O.C. Gets Attorney's Bill for $1 Million

By JEAN O. PASCO

April 7, 1998 12 AM PT

SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

A private attorney hired to represent Orange County’s plans to convert El Toro Marine Corps Air Station into a commercial airport has billed the county nearly $1 million for legal work done over a 13-month period, according to figures released Monday.

The accounting for Michael Gatzke and his Carlsbad law firm, Gatzke Dillon Ballance, comes as Gatzke’s work is being challenged by Supervisor Todd Spitzer. Spitzer contends that Gatzke’s hiring 14 months ago by County Counsel Laurence M. Watson violated state law because it wasn’t approved by the Board of Supervisors.

The bills, representing legal fees and costs tallied between January 1997 and February 1998, are only the first wave of expenses in what is expected to be a multiyear legal fight by South County cities and residents over controversial plans to develop an international airport at the base, which is scheduled to be closed by the Marines in July 1999.

“For more than a year, we’ve been kept in the dark about these bills,” said Spitzer, who two weeks ago demanded a breakdown of costs relating to Gatzke’s work. “How am I supposed to be able to fulfill my fiduciary responsibilities when we’re not even told how much this is costing?”

Gatzke said Monday that he already has been paid for some of his work, including fighting a lawsuit that challenged a countywide vote in June 1994 calling for an airport to be built at El Toro, and legal services relating to John Wayne Airport. About $175,000 in bills for non-litigation consulting on El Toro are being processed, he said.

But bills for the biggest chunk--$585,000--are pending for Gatzke’s representation of the county in three additional El Toro lawsuits.

Suits by the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority and Taxpayers for Responsible Planning challenged the county’s planning and environmental studies on El Toro conversion plans. A third lawsuit was brought by the county against Irvine after the city amended its General Plan to rezone an area nearest the base to residential.

Spitzer will meet with his board colleagues in closed session today to discuss his contention that Gatzke was improperly hired. He said Watson violated the state government code a year ago when Watson notified Gatzke by letter to begin representing the county on the El Toro suits. The action was done without notifying supervisors or bringing it before them for a vote.

Additionally, though Gatzke’s contract requires him to bill the county every 30 days, a listing of his bills wasn’t provided to supervisors until Monday.

Spitzer said state law, a 1988 court case and a 1991 attorney general’s opinion state that authority for hiring outside litigation counsel rests with the Board of Supervisors, which must approve representation by a two-thirds vote, or four of the five board members, on a case-by-case basis.

Watson declined to respond to questions on the matter Monday. He said last week that a 1991 policy approved by the board gave him management authority over legal services, and that a 1994 board-approved expansion of Gatzke’s contract to include “alternative aviation system issues” gave him the ability to make the hiring call without seeking board approval.

Gatzke supported Watson’s interpretation and said his hiring was legal.

“If I had any questions about the validity, I would have raised them myself,” he said.

Spitzer said Monday that he has no quarrel with Gatzke’s legal prowess and might vote to support the attorney’s representation of the county if Watson can justify why the county counsel’s office can’t handle the El Toro matters. Gatzke bills at a rate of $250 an hour.

However, Watson last week recused himself from giving further advice to supervisors until Spitzer’s questions over his decisions are resolved.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Legal Fee Breakdown

San Diego attorney Michael Gatzke and his law firm have incurred bills of more than $1 million since January 1997, mostly for representing the county in litigation involving the reuse plans for the El Toro Marine base:

El Toro Reuse Planning Authority vs. Board of Supervisors; Taxpayers for Responsible Planning vs. County of Orange

* Defending the county against challenges to environmental studies and reuse planning for El Toro

Fees: $451,016

Costs: $21,705

Total: $472,721

General El Toro Reuse Planning Costs

* Non-litigation work and legal consulting on El Toro matters

Fees: $167,633

Costs: $6,869

Total: $174,502

County of Orange vs. City of Irvine

* Representing the county in challenging the city’s decision to amend their General Plan affecting the base