Introduction to the Case
The high-powered law firm that racked up big bills working to keep the city of Los Angeles from losing control over homeless programs is now looking to increase its contract by $5 million. City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto has asked the City Council to increase the city’s contract with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher to $5.9 million, up from the $900,000 approved three months ago.
Background of the Lawsuit
Gibson Dunn has been defending the city since mid-May in a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit LA Alliance for Human Rights, which resulted in a settlement agreement requiring the construction of new homeless housing and the removal of street encampments. The group alleges that the city has repeatedly violated the agreement. The Times reported last month that Gibson Dunn billed the city $1.8 million for about two weeks of work, with 15 attorneys charging $1,295 per hour and others charging lower amounts.
Billing and Financial Implications
By Aug. 8, Gibson Dunn had racked up $3.2 million in billings in the case, according to a confidential memo sent to the council by Feldstein Soto, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times. Those invoices have arrived during a difficult financial period for the city, caused in part by a surge in expensive legal payouts. Much of the firm’s work was focused on its preparation for, and participation in, a lengthy hearing before a federal judge who was weighing the group’s request to hand control of the city’s homeless initiatives over to a third party.
The Hearing and Its Outcome
Gibson Dunn was retained by the city one week before the hearing, which lasted seven court days, at eight or more hours per day, ending June 4. “The evidentiary hearing was more extensive than anticipated, with the plaintiffs calling more than a dozen witnesses and seeking to compel City officials to testify,” Feldstein Soto wrote in her memo. The City Council is scheduled to consider Feldstein Soto’s request Wednesday.
Reactions to the Request
An aide to Feldstein Soto declined to answer questions from The Times, saying the office “cannot comment due to work product and attorney-client privileges.” The city attorney has repeatedly defended Gibson Dunn’s work, saying the firm kept the city’s homeless initiatives from being turned over to a receiver — a move that would have stripped authority from Mayor Karen Bass and the council. Gibson Dunn also prevented several elected officials — a group that includes Bass — from having to take the stand, Feldstein Soto said in her memo.
Criticisms and Alternatives
City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez said she would vote against a request to spend an additional $5 million on Gibson Dunn. That money would be better spent on ensuring that the city complies with its legal obligations in the case, which include the construction of 12,915 homeless beds and the removal of 9,800 encampments, she said. Rodriguez, who also voted against the initial round of funding for Gibson Dunn, said $5 million would be enough to cover “time limited” housing subsidies for at least 500 households in her northeast San Fernando Valley district for a year. “At the end of the day, we’re here to house people,” she said. “So let’s spend the resources housing them, rather than being in a protracted legal battle.”
Opposition from LA Alliance
Matthew Umhofer, an attorney who represents LA Alliance, called the request for nearly $6 million “ludicrous,” saying the city should focus on compliance with the settlement agreement. “Gibson is a very good firm. Lawyers cost money. I get it,” he said. “But the city has hundreds of capable lawyers, and the notion that they need to spend this kind of money to prevent a court from holding them to their obligations and their promises, it raises real questions about the decision-making in the city on this issue.” “For a city that claims to be in fiscal crisis, this is nonsense,” Umhofer added.
Future Plans and Appeals
In her memo, Feldstein Soto said the additional $5 million would cover Gibson Dunn’s work in the case through June 2027, when the city’s legal settlement with the group is set to expire. During that period, Gibson Dunn would pursue an appeal of an order by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, arguing that the judge “reinterpreted” some of the city’s obligations under the settlement agreement, Feldstein Soto said in her memo. The law firm also would seek to “reform” the settlement agreement, Feldstein Soto said.
Conclusion
The request by the City Attorney to increase the contract with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher by $5 million has sparked debate and criticism. While the city attorney defends the firm’s work as crucial in keeping the city’s homeless initiatives from being turned over to a third party, others argue that the money could be better spent on compliance with the settlement agreement and on providing housing for the homeless. The outcome of the City Council’s consideration of this request will be crucial in determining the direction of the city’s approach to homelessness.
FAQs
- Q: How much does the city want to increase its contract with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher?
A: The city wants to increase its contract with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher by $5 million, from $900,000 to $5.9 million. - Q: What is the lawsuit about?
A: The lawsuit was filed by the nonprofit LA Alliance for Human Rights and alleges that the city has repeatedly violated a settlement agreement requiring the construction of new homeless housing and the removal of street encampments. - Q: How much has Gibson Dunn billed the city so far?
A: By Aug. 8, Gibson Dunn had racked up $3.2 million in billings in the case. - Q: What will the additional $5 million cover?
A: The additional $5 million would cover Gibson Dunn’s work in the case through June 2027, including pursuing an appeal and seeking to reform the settlement agreement. - Q: What are the criticisms of the request?
A: Critics argue that the money could be better spent on compliance with the settlement agreement and on providing housing for the homeless, rather than on legal fees.
