gibson dunn

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday approved a fivefold increase to its contract with a law firm that drew heated criticism for the invoices it submitted in a high-stakes homelessness case.

Three months ago, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher billed the city $1.8 million for two weeks of legal work, with 15 of its attorneys billing nearly $1,300 per hour. By Aug. 8, the cost of the firm’s work had jumped to $3.2 million.

The price tag infuriated some on the council, who pointed out that they had approved a three-year contract capped at $900,000 — and specifically had asked for regular updates on the case.

Despite those concerns, the council voted 10-3 Wednesday to increase the firm’s contract to nearly $5 million for the current fiscal year, which ends in June 2026. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky supported the move, saying Gibson Dunn’s work has been “essential to protecting the city’s interests.”

“At the same time, we put new oversight in place to ensure any additional funding requests come back to council before more money is allocated,” said Yaroslavsky, who heads the council’s budget committee.

Councilmembers Tim McOsker, Adrin Nazarian and Nithya Raman voted against the contract increase.

McOsker, who also sits on the budget committee, said he was not satisfied with Gibson Dunn’s effort to scale back the amount it is charging the city. After the council asked for the cost to be reduced, the firm shaved $210,000 off of the bill, he said.

“I think Gibson should have given up more, and should have been pressed to give up more,” McOsker said after the vote.

A Gibson Dunn attorney who heads up the team that represents the city did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile, an aide to City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto welcomed the council’s vote.

“We are pleased that the City Council recognizes and appreciates the strong legal representation that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has provided and continues to provide to the city,” said Karen Richardson, a spokesperson for Feldstein Soto, in a statement.

Gibson Dunn was retained by the city in mid-May, one week before a major hearing in the case filed by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a nonprofit group that has been at odds with the city over its handling of the homelessness crisis since 2020.

The city reached a settlement with the L.A. Alliance in 2022, agreeing to create 12,915 homeless shelter beds or other housing opportunities. Since then, the L.A. Alliance has repeatedly accused the city of failing to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.

In May, a federal judge overseeing the settlement called a seven-day hearing to determine whether he should take authority over the city’s homelessness programs from Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council, and hand them over to a third party. Alliance lawyers said during those proceedings that they wanted to call Bass and two council members to testify.

In the run-up to that hearing, the city hired Gibson Dunn, a powerhouse law firm that secured a landmark Supreme Court ruling that upheld laws prohibiting homeless people from camping in public spaces.

Feldstein Soto has praised Gibson Dunn’s work in the L.A. Alliance case, saying the firm helped the city retain control over its homelessness programs, while also keeping Bass and the two council members off the stand. She commended the firm for getting up to speed on the settlement, mastering a complex set of policy matters within a week.

Feldstein Soto initially hoped to increase the size of the Gibson Dunn contract to nearly $6 million through 2027 — only to be rebuffed by council members unhappy with the billing situation. On Wednesday, at the recommendation of the council’s budget committee, the council signed off on nearly $5 million over one year.

A portion of that money will likely go toward the filing of an appeal of a federal judge’s order in the LA Alliance case, Feldstein Soto said in a memo.

Faced with lingering criticism from council members, Feldstein Soto agreed to help with the cost of the Gibson Dunn contract, committing $1 million from her office’s budget. The council also tapped $4 million from the city’s “unappropriated balance,” an account for funds that have not yet been allocated.

By transferring the money to the Gibson Dunn contract, the council depleted much of the funding that would have gone to outside law firms over the current budget year, said McOsker, who called the move “bad fiscal management.”

Raman, who heads the council’s homelessness committee, said her dissenting vote wasn’t about the price of the services charged by Gibson Dunn, but rather the fact that so much was spent without council approval.

“As someone who is watching that money very closely, I was frustrated,” she said. “So my ‘no’ vote was based on that frustration.”

The Los Angeles City Council stopped short on Wednesday of giving another $5 million to a law firm hired to defend the city in a long running homelessness case, sending the question to a committee for additional vetting.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto had asked the council to provide a nearly sixfold increase in her office’s contract with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, taking the cost up to $5.9 million.

The council voted in May to provide Gibson Dunn $900,000 for up to three years of work. Over the following three months, the law firm blew way past that amount, racking up $3.2 million in bills.

“Obviously, we are not happy, and not ready to pay that bill that we didn’t bargain for,” said Councilmember Bob Blumenfield. “We were supposed to have been notified when they were exceeding that amount. It’s written in the contract that we were supposed to be notified at different levels. We were not notified.”

On Wednesday, after meeting behind closed doors for more than 90 minutes, the council sent Feldstein Soto’s request to the powerful budget committee for more review.

Blumenfield, who sits on that committee, did not offer a timeline for taking up Feldstein Soto’s request. However, he said he wants the city attorney to go back to Gibson Dunn to ensure that “taxpayers are better served.”

The L.A. Alliance sued in 2020, saying the city was doing too little to move people homeless people indoors and address the concentration of encampments in Skid Row and elsewhere. The group eventually reached a settlement with the city that required, among other things, the construction of homeless housing beds and the removal of encampments.

As part of the settlement, the city must provide 12,915 homeless beds or other housing opportunities, such as rental vouchers, by June 2027. L.A. also must remove 9,800 homeless encampments, such as tents or recreational vehicles, by June 2026.

Lawyers for the L.A. Alliance contend the city has repeatedly fallen short of the obligations spelled out in the settlement. In May, the group attempted to persuade U.S. Dist. Judge David O. Carter to seize control over the city’s homeless initiatives and turn them over to a third-party receiver.

Gibson Dunn waged an aggressive defense of the city’s actions, issuing hundreds of objections and working to undermine key witness testimony.

Carter ultimately rejected the request to appoint a receiver, but also concluded that the city had breached the settlement agreement in several ways.

Feldstein Soto did not immediately comment on the council’s action. She has previously praised the law firm, saying through a spokesperson that it “delivered exceptional results and seamless representation.”

The city is now planning to appeal portions of the judge’s order. Feldstein Soto said some of the additional $5 million would go toward work on that appeal, with Gibson Dunn representing the city through June 2027, according to a confidential memo reviewed by The Times.

In her memo, Feldstein Soto commended Gibson Dunn for preserving the city’s control over its homeless programs and preventing several elected officials from being ordered to testify.

Blumenfield also offered praise for Gibson Dunn, saying he appreciates the firm’s “good work for the city.” Nevertheless, he also wants Feldstein Soto to look for ways of cutting costs.

“Sending it to committee sends a message — which is, we don’t like what was put before us for lots of reasons,” he said.

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney representing the L.A. Alliance, said after the meeting that he was “heartened that the city didn’t give this misadventure a blank check.”

“I’m hopeful the City Council committee scrutinizes this,” he said, “and asks the important question of whether spending $6 million on an outside firm to avoid accountability is a good use of taxpayer funds.”

The high-powered law firm that racked up big bills working to keep the city of Los Angeles from losing control over its homeless programs is now looking to increase its contract by $5 million.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto has asked the City Council to increase the city’s contract with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP to $5.9 million, up from the $900,000 approved three months ago, according to a confidential memo she sent to council members.

Gibson Dunn has been defending the city since mid-May in a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Alliance for L.A. Human Rights, which resulted in a settlement agreement requiring the construction of new homeless housing and the removal of street encampments. The L.A. Alliance alleges that the city has repeatedly violated the agreement.

The Times reported last month that Gibson Dunn billed the city $1.8 million for about two weeks of work, with 15 attorneys charging $1,295 per hour and others charging lower amounts.

By Aug. 8, Gibson Dunn had racked up $3.2 million in billings in the case, according to the city attorney’s memo, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times. Those invoices arrived during a difficult financial period for the city, caused in part by a surge in expensive legal payouts.

Much of the firm’s work was focused on its preparation for, and participation in, a lengthy hearing before a federal judge who was weighing the Alliance’s request to hand control over the city’s homeless initiatives to a third party.

Gibson Dunn was retained by the city one week before the hearing, which lasted seven court days, at eight or more hours per day.

“The evidentiary hearing was more extensive than anticipated, with the plaintiffs calling more than a dozen witnesses and seeking to compel City officials to testify,” Feldstein Soto wrote in her memo.

Feldstein Soto’s office did not immediately respond to inquiries from The Times. But the city attorney has been outspoken in defending Gibson Dunn’s work, saying the firm kept the city’s homeless initiatives from being turned over to a receiver — a move that would have stripped authority from Bass and the City Council.

Gibson Dunn also prevented several elected officials — a group that includes Bass — from having to take the stand, Feldstein Soto said in her memo.

City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez said she would vote against a request to spend another $5 million on Gibson Dunn. That money would be better spent on ensuring the city complies with its legal obligations in the case, which include the construction of 12,915 homeless beds and the removal of 9,800 encampments, she said.

Rodriguez, who also voted against the initial round of funding for Gibson Dunn, said $5 million would be enough to cover “time limited” housing subsidies for at least 500 households in her northeast San Fernando Valley district for an entire year.

“At the end of the day, we’re here to house people,” she said. “So let’s spend the resources housing them, rather than being in a protracted legal battle.”

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney who represents the L.A. Alliance, called the request for nearly $6 million “ludicrous,” saying the city should focus on compliance with the settlement agreement.

“Gibson is a very good firm. Lawyers cost money. I get it,” he said. “But the city has hundreds of capable lawyers, and the notion that they need to spend this kind of money to prevent a court from holding them to their obligations and their promises, it raises real questions about the decision-making in the city on this issue.”

“For a city that claims to be in fiscal crisis, this is nonsense,” Umhofer added.

In her memo, Feldstein Soto said the additional $5 million would cover Gibson Dunn’s work in the case through June 2027, when the city’s legal settlement with the L.A. Alliance is set to expire.

During that period, Gibson Dunn would appeal an order by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, arguing that the judge “reinterpreted” some of the city’s obligations under the settlement agreement, Feldstein Soto said in her memo. The law firm would also seek to “reform” the settlement agreement, Feldstein Soto said.

Theane Evangelis, an attorney with Gibson Dunn who led the team assigned to the L.A. Alliance case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Her firm has played a huge role in redefining the way cities are permitted to address homelessness.

Representing Grants Pass, Ore., the firm secured a landmark ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court upholding laws that prohibit homeless people from camping in public spaces.

The firm brought a new, more pugnacious approach to the L.A. Alliance case, issuing hundreds of objections throughout the seven-day hearing and working to undermine the credibility of key witnesses.

A month later, Carter issued a 62-page order declining to turn L.A.’s homeless programs over to a third party. However, he also found that the city had failed to comply with the settlement agreement.

Feldstein Soto said the additional $5 million would allow the firm to carry out its work through June 2027, when the Alliance settlement is scheduled to expire.

Gibson Dunn’s legal team would continue to pursue the city’s appeal while also helping to produce the quarterly reports that are required by the settlement agreement.

A high-profile law firm representing the city of Los Angeles in a sweeping homelessness case submitted an $1.8-million invoice for two weeks of work in May, according to records reviewed by The Times.

The invoice from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP comes as the city is already under serious financial pressure, caused in part by rapidly growing legal payouts.

With at least 15 of Gibson Dunn’s lawyers billing at nearly $1,300 per hour, the price tag so far equates to just under $140,000 per day over a 13-day period.

Gibson Dunn, while representing the city of Grants Pass, Ore., recently secured a landmark ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld laws barring homeless encampments in public spaces.

Los Angeles officials retained the law firm in May, roughly a week before a seven-day evidentiary hearing to determine whether control over the city’s homelessness programs should be taken away from Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council and turned over to a third-party receiver.

A month later, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter issued a scathing ruling, saying the city failed to adhere to the terms of a three-year-old settlement agreement with the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, which calls for the creation of 12,915 homeless beds or other housing opportunities by June 2027.

Still, Carter also concluded that “this is not the time” to hand control of the city’s roughly $1 billion in homelessness programs to a third party.

Matthew Umhofer, an attorney representing the Alliance, said the city paid big money to Gibson Dunn in a failed attempt to wriggle out of its legal obligations.

“The city should be spending this money on complying with the agreement, and/or providing services to the people who need them,” he said. “Instead, they are paying a law firm to fight tooth and nail against obligations that are clear in the settlement agreement — and that a judge has affirmed they are in violation of.”

The invoice, which The Times obtained from the city attorney’s office, lists a billing period from May 19 to May 31, covering a week of preparations for the high-stakes federal hearing, as well as four of the seven trial days — each of which typically lasted eight or more hours.

Theane Evangelis, head of the Gibson Dunn team representing the city, referred questions about the invoice to the city attorney’s office.

Karen Richardson, a spokesperson for City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, said in a statement that Gibson Dunn “did an outstanding job of stepping into a crucial matter that had been in litigation for nearly 5 years before they were hired,” compressing “what would normally be years worth of work into a very short time period.”

“We are grateful for their service and are in the process of reviewing the expenditures … to ensure that we go back to Council with a complete picture of what was done and charged,” she said in a statement.

The city retained Gibson Dunn just as council members were signing off on hundreds of employee layoffs, part of a larger strategy for closing a nearly $1-billion budget shortfall. The first batch of layoff notices was scheduled to go out this week.

The City Council initially appropriated $900,000 for Gibson Dunn, for a period not exceeding three years, according to the firm’s contract. Going over $900,000 required prior written approval from the city attorney, according to the contract.

The law firm quickly surpassed that threshold, eventually billing double the specified amount.

During the seven-day hearing, Gibson Dunn took a highly aggressive posture, voicing numerous objections to questions from attorneys representing the Alliance, as well as two organizations that intervened in the case.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who serves on the council’s homelessness committee, said the city attorney’s office did not advise him that Gibson Dunn’s legal costs had reached $1.8 million in such a short period. Blumenfield, who represents part of the San Fernando Valley, said he is “not happy” but is reserving further comment until he receives more specifics.

Three months ago, Blumenfield co-authored a motion with Councilmember Tim McOsker seeking regular updates on the Alliance litigation — both from Gibson Dunn and the city attorney’s office.

McOsker, who serves on the budget committee and spent several years running the city attorney’s office, also did not receive notification of the Gibson Dunn $1.8-million invoice from the city’s legal team, according to Sophie Gilchrist, his spokesperson.

Gilchrist said her boss had asked for regular updates to “prevent any surprises in billing” related to the Alliance case.

“That’s why the Councilmember is requesting that this matter be brought to City Council immediately, so the City Attorney can provide a full accounting and discuss all invoices related to the case,” she said.

Gibson Dunn has filed a notice of the city’s intent to appeal at least portions of Carter’s ruling, which ordered a third-party monitor to review and verify the data being produced by the city on its housing and encampment goals.

Carter signaled that he probably would order the city to pay the legal fees of the Alliance and homeless advocacy groups that have intervened in the case. So far, the Alliance has sought $1.3 million from the city to cover its legal expenses incurred since April 2024.

In a statement to The Times earlier this week, Evangelis, the Gibson Dunn lawyer, cited the judge’s “suggestion that the Alliance may recover attorneys’ fees” as one reason for the appeal.

“The City believes that its resources should be spent providing services to those in need, not redirected to the Alliance’s lawyers — particularly when the district court has rejected most of their arguments,” she said.

WASHINGTON —  Theodore B. Olson, the conservative attorney who helped win the right to gay marriage in California, died Wednesday at age 84.

Olson was a good-spirited and gracious advocate who won landmark conservative rulings from the Supreme Court.

They included the Bush vs. Gore decision that made George W. Bush the president, and the Citizens United ruling that struck down the bans on campaign spending.

Four years ago, he represented so-called Dreamers in a Supreme Court immigration case and won a 5-4 ruling that blocked the first Trump administration from repealing protection for the young immigrants who came to this country with their parents.

Olson surprised many when he agreed to lead the challenge to California’s Proposition 8 and its ban on same-sex marriages.

“I wanted to convey the message that this was not Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, that this is about human rights and human decency,” he said in an interview with The Times.

Olson sued on behalf of two gay couples, and Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that it was unconstitutional discrimination to deny them the right to marry.

The proponents of the proposition appealed, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that they did not represent the state and had no standing.

While the decision was procedural, it cleared the way for same-sex couples to marry in California. Two years later, the court ruled that the Constitution protected gay marriages nationwide.

He said he lost some conservative friends at the time who were no longer willing to join him for lunch or come to his house for dinner.

The case “changed my life a lot. When I talk about it, I get very emotional,” Olson said.

Just last week, California voters formally removed Proposition 8 from the state Constitution and enshrined the right to marry.

Olson was born in Chicago in 1940 and grew up in Mountain View, Calif.

He was a law student at UC Berkeley in 1964, where he said he was one of the only students who supported Republican Barry Goldwater in his losing race for the presidency.

In 1980, Olson was an attorney at Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles when Ronald Reagan was elected president.

Reagan chose William French Smith, a Gibson Dunn partner, as U.S. attorney general. Smith then chose Olson to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Olson would later represent Reagan as his personal attorney after he left the White House.

In 1984, he left the administration and helped set up Gibson Dunn office in Washington.

For next 40 years, he worked there, except for a four-year stint as U.S. solicitor general representing the Bush administration.
He argued 60 cases before the Supreme Court as both a private advocate and government attorney.

“Ted has been the heart and soul of Gibson Dunn for six decades and made us who we are today,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., partner at Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles who regularly collaborated with Olson on major cases. “He was not just an incomparable lawyer, mentor, role model, and friend, but he has made immeasurable contributions to the rule of law, our Constitution, and our country. We will miss him with all our hearts.”

The Bush vs. Gore case played out in five days in early December 2000. Olson filed an emergency appeal seeking to halt the recount of untabulated paper ballots in Florida. He said that because there were no agreed-upon standards for deciding when a defective ballot could be counted, the result would differ county by county.

At midday on a Saturday, the court granted his appeal by a 5-4 vote and agreed to hold a hearing on Monday. Late that Tuesday evening, the court ended the Florida recount in an unsigned opinion with four dissents.

Upon taking office, Bush chose Olson to represent his administration before the court.

Olson was in his Justice Department office early on Sept. 11, 2001, when he got a call from his wife, Barbara. She had boarded an American Airlines flight to Los Angeles that was hijacked. A few minutes later, the call cut off. The plane had crashed into the Pentagon, killing all aboard.

He said he believed he was fortunate to have a busy legal career as well as many friends to get through the grief.

He later remarried, and his wife, Lady Booth Olson, was a Democrat and more liberal. She said the gay marriage case had changed him.

“When you look at discrimination in the face — these people who got up and testified for hours about what it’s like to be denied the right to marry, it’s transformative,” she said in a 2013 interview with The Times. “I think he’s starting to open his mind and hear a little bit more than he used to.”