not be reached for comment. Assistant County Counsel Larry Cory said Pellman is addressing morale and staffing problems in the Children’s Services Unit.

In its response to the audit, the office concurred with the audit’s findings, agrees with “almost all” its recommendations and will try to implement them, though some will require additional funds. Pellman has already met with staff in the Children’s Services Unit, as well as officials at the Juvenile Courthouse in Monterey Park.

Some county staffers and others in local government hope that Pellman can reform the office, the largest of its type in the nation. He became county counsel this summer while the audit by the Massachusetts-based Barrington-Wellsley Group was already underway.

“He comes in with notice about these issues, so hopefully he’ll be able to do something about it,” said Michael Nash, the presiding judge of Juvenile Court. “The fact that he’s actually made an effort to come over and talk to me and the other judicial officers is a positive sign. It’s never happened before.”

The audit found that “the morale in the Children’s Services division is significantly different than in other divisions, and is characterized by fear and paranoia.”

Employees there, the audit says, “feel they are viewed and treated as foster or unwanted stepchildren.” Some view it as a “dumping ground” and feared that their confidential responses to the auditors’ questions would be used against them.

Many lawyers there technically work for a different agency, Auxiliary Legal Services, which is run by the county counsel’s office but pays lawyers as much as $25,000 less than attorneys on its regular staff.

One former lawyer in Auxiliary Legal Services said Thursday that the salary discrepancy was one of many problems in the Children’s Services Unit.

“All these things hurt morale and hurt it badly,” said the lawyer. “They aren’t keeping some of their best, most experienced lawyers. Something has to be done about it.”

The audit found that the pay discrepancy has cost the office $1.5 million in the past three years due to turnover alone and that a different arrangement must be made.

The unit also is burdened with “dangerously high” caseloads of between 550 and 600 per attorney. “Given the conditions,” the audit stated, “it is remarkable that the quality of the services being provided by the Children’s Services division is as high as it reportedly is.”

Still, noting that the cases are “possibly the most visible and subject to criticism of any being performed departmentwide,” the audit called for lowering caseloads to 300 to 400 per lawyer by shifting personnel or contracting out. It also called for other steps to improve morale and performance in the unit.

Those familiar with the county’s vast Juvenile Court said the county counsel’s problems are a familiar symptom of an overburdened system.

“County counsel suffers from one of the same problems everyone in Dependency Court suffers from, which is not enough people,” said Andrew Bridge of the Alliance for Children’s Rights.

Still, Bridge said, he was concerned about reports in the audit that the unit was a “dumping ground” for people who did not perform well in the central office in the County Hall of Administration.

“Out of all the units in the county counsel’s office,” he said, “that would be the least appropriate unit to do it.”

The audit also found that a primary concern of staff members throughout the county counsel’s office is favoritism in promotions. It calls for a better performance evaluation process.

The office has no formal system to evaluate the performance of outside attorneys either, who were paid $26 million in public money last year to represent the county in court. The audit did find that the unit did generally monitor outside lawyers adequately. The audit also cautioned about the lack of formal agreements allowing the county counsel’s office to represent the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Metrolink, which it said creates “risk exposure.”

And while stating that the office generally uses good judgment in deciding whether to settle lawsuits against the county or go to court, the audit urges changes in attitude.

“A new management style is warranted,” the audit advises, noting that leadership has just changed, “one based on accomplishing objectives rather than ‘winning,’ and on open discussion rather than arrogance, as [has been] reported by clients.”

Times staff writer James Rainey contributed to this story.