Delgadillo Rival Disputes Eligibility

Lea Purwin D’Agostino, a candidate in the 2001 election for Los Angeles city attorney, said Tuesday that the state attorney general should review whether the winner of that contest, Rocky Delgadillo, is legally qualified to hold office because his status in the State Bar of California had been inactive in prior years.

The comments by D’Agostino, a deputy district attorney, were dismissed by Delgadillo spokesman Eric Moses as “sour grapes.” Moses cited an unsigned legal opinion issued in 2000 by then-City Atty. James K. Hahn, now the mayor, that indicated inactive bar status did not disqualify a person from running for city attorney.

“It’s a ridiculous assertion,” Moses said.

D’Agostino, who placed third in the 2001 election, was not persuaded by the Hahn opinion and said the issue should be resolved by state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer. She said she was raising the issue in response to a column that appeared in the Metropolitan News-Enterprise.

“I think Lockyer should thoroughly investigate this,” D’Agostino said. “What if I were on voluntary inactive status and went into a court and prosecuted someone and convicted someone? Do you think the conviction would stand? Absolutely not.”

D’Agostino cited a section of the City Charter that says, “The city attorney must be qualified to practice in all courts of the state, and must have been so qualified for at least five years immediately preceding his or her election.”

Delgadillo’s membership with the state bar was voluntarily put on inactive status from Jan. 1, 1995, through July 1, 1999, during which time he served as a deputy to former Mayor Richard Riordan before running for city attorney in 2001, according to state bar records.

Former City Councilman Mike Feuer, who placed second in the city attorney’s race, sought a legal opinion from Hahn because he too had been on voluntary inactive status in some of the years before his candidacy.

The Hahn opinion said that making a voluntary decision to go on inactive status in the state bar “does not affect an attorney’s qualification to practice in all courts,” in part because “it can be reversed at the will of the attorney at any point in time” simply by paying dues.

A spokesman for Lockyer said that there has been no formal request to review the issue and that no review is pending.