Advertisement

Former L.A. chief deputy attorney directed fraudulent DWP lawsuit, judge rules

A big, flat fountain in front of a building.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power building as seen from the Music Center on April 13, 2024.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
0:00 0:00

This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here.

  • A former chief deputy attorney helped orchestrate a class-action lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles to try to get favorable terms for the city, a judge has ruled.
  • A California State Bar Court judge recommended a two-year suspension of Jim Clark’s law license over his involvement in the scheme.

A former high-ranking Los Angeles city attorney authorized a class-action lawsuit against the city in hopes of getting a favorable settlement for L.A. and then repeatedly misled the court and public about his role in the scheme, a judge ruled Tuesday.

In a 50-page ruling, California State Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland found that Jim Clark, former chief deputy attorney under then-City Atty. Mike Feuer, committed “multiple acts of moral turpitude and concealment” related to his involvement in the city attorney’s office’s handling of the legal fallout over a faulty Department of Water and Power billing system.

Roland recommended a two-year suspension of Clark’s law license, contingent on his taking various ethics and law-related courses.

Advertisement

Unless either side appeals, the decision will head to the state Supreme Court for approval.

“This decision is both unjust and wrong,” Clark’s attorney, Erin Joyce, said. “We are considering next steps, including appeal.”

Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said in a statement that the court found that Clark “engaged in serious misconduct marked by prolonged deceit that significantly eroded public trust and confidence” in the city attorney’s office.

Advertisement

The Trump administration’s new top voting rights lawyer is Eric Neff, a former L.A. County prosecutor who led a failed case against a voting software company that was the subject of conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

“The State Bar remains committed to pursuing misconduct of this type, regardless of the positions held by the attorneys engaging in it,” Cardona said.

The scandal dates to 2013, when a new DWP billing system issued erroneous bills to thousands of customers, including a Van Nuys couple billed nearly $52,000.

With the city facing multiple lawsuits over the billing debacle, Clark helped oversee a friendly class-action lawsuit against the city, the judge found. With an attorney on the plaintiffs’ side of the lawsuit colluding with the city’s team, the city could settle the claims on favorable terms.

After the sham lawsuit was revealed, Clark and others in the city attorney’s office blamed other attorneys. The city attorney’s office also spent tens of millions of dollars on outside attorneys in a related case, with Clark and others repeatedly denying wrongdoing.

Clark, now in his late 70s, left the city in 2020, a year after the FBI raided City Hall as part of the criminal investigation related to the sham lawsuit. He never faced criminal charges.

Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, said Clark deserved a tougher punishment, including being barred from practicing law in the state.

Advertisement

“If you can’t lose your law license in the State of California for committing a fraud on a court and coordinating a collusive scheme, then what is the purpose of the State Bar?” Court said.

Clark’s trial lasted 32 days over a period of several months.

Documents obtained by The Times show former LAPD Cmdr. Cory Palka will not face criminal charges for tipping off CBS to a rape allegation against ex-CEO Les Moonves. Two LAPD detectives filed complaints over Palka’s case, with one claiming it was “compromised” by the department’s former chief.

A surprise witness provided a jolt near the end of the trial.

Michael Nagle, an attorney for the city’s Department of Transportation, testified that he ran into Clark in a City Hall hallway in March 2015.

Clark casually informed Nagle about an upcoming class-action lawsuit that was going to be filed against the city that would be beneficial for the city. The comment was notable because presumably Clark wouldn’t have advance knowledge of a forthcoming legal action.

Nagle testified that he felt compelled to come forward and reveal the conversation to the State Bar Court after he read a news story last year in which Clark denied any wrongdoing related to the class-action lawsuit.

Sign up for Essential California

The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.

By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service and our Privacy Policy.

Advertisement
Advertisement