HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6k Authorize the City Attorney to Correct a Clerical Error (2024-29 On-Call List for Legal Services) Item 6k
Department: Attorney
Cost Center: 1501
For Agenda of: 9/2/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Prepared By: Kelly Holcomb, Senior Legal Analyst
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO CORRECT A CLERICAL ERROR
(2024-29 ON-CALL LIST FOR LEGAL SERVICES)
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the City Attorney to send belated notification of the City’s Request for
Qualifications for Legal Services, On-call Outside Counsel 2024 (“RFQ”) to two law
firms that were unintentionally left off the notification list; and
2. Authorize the acceptance of qualifications, in the form directed by the City Council
approved RFQ specifications, from the two law firms that receive belated notifications;
and
3. Authorize the City Attorney to review submitted qualifica tions and, if deemed
responsive, add the two law firms to the City’s current 2024 -29 on-call list for outside
counsel legal services.
POLICY CONTEXT
Every five years since 2014, as provided in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 3.24.070(C),
the City Attorney’s Office has maintained an on-call list for outside counsel legal services.
DISCUSSION
Background
In January 2024, City Council approved a request for qualifications (“RFQ”) to create a
2024-29 on-call list for outside counsel legal services (January 9, 2024, Agenda Item#
5e). Following Council approval and public posting of the RFQ, members of the then -
current 2019-24 on-call list were notified of the deadline to submit qualifications. From the
qualifications received, the City Attorney’s Office built and maintains an on -call list of 26
law firms. These firms are not under contract but only evaluated and deemed qualified in
specific areas of law, with each firm signing an acceptance letter placing them among the
on-call law firms City staff can more easily contract with should a matter arise.
Page 355 of 357
Item 6k
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
One law firm that did not respond to the RFQ was Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (“LCW”).
This was surprising to City staff since the firm had responded to the two previous on -call
list qualification requests and were frequently under contract with the City for support of
labor negotiations, personnel, and employee benefits matters. Due to LCW’s long history
working with City staff and deep familiarity with City employee group memorandums of
understanding, since August of 2024 City staff have completed three Specialized Service
Justification forms in order to continue contracting with LCW.
Recently, while completing the contract language for LCW legal support beginning in July
2025, staff researched why the firm had not submitted qualifications to the RFQ. It was
discovered, by checking the document version history of the working file of the 2019-24
on-call list, that LCW and another attorney (Stephen J. Densmore) had been inadvertently
deleted in October 2023. This error occurring just four months prior to the opening of the
2024-29 RFQ, staff did not notice the deletions and when it came time to notify the
members of the then-current 2019-24 on-call list of the new RFQ, neither LCW nor
Densmore were notified of the deadline to submit qualifications.
Densmore
Attorney Stephen J. Densmore, the other member of the 2019 -24 on-call list that was
inadvertently deleted and subsequently not notified of the 2024 -29 on-call list RFQ, is a
solo practitioner. He had qualified for the 2019-24 on-call list in the “Public Works
Engineering, Design Professional & Construction Contracting Issues and Litigation”
subject area, but has not been under contract with the City since at least 2018 (based on
data in the Oracle accounts payable module).
Correction due to clerical error
At this time, the City Attorney requests City Council authorization to notify LCW and
Densmore of the RFQ contents; to provide the two firms with a limited timeframe in which
to submit qualifications should they desire; and to evaluate the submissions for
responsiveness to the RFQ. If deemed responsive, the firms would be added to the
current 2024-29 on-call list for outside counsel legal services.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
Staff is unaware of a previous instance where a member of a City on -call list was
accidently deleted and that deletion resulted in their not being notified of the RFQ for the
next on-call list. Regardless of a lack of precedent, the City Attorney believes the
recommended action is appropriate since the legal services on-call list is not contracted
attorneys but only attorneys whose qualifications have been evaluated and, having been
deemed proficient in specific areas of law, the City can more easily contract with in the
future. Allowing LCW and Densmore to take action s they could have if they had been
Page 356 of 357
Item 6k
notified of the RFQ, seems an appropriate balance of fairness to all the law firms both on
and off the on-call list.
Public Engagement
No public engagement was deemed necessary in this matter.
CONCURRENCE
Human Resources agrees with the recommendation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in
this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines
Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: N/A
Funding Identified: N/A
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ $ $ $0
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $ $ $ $0
There is no fiscal impact of the recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could decide not to authorize belated notifications for the RFQ. Should LCW
and Densmore remain off the current 2024-29 on-call list for outside counsel legal
services, City staff would necessarily continue to write Specialized Service Justifications,
or follow the otherwise applicable purchasing guidelines, should wo rk be needed from
one of those firms. The City staff time to complete these additional steps through March
of 2029 (when the current on-call list expires) would not be terribly burdensome but since
the firms were not notified of the RFQ due to a City error, staff would like permission to
remedy the omission.
Page 357 of 357