Lawyers Get Rich While County Goes Broke: Shocking!

The recently litigated AMR lawsuit – where the County lost the (generally speaking) impossible-to-lose Preliminary Injunction – spent $900K in legal fees and then settled, such that we now have the privilege of paying 35% more for ambulance service. This got me to wondering: Who manages our litigation, and what cost-benefit calculus, if any, do they bring to the task?

For complex litigation, and sometimes even not-so-complex litigation, County Counsel (CC) Rachel Van Mullem farms things out. In the AMR case, Hooper, Lundy & Bookman was engaged, and in a baffling case with our Water Districts, we are using the Miliband Water Lawfirm. In the Toro Canyon oil spill the County fought an unfightable Public Record Request made by our own DA. In the end, they couldn’t hide the ball (I could have told them this for free!) and paid $750K in fines. Educated Guess: The $750K fine could have been paid before engaging international mega-firm WilmerHale (for this?) to the shocking tune of $500K. Ultimately, WilmerHale was “out,” and mega-firm Perkins Coie (Huh?) handled the settlement.

Perhaps it’s not fair to Monday Morning Lawyer, but it certainly is fun. For example, last year the County asked for a re-hearing in the Crandall case which held that Federal law reigns supreme and that while Cannabis can be imbibed in CA, it can’t legally be cultivated or transported. In January, the County lost, again – this time before the full appellate court. Fact: Per Crandall, Cannabis licenses violate federal law. Question: Will the County use tax dollars to appeal in an attempt protect to Cannabis/Growers? Let them pay! Wrong! 

Another puzzling case involves the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) that represents eight local Water Districts, including Montecito and Carpinteria. CCWA contracts for 100% of the State Water that becomes available to them (47% of our water comes from the State) so, logically, they decide the deal specifics. But with typical hubris, our County – the only one that attempted this across the entire state – tried to inject themselves into the process. 

In CCWA’s last round of State Water contract amendments – designed to modernize the antiquated methods used to lease/buy water – the County inserted itself into the ratification process. This was done back in April of 2021, when our Supervisors passed Resolution 21-23 – a resolution which imposed conditions that undermined the very purpose of the amendments. Does the Board ever get legal advice BEFORE making these obviously litigious decisions? 

Our Water Districts are independent agencies, yet the County thought they knew “best,” so in 2021 CCWA sued. Shocking Fact: In 2023, the County quietly rescinded their silly Resolution but – incredibly – never pursued a settlement. Now, the litigation – and what I’m guessing are $800K in fees – marches forward; because the districts believe the County will try to interfere in the future. And, of course, Water Districts are making their wealthy lawyers even wealthier (Yes, costs are passed on to us!) and the County is doing what it does best – overseeing needless and very costly litigation. Question: Does the County do anything that remotely resembles a cost benefit litigation analysis? What are they seeking?

Much like the heavy-handed culture that defines P&D, it seems to at least a few that a similar philosophy exists in our CC department. Fighting our own DA, battling our Water Districts, getting embarrassed by AMR, and using resident tax dollars to preserve Cannabis profits for 70 Growers. Well, let’s just say these are questionable decisions. In the end, this is not all about Ms. Van Mullem. It’s about how our Board manages CC. Advice: Spend less on globally expensive lawyers and loss-leader litigation and more on what ails us!  

Jeff Giordano,
SB County resident