TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
FROM:
Talyn Mirzakhanian, City Manager
Quinn M. Barrow, City Attorney
SUBJECT:Title
Consideration of a Resolution Approving an Agreement for Prosecutorial Services on an As-Needed Basis (No Budget Impact) (City Manager Mirzakhanian and City Attorney Barrow).
(Estimated Time: 15 Mins.)
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 25-0023
Body
_________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 25-0023 authorizing the City Manager to approve an agreement for prosecutorial services with the Law Firm of Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak LLP.
Body
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The proposal for prosecutorial services from Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak LLP (“DRL”) is on an as-needed basis. As such, the fiscal implications are unknown at this time until staff is able to monitor expenditures depending on the legal services provided. However, Richards Watson Gershon (“RWG”) currently provides the proposed services at aligned rates, so the full cost of services would be offset by a reduction in legal fees paid to RWG, and within budgeted amounts. Staff will closely monitor the billing and legal services provided. As noted below, staff will present to the City Council quarterly updates that will include the metrics of the services, including legal fees and costs incurred.
BACKGROUND:
In 2023, the City Council explored different ways to reinforce prosecution of both local laws and State laws. In light of the then-current Los Angeles District Attorney, the City sponsored Assembly Bill 2309 to allow city attorneys for general law cities to prosecute State misdemeanors. AB 2309 did not pass the State Legislature. In November 2024, the Los Angeles County voters elected a new District Attorney.
DISCUSSION:
From time to time, the City has delegated criminal prosecution, and other legal services, to special counsel. Historically, the City relied on such counsel to handle all Municipal Code violations. After the Council amended the Municipal Code in 2016 to add Chapter 1.06 (Administrative Citations), Municipal Code violations and others violations historically handled through criminal prosecution have been primarily handled via an administrative citation process.
1.06.020 - Code enforcement authority provides:
“A. This Chapter provides for an administrative remedy for any violation of the Code. This remedy may be exercised in place of, or in addition to, any administrative, criminal, civil, or equitable remedy allowed by law. The City Attorney or City Prosecutor shall have sole discretion to determine whether a violation will be prosecuted criminally.”
Most violators will pay the administrative fine, and discontinue the behavior, without any attorney involvement or City incurring legal fees. Accordingly, the most cost effective and efficient way to obtain code compliance and deter repeat offenses is through the administrative citation process. If needed, DRL can assist staff with administrative citations.
However, there may be situations where violations should be treated as a misdemeanor or infraction. In some cases, citing offenders with an administrative citation may not obtain code compliance or deter repeat offenses. Pursuant to the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code, every Code violation is a misdemeanor, unless specified otherwise, but can be treated as an infraction:
“1.04.010 - Violations a misdemeanor.
It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision, or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Code or any condition of any permit or license approved pursuant to any provision of this code. Any person violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this Code shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless it is specifically stated in the applicable chapter that it is an infraction, or unless such violation is subsequently prosecuted as an infraction, in which case such person is guilty of an infraction.”
DRL was identified as one of the preeminent firms specializing in providing prosecution legal services to cities. As shown in the attachment, DRL currently represents numerous cities, including Beverly Hills, Covina, West Hollywood, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Calabasas, and Agoura Hills. DRL has worked closely with several in-house city attorneys and contract city attorneys, including RWG partners. As shown in the attachment, DRL has exhibited client retention, representing several cities since the 1980s, and at least one of its city clients since 1979. DRL’s proposal proposes to prosecute criminal violations (e.g., Municipal Code misdemeanors and infractions) and perform such services as are requested by the City Attorney, City Manager, or their designees. In addition, DRL may also provide services related to civil investigations, obtaining warrants, and filing civil actions, upon request.
Upon execution of an agreement, on a quarterly basis, or more frequently as requested, DRL will provide a status report on cases handled by the firm, and the City may request changes to the legal services performed, including reduction in the number of cases forwarded to DRL.
CONCLUSION:
With the change in administration in Los Angeles County, the District Attorney’s Office may resume prosecuting State misdemeanors on behalf of the City. However, the City needs a private firm to prosecute Municipal Code violations. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt draft Resolution No. 25-0023 authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement in accordance with City Council direction.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution No. 25-0023
2. Proposal - Dapeer Rosenblit & Litvak LLP