OK, the update: I misjudged something. The city attorney filed two cases, one was the City of San Diego v. Willkie Farr and Gallagher, LLP. The other was the People of the State of California v Willkie Farr and Gallagher. I thought that was a criminal case. The City Attorney’s Office called to clarify that it’s a civil lawsuit.

Assistant City Attorney Don McGrath said that the office filed the case representing the people of the state of California in order to claim that Willkie Farr violated the state business and professions code with “unfair business practices.”

It appears to be one of those lawsuits that prosecutors file to enforce the law (rather than claim damages) similar to the suit the city attorney filed against that real estate broker who worked on the stinky deals with Mike Madigan downtown.

McGrath said that the city attorney did not get authorization from the City Council to file the complaint on behalf of the city of San Diego. McGrath said it wasn’t necessary. He said he had to hurry to file the case in order to have it be within one year of release of the infamous Kroll report.

“In a legal malpractice complaint against a law firm, you have one year to sue,” McGrath said. “I would rather have done it with a lot more openness but I just had to do it today to beat the deadline.”

McGrath said he had sent the council and the mayor copies of the complaints. One digression: I have often wondered why the city attorney ever asks the council for authorization on his legal pursuits. If he sincerely doesn’t believe he has to, then he shouldn’t. Yet, time and time again, he has. This one just had to go to the court first, however.

McGrath said he didn’t have much to say about the complaints — that I (and you) can just read them (here and here).

“We’ll have more to say about it when the mayor and council are back,” McGrath said.

He said that attorney Brian Vess, who handled the city’s case against Callan and Associates, will be handling the case. Vess successfully collected $3 million for the city on that one.

Let me know if any of you have any insights about the case law here.


Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.