 |
"Council's Purchasing of Legal Services Makes Little Sense"
|
|
| ||
This information is provided by the candidate | ||
|
|
"Council's Purchasing of Legal Services Makes Little Sense"
|
|
|
| ||
This information is provided by the candidate | ||
As a candidate in the upcoming City Council election, I have scoured the City's financing and budget arrangements. One thing that I have discovered is alarming.
Berliner Cohen is one of the largest law firms in downtown San Jose. Their office is just down the street from my own office. I often pass their attorneys on the street or find myself seated at an adjacent table during lunch. I find them pleasant, likable, and smart. But they won't like what I am about to tell you, as I am about to expose one of their profitable little secrets.
The law firm of Berliner Cohen is our City Attorney. Under the City Charter, that means that they represent the City "in any or all actions and proceedings in which the City is concerned or is a party . . . ." Additionally, the City Council retains and often exercises the option of employing "other attorneys to take charge of any litigation or matter." This language comes right from Article VII, Section 804, of the City Charter.
What I want to know is: Why Berliner Cohen?
And, even more importantly, why are we paying them so much money? To be exact, last year alone we paid more than $220,000 to this San Jose-based law firm. That is more than double the amount we paid our 15-year veteran City Administrator. Worse, this $220,000 did not even include all the additional money the City Council spent on outside attorneys.
Take, for example, the Mark Good case in which I was recently involved. Tens of thousands of dollars were paid to Helene Leichter, the City's special prosecutor, and her Menlo Park firm of Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel. This is over and above Berliner Cohen's annual billings. And to make matters much worse, Ms. Leichter's firm is still actively and ferociously billing the City for other behind the scenes happenings within the G.P.D.
The headline to this column should read: The City Council's Purchasing of Legal Services Makes No Sense.
Sure, Berliner Cohen is a great law firm. They enjoy an excellent reputation. But as is the case with such firms, they only work for the wealthy. Strike that, they only work for the extremely wealthy. (Setting aside for the moment their pro bono work, of course; however, the work done for the City is hardly pro bono). Their billing rates illustrate the problem in bold relief. One of their associates – not even a partner - bills the City at $ 235.00 per hour. That's high by industry standards. Actually, that is very, very high.
So what is the solution? I offer two for your consideration.
First, the City Council could hire a salaried, full-time attorney to do the work that Berliner Cohen is doing now. We would be paying considerably less for the same amount -- or even more -- work. For example, this would give the City Council the option of utilizing the City Attorney more and farming out other work less. Thus, even more money could be saved by having one salaried attorney dedicated to filling the City Council's need for legal counsel.
Second, the City Council could farm out the entire City Attorney position to a local firm. This is the same arrangement the City Council is now using with Berliner Cohen. However, there are plenty of competent local lawyers who could perform the work in yeoman-like fashion. It important to understand that the City Attorney position does not pose any particularly difficult areas of law. It is a general practice that requires a working knowledge of municipal law. I mean no disrespect to Berliner Cohen's fine attorneys by pointing that out. They are simply overqualified -- and thus overcharging -- for what they are doing.
Both approaches have the advantage of being more affordable and more consistent with sound economic planning than the present arrangement. I know of no local lawyer that has the audacity to bill at Berliner Cohen rates, or even anywhere near Berliner Cohen rates. Second, it would keep the money spent by the City Council on attorneys' fees within the local economy. Right now, all the money goes to San Jose and disappears from our economy. By keeping it local, we could open up a position or two for a legal secretary or paralegal here in town. Those persons would presumably buy groceries, pay rent, and do the other things that make the economy go around, all right here in Gilroy.
Before Berliner Cohen, we had Bruce Jacobs as our City Attorney. Bruce was a great asset to the City before he retired. He had a private practice in the now burned-out building at the corner of First and Miller. He single-handedly served as the City Attorney for many years. It was an arrangement that should have been repeated when he left.
Unfortunately, the City Council took Jay Baksa's suggestion that Berliner Cohen be retained. In my dealings with Jay, I have found him to remarkably lacking in his understanding of legal affairs. This is one of the times that the City Council should have asked Jay - who, according to my reading of the City Charter, is their employee -- some hard questions, instead of adopting his recommendation at face value.
There is an old saying that you can judge a person by their attorney. Having hired and kept Berliner Cohen around as the City Attorney for so long speaks volumes about the Council's lack of legal sophistication. But don't be surprised if Berliner Cohen, or a defensive incumbent, responds to this column with some purported justification for why Berliner Cohen continues to be retained at exorbitant rates in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
