10:00 PM PDT on Monday, July 26, 2010

By IMRAN GHORI
The Press-Enterrise

San Bernardino County is no longer revealing its litigation costs in its civil lawsuit against former county officials accused of corruption.

County officials say they’re doing so to protect their legal strategy and that state law allows them to keep information about litigation records confidential until the matter is resolved.

However, a public records expert said the county is misapplying the law and that legal billings are not protected by attorney-client privilege.

Two of the defendants in the civil case, former Assessor Bill Postmus and former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin, are among those seeking the information, accusing the county of wasting taxpayer funds on a costly legal battle.

The county has had attorney John Hueston of the Orange County firm of Irell and Manella on retainer since January 2009 when Hueston, a former federal prosecutor, was commissioned to look into allegations of corruption at the assessor’s office.

The Board of Supervisors decided to sue Postmus, Erwin and four others in May after Hueston accused them of defrauding taxpayers and conducting political activities. Postmus, Erwin and former assessor’s officials Rex Gutierrez, Greg Eyler and Adam Aleman also face related criminal charges.

The county originally set a $250,000 limit in its legal contract but doubled that amount after filing the lawsuit. In March, the board lifted the spending cap and gave County Counsel Ruth Stringer the authority to oversee the contract and approve increases.

In recent weeks, Postmus and Erwin have asked the county to reveal how much it has spent so far on the case, which is in an early pre-trial stage.

“They’ve released the legal expenses in the past and they’ve arbitrarily stopped because it’s become embarrassing for the board,” Erwin said.

Stringer said the county is watching its costs very closely. Much of the money was spent on the investigation, she said. More recently, the legal team’s time has been spent responding to defense motions, she said.

Stringer said the requests for the legal bills are a deliberate legal strategy by the defendants to get the county to drop the case.

“They’re wanting to pressure everybody that they should not be sued (because) for them it’s not cost-effective,” she said.

Tells too much

Stringer said even revealing how much the county spent in a given month could tip off the defendants. A sudden increase before a court appearance, for example, could alert them that the county is spending a lot of time preparing for a particular issue coming up.

“Once the case is done, yes, of course the public has a right to know how much the county has spent,” Stringer said.

County spokesman David Wert acknowledged that it could be years before the case is resolved.

The county is relying on a section of the California government code that states records pertaining to litigation do not need to be disclosed until the matter is settled.

Terry Francke, general counsel of Californians Aware, an open government group, said the county is misapplying the law.

He said only records that will be used as part of the litigation are protected from disclosure. The courts have ruled that billing statements, along with other general information such as the name of the firm and the case are not protected by attorney-client privilege, he said.

To read entire story, click here.