Law Firm Sued for Belmont Advice Launches PR Effort

Determined to defend itself against damaging malpractice allegations, O’Melveny & Myers, the city’s oldest blue-chip law firm, has hired a well-connected political consulting group to convince nervous politicians and a skeptical public that the controversial Belmont Learning Complex should be built despite its potentially hazardous site.

The consultant, Cerrell Associates, has launched “an aggressive public affairs communications strategy” designed to persuade state and local elected officials, and the media, that the Belmont project’s environmental obstacles are surmountable.

The move by O’Melveny, a political and economic force in the city since its founding in 1885, reveals yet another side both to the thorny Belmont controversy and to the law firm itself.

The Board of Education sued O’Melveny in September for professional negligence, alleging that its lawyers provided the school district with bad advice on the contaminated site. Some board members and others were surprised to learn that the firm represented the parent company of one of the developer’s principal partners at the same time it was advising the district on the school site, a possible conflict of interest--although that issue is not part of the lawsuit.

Cerrell’s task is not only to change minds on Belmont, but also to preserve the stellar reputation of a law firm that boasts former Secretary of State Warren Christopher as its senior partner while reducing the firm’s potential financial liability. If Belmont is not completed, sources say, the district will attempt to recoup up to $150 million in damages from the firm.

“Sometimes a victory is not reversing a decision, but getting out of it undamaged,” said Steve Afriat, a top City Hall lobbyist who runs his own political consulting firm. “It’s a tough battle, but it’s also a smart move on [O’Melveny’s] part.”

The controversial high school, now half completed, is being built on a site near downtown Los Angeles that is atop an old oil field. Tests have detected potentially dangerous levels of methane and hydrogen sulfide there. The school board has ordered work stopped until a decision can be made on whether to complete the school.

Howard Sunkin, a well-known and well-liked Cerrell lobbyist, said he has prepared a presentation on the Belmont project that includes “scientific proof” that the site could be safe for a school. His boss, veteran political consultant Joe Cerrell, has done some lobbying himself, including personally briefing state Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, a Los Angeles mayoral candidate.

“We’re trying to get the message out that the Belmont school facility has options that clearly are not being reported in the newspapers,” Sunkin said. “We’re saying that Belmont needs to be built, that it should be built and that it can be built.”

Although their ultimate goal would be to sway state and local officials to pressure the school board to support Belmont, a welcome outcome for O’Melveny might also be a lengthy delay in the board vote on whether to complete the $200-million facility. A state-sponsored report on the potential toxic contamination of the site is due in the spring; O’Melveny’s lawyers believe it will conclude that the school can be built with some modifications.

Although a majority of the school board already has indicated it favors killing the project, the key vote has been delayed, and now the board has asked district staff for recommendations on the project. Some interpret those actions to mean that perhaps some board members are not as strongly opposed to the school, and that they might be willing to keep it in limbo until the state toxics report is completed.

Pressure from Cerrell Associates might sway those board members, according to other political consultants and aides to involved elected officials.

Already, Cerrell has had an impact: Councilman Mike Hernandez has sent a letter to the school board reiterating his support for Belmont, and Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina is preparing a similar intervention.

But one key set of elected officials is off limits to Cerrell: the school board. The school district’s attorney is advising board members not to meet with the lobbyists because of the district’s lawsuit against O’Melveny, Cerrell’s client.

Board member Valerie Fields said she received a phone call from Joe Cerrell, whom she has known for dozens of years. She said she told him that she thought it “unethical” for her to meet with his staff and that her position was confirmed by the district’s lawyers.

Still, Sunkin’s pitch on Belmont is being made around town with an environmentalist and representatives from O’Melveny in tow. In fact, word has spread among officials that the company is seeking meetings whenever possible.

O’Melveny lawyers say they hired Cerrell because they firmly believe the school should be built. Existing schools in the area west of downtown are severely overcrowded.

“We believe that building the Belmont Learning Complex is the right thing to do, and we want to talk with anyone who is willing to listen to the facts,” said Ralph Shapira, an O’Melveny partner and spokesman for the firm, in a written statement. “The 1st Amendment protects O’Melveny’s right to participate in the ongoing public debate about Belmont, and we are doing so because we believe in the project and in the work we did for the school district.”

The firm also stands to benefit if the board completes the school: Potential damages from a malpractice judgment would be much reduced. Some say the school district might seek only some of the costs of dealing with the contamination. Otherwise, it may seek the $150 million the district already has spent on the site.

Some school trustees said that although they will listen to the views of other elected officials, the tricky decision rests firmly with them.

“There are many, many elected officials whose opinions I respect,” said Fields, but “we’re the ones who have to make the decision.”

Board member Julie Korenstein said her opposition to the school site will not change under pressure from others.

“Whether they can twist any arms remains to be seen,” she said. “I think it’s an unfortunate way of finding a resolution because a law firm wants to see it built for whatever their reasons.”

Some crisis management and public relations consultants say the O’Melveny contract is a mixed blessing. On one hand, Belmont is among the hottest topics in the city, and anyone would want to be associated with it; but on the other, it is a political land mine. Last spring, voters dumped two school board members who were strong Belmont supporters.

“I think it will backfire in O’Melveny’s face,” said Steven Fink, president of Lexicon Communications and the author of “Crisis Management: Planning for the Inevitable.” “Trying to lobby officials to build a school that has serious environmental issues potentially affecting the health of students and the community really is putting profit ahead of safety.”

But others in local politics say the strategy is a shrewd one.

“You know what they say: ‘He who represents himself has a fool for a client,’ ” said one political insider. “It’s smart. It brings a certain weight to bear. These are not wallflower firms, they are well-respected, and people will listen.”

*

Times staff writer Doug Smith contributed to this story.