Records reviewed by The Times show that for the two weeks of work in May, the well-known law firm representing the city of Los Angeles in a swept homeless incident, filed a $1.8 million bill.
Invoices from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP are partly driven by rapidly expanding legal payments, as the city is already under severe financial pressure.
At least 15 Gibson Dan lawyers charge nearly $1,300 an hour, so far the price is just under $140,000 a day over 13 days.
On behalf of Oregon’s grant pass, Gibson Dunn recently secured a landmark ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in favour of a law banning homeless encampments in public spaces.
Los Angeles officials held the law firm in May, about a week before the seven-day evidence hearing, to determine whether to steal management of the city’s homelessness program from Mayor Karen Bass and the city council and hand it over to third-party recipients.
A month later, US District Judge David O. Carter issued a harsh ruling, stating that he failed to comply with the terms of a three-year-old settlement agreement with the LA Alliance, which calls for the establishment of 12,915 homeless beds or other housing opportunities by June 2027.
Still, Carter also concluded “this is not time” and handed over control to third parties to manually control the city’s roughly $1 billion homeless program.
Matthew Umhofer, a counsel representing the alliance, said the city paid Gibson Dunn a large sum of money in an attempt not to groan out of legal obligations.
“The city should spend this money on acquiring contracts and serving those who need them,” he said. “Instead, they pay the law firm to nail it as a clear obligation in the settlement agreement.
Obtained from the City Attorney’s Office, Times lists the claim period from May 19 to May 31, covering a week of preparation for a federal hearing for high interests, covering four of the seven days each usually lasted more than eight hours.
Theane Evangelis, head of the city’s leading Gibson Dan team, presented questions regarding the bill to the City Attorney’s Office.
Karen Richardson, spokesman for City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto said in a statement that Gibson Dunn “had done a notable job that went into the important issues that he had filed during the lawsuit for nearly five years before being hired,” and compressed it by saying, “It would usually be years of work in a very short period of time.”
“We are grateful for their services and are in the process of reviewing the spending… to ensure we return to the council with full photos of what has been done and charged,” she said in a statement.
The city held Gibson Dunn as council members signed off to layoffs for hundreds of employees. The first batch of layoff notifications was scheduled to go out this week.
The city council initially allocated $900,000 to Gibson Dunn for a period not exceeding three years, according to our agreement. According to the contract, if it exceeded $900,000, it required prior written approval from the city’s attorney.
The law firm quickly exceeded that threshold and ultimately charged twice the amount specified.
During the seven-day hearing, Gibson Dan took a very aggressive stance, opposing numerous questions from lawyers representing the alliance, and expressed two organisations that intervened in the case.
Councillor Bob Blumenfield, who serves the Council’s Homeless Committee, said the City Attorney’s Office had not advised him that Gibson Dunn’s legal fees had reached $1.8 million in such a short period. Blumenfield, who represents parts of the San Fernando Valley, said he was “not happy,” but booked more comments until he received more details.
Three months ago, Blumenfield co-authored a motion with councillor Tim Mcosker from both Gibson Dunn and City Attorney’s Office to request regular updates on the alliance lawsuit.
Makoscar, who worked on the Budget Committee and ran the city’s law firm for several years, also did not notify Gibson Dunn’s bill of $1.8 million from the city’s legal team.
Gilchrist said her boss asked for regular updates to “prevent claim surprises” related to the Alliance case.
“That’s why councillors are requiring that this issue be brought to city council soon, so city counsels can provide full accounting and discuss all bills related to the case,” she said.
Gibson Dunn has filed a notice of the city’s intention to appeal at least a portion of Carter’s decision. This has ordered third-party monitors to review and verify the city’s generated data on housing and camp goals.
Carter signaled that perhaps he would order the city to pay legal fees for the alliance and homeless advocacy groups that intervened in the case. So far, the alliance has sought $1.3 million from the city to cover legal costs incurred since April 2024.
In a statement in the Times earlier this week, Gibson Dunn’s lawyer Evangelis cited the judge’s “propose that the alliance could recover attorneys’ fees” as grounds for appeal.
“The city believes it should spend its resources on serving people in need who are not redirected to the alliance’s lawyers, especially if the district court rejects most of their arguments,” she said.
Source link
