Agenda

Return

C. 9

To:	Board of Supervisors
From:	Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel
Date:	May 12, 2015

Contra

Costa

County

Subject:

APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE CONFLICT WAIVER WITH GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP

APPROVE	OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR	RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On: 05/12/2015

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED

OTHER

Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:

John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor

ABSENT:

Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor

Contact:	Kathleen M. Andrus, Deputy County Counsel, 335-1824
cc:	Kathleen M. Andrus, Deputy County Counsel

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 12, 2015
David Twa,

BY:	, Deputy

RECOMMENDATION(S):

APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Counsel or designee to execute, on behalf of the County, a conflict waiver acknowledging a potential conflict of interest, and consenting to Goldfarb & Lipman representing the City of Antioch and the Successor Agency to the Antioch Development Agency in connection with a dispute with the State Department of Finance over various conveyances that occurred prior to the implementation of AB x1 26 and AB 1484.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact.

BACKGROUND:

The County is an existing client of Goldfarb. Goldfarb represents the County on various legal issues related to redevelopment dissolution, new development financed by the County, and the preparation of legal documents for County-funded housing programs.

BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)

The City of Antioch (City), and the Successor Agency to the Antioch Development Agency (Successor Agency) intend to file a lawsuit against the California Department of Finance (DOF) alleging primarily that DOF is improperly attempting to require the City to return funds transferred to the City by the former Antioch Development Agency prior to the dissolution of the former Antioch Development Agency. The DOF is demanding that the Successor Agency remit $768,958 to the County Auditor-Controller. If the DOF is successful in effecting the return of the funds from the City, the money will be distributed to the taxing entities.

The lawsuit names the County Auditor-Controller as a respondent, as the suit seeks an order that would prohibit the Auditor-Controller from exercising certain property tax offsets against the City as allowed in the redevelopment dissolution statutes. The lawsuit also names the County, as well as other taxing entities, as real parties in interest, since the result of the lawsuit could impact funds distributed to the County and other taxing entities. Goldfarb has been asked to advise the City and the Successor Agency in the lawsuit. Goldfarb will not consent to advise the City or the Successor Agency unless and until the County, the City and the Successor Agency consent.

In the absence of the informed written consent of each client, the California Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit an attorney from representing a client in one matter and at the same time representing a second client in a separate matter if the second client’s interests in the separate matter are adverse to those of the first client. (Rule 3-310(C)(3))

In this instance, the representation Goldfarb provides to the County is unrelated to the representation it would provide to the City and the Successor Agency.

Attached is a letter from Goldfarb that describes the conflict waiver request in more detail.

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

If the conflict waiver is not granted, Goldfarb will continue to represent the County in connection with unrelated projects, but will be unable to represent the City and the Successor Agency with respect to the matter described above.