Board debates whether county must approve outside counsel for DA prosecutions; grand jury urges end of independent monitor's contract

Supervisors spent significant time on two related legal oversight topics: whether the board must authorize payment to outside counsel retained by the District Attorney to defend deputy prosecutors in State Bar disciplinary proceedings, and whether the county should end a contract with an independent monitor recommended by the Grand Jury.

County Counsel (Mr. Page) advised that county counsel's office is generally responsible for defending county employees, and that delegation to outside counsel for litigation or administrative proceedings typically requires board approval and, for litigation, a supermajority when outside counsel will provide litigation services. Mr. Page said that if his office determines it cannot provide adequate defense, it would present a proposed contract with outside counsel for the board's approval and that, in administrative proceedings, the board must find that the employee acted in good faith, without malice, and in the county's best interest before approving payment.

District Attorney counsel disagreed with parts of that legal interpretation and said an oral agreement with outside counsel Blythe Lease was in place; the DA's office said it had not yet received invoices and that counsel had worked on an oral basis at a modest hourly rate. Auditor‑Controller staff said they had not received any invoices and that the matter was "academic" until a billing or contract formalized payment.

On the Grand Jury matter, the board reviewed a recommendation to terminate the independent monitor agreement with Stephen Larson (Larson O'Brien LLP). The DA said he would meet with Larson to "wrap things up" and that Larson had credited some travel/mileage and would make adjustments to the invoices; Supervisors questioned sole‑source justifications and the percentage of work performed by Larson versus other firm attorneys.

No board action to authorize payment or to terminate contracts was taken at the meeting because there were no invoices or written retainer agreements before the auditor; supervisors directed county counsel and relevant departments to bring back contract documentation and legal analysis if and when invoices or formal agreements are submitted.