Judges Back Hiring Local Attorneys for Defense Work

Rejecting a lower bid from an outside firm, Ventura County’s judges have recommended rehiring a local group to defend the poor after it slashed its price by $460,000 and promised to rein in costs.

Conflict Defense Associates’ nearly $1.8-million offer proved persuasive to members of the judiciary, who voted Wednesday to stick with the Ventura firm despite a competing bid that was $650,000 less.

“I am really very, very happy for all the people who work for us and the people we represent,” said James M. Farley, a partner in Conflict Defense Associates.

A lawyer with the competing firm said he was disappointed but not surprised by the decision.

“It’s happened before,” said Richard Ciummo, chief defense attorney for Barker & Associates of Madera. “The old boys network has an amazing force.”

For 18 years, Conflict Defense Associates has represented poor clients when the public defender’s office declares a conflict of interest. That happens most often in criminal cases involving more than one defendant.

The firm’s 22 attorneys handle about 375 felony and 500 misdemeanor cases annually.

In weighing the two proposals, Presiding Superior Court Judge Charles W. Campbell Jr. said the judges trust Conflict Defense Associates to provide top defense work for those who cannot afford a private attorney.

“I think the bottom line was that we were proud of the quality of representation that they gave their clients,” Campbell said.

The problem with the firm has been repeated budget overruns, he said.

Conflict Defense Associates has exceeded its $1.3-million contract each of the last three years--by a total of $1.4 million.

Under its revised contract proposal, the firm has promised not to seek additional funds. And that was a key selling point, Campbell said.

“Their revised proposal had within it assurances and procedures to control costs,” he said.

While the judges select the firm, the county Board of Supervisors must approve funding for the contract, which would cover one year with an option to renew. Conflict Defense Associates would also be required to submit quarterly reports to prove that it is containing costs, said Robert Sherman, an analyst in the county’s chief administrative office.

The judges’ decision comes four weeks after Campbell warned Conflict Defense Associates’ partners that they risked losing the contract because of repeated cost overruns.

A 1997 review by the county found that expert witness and investigative costs were rising dramatically at the firm, in part because it did not rigorously screen billings.

The firm’s lawyers argue that three-strikes cases and other complex criminal matters are to blame for the soaring expenses.

Nevertheless, the group’s overruns prompted county officials to aggressively seek competing bids for the first time this year. They advertised in legal journals and on the Internet.

That effort produced the rival bid by Barker & Associates.

The firm provides defense services in five counties, including a $2-million contract in Fresno County, just south of Madera.

The Barker firm’s $1.1-million offer in Ventura County undercut by half the original $2.2-million bid from Conflict Defense Associates. Ciummo said his firm did not submit a revised proposal after the bidding process was extended.

John Barker, founder of Barker & Associates, says he keeps costs down by doing investigations in-house--rather than hiring private investigators--and moving 53 lawyers among his various offices as the need arises.

*

But Barker’s low offer was sharply criticized by some local defense attorneys, who said his firm could not provide adequate legal representation for so little money.

At the same time, Conflict Defense Associates found ways to trim its costs. Farley said the firm submitted a final offer to provide defense work for about $1.8 million annually.

“That is the absolute bare-bones,” he said. “They asked for our last and our best offer, and we gave it to them.”

In response to the county’s concerns, Farley has hired an accountant to keep control of costs. Expenses such as expert and investigator fees will be approved by the accountant and a partner in the firm, he said.

Farley said the firm has also begun to enter into contracts with suppliers and court interpreters to get them to agree to work for no more money than the courts pay.

“That will allow us to stay within the budget,” he said.

County supervisors said Thursday that they were pleased to see Farley’s group make assurances that it would not seek any additional funds if awarded the contract.

The board is scheduled to vote on the contract July 13.

*

“I’m very happy that there has been a revised bid,” Supervisor Frank Schillo said. “They were way out of line. They had no competition. I am going to be very, very critical to future changes to this contract.”

Schillo said he plans to wait to hear from the judges before making a decision on who should be awarded the contract.

Supervisor Judy Mikels could not be reached for comment, and Supervisor Susan Lacey is expected to abstain from the vote because her attorney husband sometimes takes cases on behalf of Conflict Defense Associates.

Supervisors John Flynn and Kathy Long said they were leaning in favor of renewing the firm’s contract.

“You get what you pay for and this is a good law firm,” Flynn said. “I’ve always been pleased with them. I am pretty sure I’ll be in the ‘Yes’ column.”

Long said she was displeased by the firm’s repeated budget overruns, but had reservations about awarding a contract to a firm outside the county.

“I was concerned about the out-of-towners,” she said. “I frankly am pleased that they are going to continue with CDA. I believe that all individuals deserve fair and equitable justice, not just based on the bottom line.”