The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutC-2170 - Request for an Increase in Hourly Fee Charges related to the Olive Davis Litigation (OCSC 329585)BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUL 111988 z /70 Agenda Item No. F -9a MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY July 11, 1988 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney RE: Request for an Increase in Attorney's Fees Len Hampel and Joel Kuperberg, the attorneys that represented the City in the housing lawsuit, have asked for an increase in the rate of attorney's fees paid by the City. Their current rate is $125.00 per hour and they are asking for an increase to $140.00 per hour. (See copy of letter). I believe their request is reasonable and should be approved. The housing lawsuit is now on appeal and will require the exclusive attention of Len and Joel. The increased rate is still well below that charged by attorneys of that caliber. Finally, the increased rate will not substantially increase the fees paid by the City since relatively little can be done once a case is on appeal. Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council approve the request of Len Hampel and Joel Kuperberg for an increase in the rate of attorney's fees from $125.00 per hour to $140.00 per hour effective July 15, 1988. RHB /jc Attachment cc: Len Hampel, Esq. Joel Kuperberg, Esq. Robert H. Burnham City Attorney : -6 GaRVIN F Sr ALLErvBCRGE R• • JAMES AL MOO RE• MARIN T .POGIyS MIKE) MCCORMICn• THOMAS J. CRANE R. ..CL' BRUCE .. EMARO RICM,ARO A, CV RNVTT• JAMES J.LITTLE LEONARD A MPEL• URE F .LOVIST JOHN P, HURL V T, J T.E.:NC JENSON MICHAEL W JAN E T L LACHLAN MILFORD W. DAHLL J R.• SCOTT R, PINZ.NE HEODORE I. LACE ,J MSOEN RG ...Al. P ON AS GT RICHARD NTE VIDEO I E.APO P. MS DAVID B. COSGROVE MARSHALL M, PEARLMAN• MARK SMITH FLYNN POBERT C. BPAVN• CAR O LE STEVENS ROGER A. GB..LE• L.RI SARNER SMITH EDWARD D. EYBESMA.J R MES P NERTY THOMAS 5. SA LINGER• ERN EST W TTE, III ACOWLES PARRY N. VBSCHER• ELIZABETH ML ROBERT ALBERTS THOMPSON WILLIAM V. SCHMIDT• ♦NE DANOWSKY TAYLOR 1D C L E GUFF. R OE R F U ER JEFFREY WTHEIMER ARTHUR G, KIDMANEN HANS VAN LISTEN MICHAEL O IN ROSS A G. R I MICHAEL D. TURNER JEFFREY MN ODERMAN• R JOHN F AP.SA JOSEPH D. CARRVTH PATRICIA ANDEL OISCOE STAN WOLCOTT' . DREA R. CABEM ROBERT S. BO WER• RUSSELL TYLER, JR. DAVID ALESHIRE ROBERT., OWE. AROA A FORSYTH BARRY L ADAMS WILLIAM H C ORENa VOLKERT JAMES L MORRIS JEFFREY A. GOIDFARB NE NELSON LANPHAR SAN,... 5 ATI WILLIAM J MANLY M ICHAEL T K URCELL NICE L. CELCTTI CARL J HOMAS P O. KOHN STEVEN W. SPRECHER J 0IL . CREPT Y ITZ STEVEN A NICHOLS JoCK50N HOMAS G. 9Rp CKINGiON P. SEEBERGER WILLIAM W. OER MELANEE C, EIRE EVRIOIK I(VICKI) DALLAS CHESTER A PVCHALSKI NDALL M BAB BUSH KEV:. BRAZIL H. GP EN ROBYN L ROSMAN RE PH1ILIP E NE H MERGER II PATRICK K, ERTY DAVIM.F„l1ows D. Dc HNER �RUTAN • & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW MIVDRD wu OnH L. sR A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS CENTRAL BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 .. W ..TAN l Reo la vtl J AMC K B .CPFR, SP.1 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER H ROOGER HOW LLU I.RPS aRv 611 ANTON BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 TELEPHONE (714) 641 -5100 (213) 625-7586 TELECORIER (714) 546 -9035 Mr. Robert Burnham City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 June 28, 1988 TELEX 910 596 1683 CABLE ADDRESS RVTAN TUC CSMA I. REPLY PLEASE REFER TO /L�n i Lo, Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Garrison v. City of Newport Beach Ortiz v. City of Newport Beach Dear Bob: Enclosed herein please find a copy of my letter of May 23, 1988, requesting a composite rate of $140.00 an hour for handling the Davis and related cases on appeal. We would suggest this rate be made effective July 1, 1988, if it meets with your City Council's approval. Joel is analyzing the advisability of a cross appeal on the attorneys' fees question and will be responding under separate cover after a little more research. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER / I `Leonard am e of LAH:loh Enclosure 0'( A C- - Cn °J •• - -qE- - - rJD•J °C eC. - PO ° - u5• CgE° G[p .B�.C• _ AJ 0 +5.9[5•• '•O.5 5..'v GC°• v 9.P . . P oast.[ °• ^BC q• w .:BCpTS J .vO C ..pSCY• •TO VDC rP'EDCV• ° G n•D U. v• -Ac -.n D. veN• .c �C ^qEr uvOOEqu•v �OSC °r p,C.PPVr- 5'.N .OtC Or•• OOBE PT 5. BOwC P• u. PCB.. rO VS..0 • COw[Y. °V[SY uu OppS YE -CtsGN L • . •••C ••. LL- .....+ AS Y.cE L. cC wiT o-L•q o +o••ry OEt D sVaE gBE qG 5 -F' +Cv • vIC ••OLS +-O U.S ^v BPOC.Y GTON CCA YD.II u B.BaVSu I.", ou q•vu [ vC 9nN - r[l.Ow511 ��0 . .CCuvEP 1 0 0 +• ." -5 9PVCE • Eu• °D C5 •:C C. nC • +•5• °SJ SC vE ` • ug'vCN v.0 +•pC G +O rv'E +�JCD J• O 9 ''JSG p•J yC _C Y 5 ry .O P S. prvEP 5u. -- uC5 ° N:p -r CpvCS' x C.'I•BC•. u !O w.ES M p -u0 u°gON NC D• •'S +. i•rtOP L SCY l[ +r wCr w[PirE u[p w s.,.N+�IPISS .,C..!. O : ANEP ]OU vOg♦ q'C'• .NDCt D•S CDC HOPE• P C.t E�+ J P I'T 0 POB O •J w[N .IA. l •O.uS D. N vCt•C PT Sq •. ^O qC Sn• v vIC• + • v TCO v �vCftl r ee' CAI" qL+ --. . +.a 5'CVCN x SpPCC.E° gOOC P• .O NO wi'E vO Ni D. :.0 +SCY uEw v SECeEPOCq CCS'EP. 5 +1 Bv., L PO BrN uOSv •v _ C° °ni PiCn °.rrFq r RUTAN & TUCKER • ATTORNEYS AT LAW °aP NEPSu v N[..D NG PPOrE$$•ONP' CO. A. P.T-ONS CENTPAL BANK TOwEP, SvrtE A00 C5 0 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER . .. DGC ° -na n... pz+ °}, 611 ANTON BOULE +APO POST 011VCE 80. 1950 COSTA MESA. CALIFORNIA 92628-1950 TELEPwONE P1.1 6.r 5100 12131 525 75 B6 TELECOPIEP 17141 546 -9035 February 23, 1988 Mr. Robert Burnham City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Garrison v. City of Newport Beach Ortiz v. City of Newport Beach Dear Bob: TEIE. 910 396 IB0] C.61C .0DPE55 ..'AN TIC CsPA N PC°CV vtCASC PC"P r0 It has been in excess of two (2) years since I last requested an increase in our fees in the Davis v. City of Newport Beach, et al litigation. We have had only two increases since we first began handling the case in 1980. Those increases were in May of 1984 and January of 1986. Our current rate is $125.00 per hour for partner time and $110.00 per hour for associate time. We now request a composite rate of $140.00 per hour for the Davis and related cases, including the handling of any appeals. The reason we requested a composite rate is that we believe that virtually all of the time in the future will be devoted to appeals and will necessarily be partner time, namely that of either myself or Joel Kuperberg. The use of our time will avoid duplication and necessarily make the handling of the appeals far more efficient. we anticipate the use of very little associate time in the future. Unfortunately, I am now a senior partner litigator in the Public Law Department with the highest in -house design rate of $250.00 per hour. Joel is a middle partner with a design rate of $170.00 per hour. Our proposed composite rate will still be significantly below our rates in the Anaheim • • RUTAN 6 TUCKER A7 IIW Mr. Robert Burnham February 23, 1988 Page 2 litigation and only slightly above the composite rates charged our retainer clients which will be going from $115.00 per hour to $125.00 per hour beginning with the next fiscal year. We believe the higher composite rate is justified because of the much higher percentage of partner time involved. We believe the discount from our normal design rate will be greater in the Newport Beach litigation than for a typical retainer client. While we do not believe a significant amount of associate time will be used in the future we do believe we can effectively use paralegal time in terms of managing the exhibits and transcripts of the year long Davis trial. Accordingly, we would request a small increase in their rate of from $60.00 to $70.00 per hour. While we cannot anticipate all of the issues that will be raised on appeal we do believe that should the above requested increases be approved, we can handle all of the appeals for approximately $100,000.00. As you know, we have devoted a maximum effort to winning each and every housing case filed against the City of Newport Beach. We have deeply believed in the positions taken by the City and have vigorously litigated each and every issue on its merits as expeditiously as possible. We will continue to do so on appeal and continue to believe the City should again prevail. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER Leonard A. Hampel LAH:Ioh BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 141988 MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Agenda Item No. F -9(a) C, ` 2/7C rch 14, 1 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney RE: Request of Rutan & Tucker for Increase in Fees in Housing Lawsuits On February 23, 1988, 1 advised Len Hampel of the Council's decision in Davis, Garrison and Ortiz, the three housing lawsuits. At the end of our conversation, Len told me he would like the Council to consider an increase in the hourly rate charged by his firm, and I told him to submit a request in writing to the Council. (See copy of letter attached). Rutan & Tucker is asking for an increase of $15 per hour for partner time, and $30 per hour for associate time. The reasons for the request are listed in Len's letter. Approval of the request will not significantly increase the fees on appeal. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the request of Rutan & Tucker for an increase in the rate of fees to be paid for work performed in conjunction with the appeal of any of the three housing lawsuits. RHB /jc bert H. Bur ty Attorney t GARVIN F SMALLENBERGER• JALESR MOO PE• Mc MICN• W� R BIEL• RICHARD A. CU PNUTT• LEONARD A JOHN B. HUK, B U TE JR,• MICHAEL w HELL• MILFORD W. DAM L, JR.• THE O OO RE I. WA LAC E. JR.• RONALD F NGTON• RICHARD F. SIM S• MARSHALL M. RE ARLMAN• ROBERT C. BA...' wOGER A. GRIDLE• EDWARD .. SY A CEKH,J R THOMAS S. SALIN.E.' BARRY A. LAVBSCNEw• ROBERT W RT5 WILLIAM V. SC H MIOi• DAVID C. LARSEN• CLIFFORD E. I IEDCN• ARTHUR G.F MICHAEL D. RUBIN• G. R JEFFREY M COFFMAN• JOSEPH . H STAN WOLC O TT' ROBERT S.B WER- DAVID J ALESHIRE A w CIA A ORSYTH WILLIAM M MARTICORENA JAMES L. MORRIS NNE NELSON LAMPHAR WILLIAM J. CAPLAN MICHAEL T. HO wN AN JANICE L. CELOTTI PHIP D. KOHN JOEL D. KUPERBERG STEVEN A. NICHOLS THOMAS G. BROCKINGTON WILLIAM NDER EVRIDIF I IVICKII DALLAS ANDALL M BBVSH MARY M. GREEN PH IL RIN CE JO MNP LM FELL. WE II DAVID H HOCHN ER DA B. FR ZIER L N POGIUS THOMAS J. CRANE BRUCE A. E.... AMC S J. LITTLE F DUNE WAHLOU35T KATHERINE SON JANET L LACHLAN wl. A. I O M PSON SCOTT R NZONE Y MS.EN RICHARD. MONTEVIDEO DAVID B. COSGROVE RK SMITH FLYNN CAROLS STEVENS LORI I RNER SMITH ,AM, E P ERNE ST W TTE. II ELIZABETH M^COWL" M O. TN OM PRGN JAYNE DANOWSNY TAYLOR RUTH I CISEN JEFFREY WERTHEIMER NS VAN LISTEN MATTHCW H ROSS MICHAEL . D NE R JOHN F PAROSA PATRICIA A DHSC.E ANDREA R. CALEM R V SSELL TYLER, JR. ROBERT O. OwCH BARRY . ADAMS .VOLHERT JEFFREY A. GOLDFARB SANFORD B PATRICK w . ANLY TEO N. RCELL NE S D WELL THOMAS STEVEN W. SPRECHER ROBERT YON. WITZ RONIO JACKSON TNEW P. EEEBERGER MELANIE C. EYRE CHESTER A PU HALSKI KEVIN BRAZIL ROBYN L. MOSMAN YNE Y HR PA EIFE TRICK N. ERTY Mr. Robert Burnham • RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS CENTRAL BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER 611 ANTON BOULEVARD POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628 -1950 February 23, 1988 City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Garrison v. City of Newport Beach Ortiz v. City of Newport Beach Dear Bob: MILFORD W. .AML, SR, A. W. RUTAN IIBBO -19721 JAMES B TUCKER, BP. 115BP.1 PI H. RODGER HOWELL 119x5'19831 TELEPHONE (7I4) 641 -5100 12131 625 -7586 TELECOPIER 17141 5469035 TELEX 910 596-ISS3 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Y14 E CITY ATi FEB 2 w j'y QF ' OO &t CAOP. It has been in excess of two (2) years since I last requested an increase in our fees in the Davis v. City of Newport Beach, et al litigation. We have had only two increases since we first began handling the case in 1980. Those increases were in May of 1984 and January of 1986. Our current rate is $125.00 per hour for partner time and $110.00 per hour for associate time. We now request a composite rate of $140.00 per hour for the Davis and related cases, including the handling of any appeals. The reason we requested a composite rate is that we believe that virtually all of the time in the future will be devoted to appeals and will necessarily be partner time, namely that of either myself or Joel Kuperberg. The use of our time will avoid duplication and necessarily make the handling of the appeals far more efficient. We anticipate the use of very little associate time in the future. Unfortunately, I am now a senior partner litigator in the Public Law Department with the highest in -house design rate of $250.00 per hour. Joel is a middle partner with a design rate of $170.00 per hour. Our proposed composite rate will still be significantly below our rates in the Anaheim s RUTAN & TUCKER • ATTORNEYS AT LAW . v.ar.cvsvw rocwmec vvovcsso +s coo.oa. nos Mr. Robert Burnham February 23, 1988 Page 2 litigation and only slightly above the composite rates charged our retainer clients which will be going from $115.00 per hour to $125.00 per hour beginning with the next fiscal year. We believe the higher composite rate is justified because of the much higher percentage of partner time involved. We believe the discount from our normal design rate will be greater in the Newport Beach litigation than for a typical retainer client. While we do not believe a significant amount of associate time will be used in the future we do believe we can effectively use paralegal time in terms of managing the exhibits and transcripts of the year long Davis trial. Accordingly, we would request a small increase in their rate of from $60.00 to $70.00 per hour. While we cannot anticipate all of the issues that will be raised on appeal we do believe that should the above requested increases be approved, we can handle all of the appeals for approximately $100,000.00. As you know, we have devoted a maximum effort to winning each and every housing case filed against the City of Newport Beach. We have deeply believed in the positions taken by the City and have vigorously litigated each and every issue on its merits as expeditiously as possible. We will continue to do so on appeal and continue to believe the City should again prevail. Thank you for your consideration of this request. LAH:loh 3 Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCK ERRS/ ALeonarA. Hampel / BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEB 24 1986 • Agenda Item No. F -9(c) MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY February 19, 1986 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert H. Burnham, City Attorney RE: Request from Rutan & Tucker for an Increase C -21 7L in Hourly Fee Charged for Legal Services Rutan & Tucker has asked the Council to approve an increase in the hourly rate paid to partners for legal work on the housing lawsuit. (See letter attached). The current rate is $110 per hour and they propose an increase to $125 an hour. By way of comparison, hourly rates charged by outside counsel for airport matters range from $125 an hour to $150 an hour. The rates requested by Rutan & Tucker are reasonable given the experience and ability of the attorneys handling the lawsuit. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the request of Rutan & Tucker to increase the partner billing rates to $125 an hour for legal services performed in the housing lawsuit. !J / Robert H. Burnham City Attorney RHB /jc Attachment LFORD W DAHL• JUDITH WORODWARD G ARVIN F SMALLENBEPGER• M O" P R JAMES R MOORE' AM YNOER w L. IM IM EI ""CO RMICN' Y M GREEN WILLIAM R BIEL• KATHRYN L TOBIN RICHARD A. CURNJTT' Oi KI 1VICAII O LAS LEONARD A STEVEN A NICHOLS JOHN B- H TH ... B G. ... C NINGTO MICw AEL W MELL'R MAURICE SANCHEZ MILFORD W. DAHL.J DALL M BABBVSH T HEOOORE WALLACE. JR.• PEZEN RONALD P INGTON• DAVID M HOCHNER RICHARD P. SIMS• K B. FRA21ER MARSHALL M PEARLMAN• N T RROGIUS ROBERT C. BRAUN' HEATHER A OOD ROGER A. GRASLC' STEVEN i EDWARD O. SYSESMA.JR.' AMELA J JOHNSTONE THOMAS THOMAS S. BALING E R• J. CRANE BARRY R. LAUBSCHER• BRUCE A. EM.RO ROBERT w Al.. RTB NE JENSON DAVID C. LARSEN• NT CEHONEYWELL CLIFFORD E -ERIE DEN• ARTHUR G.N JANET L CLACHLAN MICHAEL O. RUB,.•• DAVID A 1.0. -..H IRA O. RIVIN• CAROL J FLYNN JEFFREY M. OOERMAN• SCOTT R INZONE JOSEPH D. CARRUTH HELEN A ROBICHAUD STAN KNDI OTT' ....RAH S. THOREN ROBERT S. SOWER DIRCR J. EDGE .RCIA A FORSYTH JOHN C. GASTELUM WtLLIA M ARTICORENA RICHARD G. MONTEVIDEO NNE NELSON LANPHAR KAREN L. BUSH LIAM J. LAPLAN DAVID .. COSGROVE MICHAEL T HOPNAN N SMITH FLYNN NICE L. CELOTTI J'O H M WRAY HI LIP O_ ROHN CAROLE STEVENS JOEL O. KUPERB ERG LEE M. STRAUS IAM V. SCHMIDT DAME I. SPENCE E JDAMES L MORRIS LORII9ARNER SMITH .w..HHI EL ... TC .M. JAMES P. FINERTY r� 0 RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A A W RVTANIIBBO --Z AMES B. TUCMER. SR. 11]e B -19 ]OI A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS M M. RODGER HOWELL 11925 IV031 CENTRAL BANK TOWER. SUITE I400 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER January 28, 1986 Mr. Robert Burnham City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Bob: CITY ATTOI?rIfY JAN ]986► CITY OF NEVIPOPT BEACH, "a CALIF. TEL.% 910 59.-1693 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO The billing rates for Rutan & Tucker attorneys were increased effective January 1, 1986 by an average of 5% to 10% per attorney. Most of this increase was occasioned by the catastrophic rise in malpractice insurance (not because of claims against Rutan & Tucker). Accordingly, I would hereby request an increase in partner time on the Davis case from $110.00 to $125.00 an hour. We would propose to retain the $90.00 an hour rate for associates time and $60.00 an hour for paralegal time. We have had only one raise in our rates since we first began handling the Davis case in 1980. That raise occurred in May, 1984 when the partner rate was increased from $90.00 to $110.00. For your information, Joel's design rate within the firm is $135.00 and mine is $215.00. Our composite rate for litigation in the City of Yorba Linda is $110.00 an hour with most cases being handled by associates. The same is true for the McColl litigation involving the City of Fullerton. In the case of the City of Anaheim we are receiving design rate less a small discount of approximately 5 %. F RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW • vmxsssxiv mcwo�xe vxoreswo.•i convo.•noxs Mr. Robert Burnham January 28, 1986 Page Two We know the overall cost of the litigation has been enormous. Nevertheless, we have attempted to be cost conscious and devote no more time to the case than is absolutely necessary. This has involved eliminating virtually all attorneys working on the case other than Joel and myself and associate time for research only when necessary. we anticipate a continued reduction in attorney time whenever possible consistent with presenting the City's case as effective as we can. Thank you for your consideration of this request. As you know, we have tried everything we could to have the case tried several years earlier to avoid the necessity of this increase. If you have any questions, please call at your convenience. LAH:loh R Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER r Leonard A. Hampel 0 BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JAN 23 1964 I J2 ID`) Ll 0 MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY January 17, 1984 Agenda Item No. F 9 (e) To: Hon, Mayor & Member of the City Council From: Robert Burnham - City Attorney Re: Request from Rutan ¢_.,,�ucker.,fo an,.Increase in.the. HtsHriyor Legal Work Performed on Housing Lawsuit On January 9, 1984, this office received a letter from Len Hampel requesting approval of an increase in the hourly rate for legal work performed in Davis v. the City of Newport Beach (housing lawsuit). Mr. Hampel proposes to increase fees from $90 /hr. to $110 /hr. A copy of the letter, which contains the reasons for the request, is attached to this memo. For sake of comparison, O'Donnell & Gordon currently charge $125 /hr. for work performed by Pierce and Steve Pflaum. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the requested increase. RHB /pr Robert H. Burnham City Attorney e2 s RUTAN & T'U(&KER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A FART. ERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS CENTRAL BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER 611 ANTON BOVLEVARO POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 Mr. Robert Burnham City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Bob: January 6, 1984 TELEPHONE (719) 6415100 12131 6251566 IELECOPIER (714) 546-9035 TW. DID 1.6 IB83 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA N REPL'! PLEASE REFER TO mE5 61 iV CKE R.IS BBIS 501 RIO OG ER HOWELL 11R2E19 B31 11..G w. E. 'L, RICN, L. STEARNE' G nRYII: F. 5•r A' -LENBE RG ER• w N A J. CAPLA mES R MOO PE• GAR' m LAIC ly, m.'A MICHAEL _ WILLIAM R, SIEL' NICE L. CELOTH RICHARD A, CURNUT" JVOITH A . . . WAR. •n PEL' .EERY JOHNABO URLOVT. JR.- MICHAEL IN W MELL' •`� LM ARAI I" TMICHAEL [ORE W 0 OEL .. PE RBE9f. THEODORE 1 WALLACE. LACE J ELIZABETH 4 NEALE RONALD P NGTON• LE Y RICHARO P SIMS• MARY M. GREEN MARSHALL M PEARLMAN' 081N EPORT C. E . C. M ARD ROGER A. GRABLE' NEILA R. BERNSTEIN EDWARD O. SYBESm A, J R L R.CA.1 ..S IA THOMAS S. SALINGER• STEVEN NICHOLS BARRY R.L UBSCHER• THOMAS G. BROCx1NGTON DAVID C. LARSEN' M GE., CLIFFORD E. FRIEOEN• MAURECES NCHEE ARTHUR G. ATOM AN• BRUCE H LLEiT MICHAEL O. RVBIN• L ELIOPOULOS A G. 0. ERIC P. NEWMAN JEFFREY M. OOERNAN• AN GALL m. BABBUSH STAN WOLCOT7' CRAIG L A GIE S. .OWE R TIMOTHY G, MCCANN Yi LAWRENCE E. BEETINO' SCOTT O. ROGERS P CIA A FORSYTH DAVIS Y HOCHNER M. AIL-AM MARTICORENA MARA B. [RA 21ER OR CED,W LACE I FROGIUS ROGER H. SE—R. HEATHERA , MAHOOD RO BERT W. ALBERTS GABRIELLE m WIRT H JOSEPH O. CARRVTH STEVEN T. GRAHAM ANE cN e.'ARI1 HON CMAAAR .R s RUTAN & T'U(&KER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A FART. ERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS CENTRAL BANK TOWER, SUITE 1400 SOUTH COAST PLAZA TOWN CENTER 611 ANTON BOVLEVARO POST OFFICE BOX 1950 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 Mr. Robert Burnham City Attorney City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Dear Bob: January 6, 1984 TELEPHONE (719) 6415100 12131 6251566 IELECOPIER (714) 546-9035 TW. DID 1.6 IB83 CABLE ADDRESS RUTAN TUC CSMA N REPL'! PLEASE REFER TO Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Our rate in the above - entitled matter has remained constant since February of 1980, when we were first retained. The composite rate is $90.00 an hour. Because of the complexity of the litigation we have assigned senior people to handle the case. Jeff Oderman and I are the principal partners who have worked on the case and Joel Kuperberg is a Senior Associate. The result has been substantial write offs each month. For example, this last month based on in house . design rates we put in a total of $36,426.00 in time, but only billed the City $26,730.00 based upon our 1980 composite rate. This has become more of a problem as our rates continue to increase and as the demand for senior time in the case also increases. I believe I first mentioned this problem to you sometime in about July of last year. We then decided to hold off because we hoped at that time that settlement was a possibility. As we approach a new year with additional increased design rates internally and as trial approaches, we would now request that the City consider an increase in our composite Z �fTO C-) ti ` 1.1 •`� LM ARAI I" W to My Re: Davis v. City of Newport Beach Our rate in the above - entitled matter has remained constant since February of 1980, when we were first retained. The composite rate is $90.00 an hour. Because of the complexity of the litigation we have assigned senior people to handle the case. Jeff Oderman and I are the principal partners who have worked on the case and Joel Kuperberg is a Senior Associate. The result has been substantial write offs each month. For example, this last month based on in house . design rates we put in a total of $36,426.00 in time, but only billed the City $26,730.00 based upon our 1980 composite rate. This has become more of a problem as our rates continue to increase and as the demand for senior time in the case also increases. I believe I first mentioned this problem to you sometime in about July of last year. We then decided to hold off because we hoped at that time that settlement was a possibility. As we approach a new year with additional increased design rates internally and as trial approaches, we would now request that the City consider an increase in our composite • i RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW rate to $110.00 an hour. This figure would remain substantially below our existing rate schedule. I am painfully aware of the tremendous cost the City has incurred in this litigation not only in terms of attorneys' fees and expert witness fees, but also in terms of staff time. Throughout the litigation the Plaintiffs have shown absolutely no regard for the costs of litigation. Their recent disqualification motion is an example where they are willing to go to the Supreme Court simply in an effort to disqualify a Judge who they themselves wanted. If successful, the educational process involved in a new Judge would further increase the expenses of litigation. They have shown little responsibility concerning the filing of new actions, such as that involving the Brown Act and that involving other developments. In short, we are firmly convinced and have been for some time that part of the Plaintiffs' game plan is to make the litigation as burdensome as possible on the City in terms of expenses as well as commitment of City personnel. we seem, however, to have little choice but to vigorously defend the City and to avoid any intrusion by the Plaintiffs into the City's land use decision making process. If we have learned anything, we have learned these people are not inclined to be reasonable, practical or willing to compromise. We simply have no alternative, but to prevail at trial. In this regard we continue to be optimistic. On the other hand, again the Plaintiffs seem to be doing all they can to avoid going to trial. They continue to pursue extraordinary writs, preliminary injunctions, motions for summary judgment, motions to add new parties, etc., all of which are designed to further drag out the litigation process. We are doing all we can to resist them and to finally get this matter concluded. Forgive me for complaining if that is what it sounds like. I have never enjoyed working with a City and its staff more than I have in this case. The support has been outstanding from every department in the City. We all are totally committed to prevailing in this litigation because the City is right and because that appears to be the only alternative we have in dealing with the Plaintiffs. The case is of tremendous importance and great professional interest 3 RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNEPSxic CON SIS LING 0' PRO1E551ONAL CORPoRA *IONS to everyone in our firm working on it. As a result, I hate to request this increase. Nevertheless, my partners on the Finance Committee keep reminding me of our increased overhead expenses. Let me say in conclusion, we will abide by any decision the staff or City Council will make and will continue to do everything in our power to prevail in this litigation. If you have any questions or I can provide you any additional information, please call at your convenience. LAH:loh N Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER 7 Leonard A. Hampel 40 M •me CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA City Ilan 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Area Code 714 DATE March 31, 1980 T0: FINANCE DIRECTOR FROM: City Clerk SUBJECT: Contract No. 2 3:69 91*70 5 71'11 Description of Contract T,;}{rra{;,y„ Authorized by Resolution No.Cit„ Mma=x , adopted on a Effective date of Contract 3/24/80 Contract with Rutan & Tucker, Attorneys at Law Address 401 Civic center Drive T,'/est, P.O. BM 1976 Santa Ana, California 92702 /mount of Contract see contracts City C1erc 40 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK (714) 640 -2251 March 31, 1980 Ratan & Tucker, Attorneys at Iaw 401 Civic Center Drive Rest P.O. Box.1976 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Re: The Xoll Company v. City of Newport Beach The Roll Oompany v. City of Newport Beach, et al (OCSC 32- 68 -76) Olive Davis v. City of Newport Beach Orange County Superior Court No. 32 95 85 Enclosed are copies of the approved agreements on the .above listed subjects, which have been fully executed.by the Mayor. DORIS GEODE City Clerk . DG:bf encl. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663. I 0 A. W. RUTAN 111.0-1 BTLI JAMES B. T... EX SR. II....... MILFORD IN DAHL GAFF... E. 10M.CN N. ROUSER HOWELL ART... G. RIDMAN JAMES B. TUCKER MICHAEL D. PV BIN GARY IN F. SHALLENBEROEp MARC WINTHROP JAMES R. MOORE IRA G. R I ROBERT L. RIL BEY JEFFREY MN DOERMAN HOMER L..< C O N. ICK. JR. KEISER HO WAR. F HARRISON RUDOLPH C. SHEPARD JAMES 5, ERICKSON E. S. WOLCOTT . WILLIAM R. BIEL ROBERT 6. BOWEP PICH ARO A. C.... TT MARCIA A. FORSYTH LEONARD A. N MPEL WILLIAM M MARTICORENA JOHN S. HURLBUT. JR. THOMAS A. PI %TONE MICHAEL W IMMELL LAWRENCE J. OREYFUSS MILFORD W. DAM L. JR. NNE NELSON LANPHAR THEODORE I. WALLACE JR ERIC G. LIPOFF RICHARD P. SIMS E. KURT YEAGER B N ROBERT C. BRA O RENA C. STONE ROGER A. GRA BLE WILLIAM J. CAPLAN EDWARD O. SYB ESMA, JR. GARY LAPE THOMAS S. SALINGER U IANE L DOUGLAS BARRY N. UBSCMCR I KOHN VIO C. LARSEN JOEL 0. PE gBERG DANIEL K. WINTON ELIZABETH A. NEALE RUTAN & TUCKER ATTORNEYS AT LAW WELLS'FARGO BANK BUILDING 401 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST POST OFFICE BOX 1978 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 TELECOPIER (714) 658 -1666 (714) 839T2200 March 7, 1980 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 0 NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE .10 NEWPORT CENSER OR" , SVIT£ 9DO POST OFFICE BOA 1]69 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 TELCCOPIER 471.1 169 -8993 47191 169 -0533 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO C'.1 'I MAR 11 1980 s CITY OF �.:�. NEWP07T BEACH \L� CALIF. Re: olive Davis v. City of Newport Beach Orange County Superior Court No. 32 95 85 Gentlemen: We are writing this letter as a written memorandum of agreement under which we are to represent the City of Newport Beach in connection with the above - entitled litigation. We are prepared to represent the City of Newport Beach in this matter for a composite rate of $90.00 per hour with monthly billings. Costs, such as filing fees, process service fees, reproduction costs, title company fees, reporter's fees, long distance telephone calls and travel would be billed separately. If the foregoing is agreeable and acceptable to you, please present it to the City Council for approval and return an executed copy of this agreement to the undersigned. If you desire any changes, please contact us at your earliest convenience. LAH:loh Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER --L/ eo and A. � � el RUTAN & TUCKER 40 ATTORNEYS AT LAW The foregoing is agreed to: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BY: Mayor v DATE: ATTEST: DORIS (MOR(M City Clerk 40