Government Law
Beleaguered California Cities Try to Save on Legal Fees
Posted Feb 10, 2009 8:43 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Several municipalities in California seeking ways to trim their budgets are hoping to cut their legal fees, either by replacing their law firms or handing off some legal work to nonlegal employees.
One lawyer told the Daily Journal (sub. req.) that she is seeing more requests for proposals from California towns, while another lawyer said he is helping his municipal clients take on more legal work for themselves.
The city of Banning in Riverside County has already jettisoned its law firm, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, and replaced it with a firm offering lower rates, the story says. Nearby Hemet is also considering firing Burke Williams for a lower-cost competitor. Julie Biggs, a Burke Williams partner, told the publication its rates are reasonable and "midlevel" compared to other law firms.
Eric Danly, a partner at Meyers Nave in Santa Rosa, told the publication that he is helping the northern California cities of Cloverdale and Petaluma hand off work to their employees that was once done by lawyers.
Danly said he has given tutorials to city workers so they can handle public records requests on their own. He is also providing contract templates so lawyers don’t need to write more routine contracts for consultants on city projects, the story says.
Stacey Sheston, who heads the public law practice at McDonough Holland & Allen, warned that legal work done by nonlawyers can be flawed. She told the Daily Journal of an instance in which the lawyers had to “go back and fix” a contract that was drafted by city clients.

Comments
J.D.
Feb 10, 2009 9:09 AM CST
Non-lawyers doing legal work. Yet another result of liberal policymakers spending, spending, spending like drunken idiots.
There’s a reason California is billions in debt. It’s called liberalism.
Flag this comment
Paul
Feb 10, 2009 11:16 AM CST
Not sure how J.D. gets to blaming liberals for this. It would seem just the opposite: government trying to save money at the expense of unnecessary legal fees. Many of the larger governments could probably afford to hire the expensive private lawyer and pay her a salary, rather than paying law firms (a) to double bill for associates’ time on top of partner time; (b) unnecessary research and writing time to train associates how to practice law at the expense of the client, when the partner knows the answer, already, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Flag this comment
Jason
Feb 10, 2009 11:57 AM CST
Don’t pay any law firm more than $400 an hour for any type of work. There are 1,000’s of law firms out there with partners with 30 years experiences that will bill you at $350 an hour.
Stop using Big Law or tell them they can’t bill higher than $400 an hour if you want to save money.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Feb 11, 2009 7:22 AM CST
They need to go a system of hiring fixed salary, full time and part time city attorneys to cover the routine stuff. The remaining problem will be that regulation today has become so complex, the smallest municipality needs (but can’t pay for) the same quality of tax, securities, labor, litigation and environmental counsel you would find at the largest private corporations. This is simply an area of need where lawyers have priced themselves out of the market for most cities (which typically, have inflexible budgets they can adjust only once a year).
Flag this comment
Edward
Feb 13, 2009 4:42 PM CST
Did I read the same article as J.D.? Eve if it were a trait of liberalism to require that work be done in-house to reduce costs, why would that need to be attacked with distaste displayed by J.D.? Usually the political right criticises the legal profession, rather than defends their fees. I gues it has become fashionable to criticise liberalism for the sake of criticising.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.