Council questions city attorney's performance; members seek RFP and executive session

Council members at a Farmers Branch study session on item A6 sharply criticized the city's contracted legal counsel, citing missed emails, drafting errors and instances where the attorney's involvement appeared to exceed an advisory role.

"We are at the highest level of making decisions for our city. We should not be in the minutiae of reviewing the contracts for typos," Councilman Roman said, laying out a list of alleged problems including slow responses, distractions during meetings, and what he described as a failure to protect the city from contract mistakes.

Roman pointed to multiple examples he said show recurring problems in legal work'including redlines to an employment agreement and what he said were ordinance drafting errors'and said some earlier contracting practices led to substantial taxpayer costs. "It ended up costing our taxpayers $2,100,000," he said.

Members debated whether errors stemmed from current counsel, earlier staff decisions or a combination of both. The city manager acknowledged organizational failures under previous leadership and described steps staff has taken since: requiring professional-service contracts be routed to legal, publishing a contract checklist for departments, and increasing interdepartmental coordination.

City staff said they and the attorney's office have also agreed turnaround timelines for submittals so legal opinions can be provided in time for agendas. The manager noted regular check-ins with the attorney's team and said an RFP to seek outside counsel is ready to launch if council directs.

City Attorney Pete, who was directly criticized during the discussion, responded that he has served the city for many years, acknowledged missed emails and occasional drafting oversights and said he did not intend to interfere with decision-making. "I've been your lawyers for 16 years," he said, and added he would apologize for any instance where he crossed advisory boundaries.

Several council members pressed for clarity about specific incidents, including a dispute over whether the attorney had inappropriately offered to pay for street signs after a council vote. The mayor urged members to be fair and warned of the operational cost and risks of replacing long-standing counsel abruptly.

Given the sensitivity of personnel-like concerns and the mixture of policy and factual disputes, council members agreed to continue the conversation in executive session. Multiple members also expressed support for issuing an RFP for legal services so the city can compare options and clarify service expectations.

No formal motion or vote was taken during the study session; staff were directed to post an executive session on a near-term agenda to allow confidential, detailed discussion of the concerns and to prepare an RFP option for council consideration. The study session adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

Next steps: staff will post the executive session item and circulate RFP materials and suggested service-level expectations to council ahead of the confidential meeting.