LA Council Watch

← All files

Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson and Haluck, LLP

Council File 26-1297

Under review — the City Attorney is seeking council approval to let a law firm represent LA in one lawsuit while that same firm represents the county transit authority in two other cases against the city, arguing the cases are unrelated enough to waive the conflict. It's waiting for the Budget and Finance Committee to weigh in.

Introduced
2026-09-09
Last changed
2026-09-10
Status
open
Expires
2028-09-09
Committee
Budget and Finance Committee
Initiated by
City Attorney
References
City Attorney Report: R26-0511

Brief

The City Attorney has submitted a document dated September 9, 2026, regarding the law firm Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson and Haluck, LLP. The specific purpose—whether for contract approval, legal services authorization, or settlement—is not detailed in the available activity log. The matter was referred to the Budget and Finance Committee on September 10 and remains pending there. No council action has been taken.

Full summary

City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto is asking the City Council to authorize a conflict of interest waiver so that the law firm Koeller, Nebeker, Carlson and Haluck, LLP can represent the City of Los Angeles in the lawsuit David B. Leichenger v. City of Los Angeles. The firm's involvement is possible because a client's insurance company has accepted tender, meaning the insurer is stepping in to fund the City's legal defense through the firm. The conflict arises because the firm simultaneously represents the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) in two other active cases where the City has filed cross-complaints against LACMTA: Sarah Jane Gage v. City of Los Angeles et al. and Japanese American National Museum v. City of Los Angeles. Under Rule 1.7 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, a firm cannot represent a client whose interests are directly adverse to another current client without obtaining informed written consent from both parties. The firm disclosed the conflict by letter on August 28, 2026, triggering this waiver process. The City Attorney's office, through Assistant Chief of Civil Litigation Dikran H. Sassounian, concludes that the conflict can be waived because the Leichenger litigation is entirely unrelated to the Gage and JANM cases, involving separate facts and legal issues. The office recommends the Council approve the waiver and authorize the City Attorney to execute it in writing. The report was submitted September 9, 2026, and referred to the Budget and Finance Committee the following day. The file remains open and pending committee review, with no council floor action yet taken.

Activity (2)

  • 2026-09-10 City Attorney document(s) referred to Budget and Finance Committee.
  • 2026-09-09 Document submitted by City Attorney, dated September 9, 2026.

Documents (1)

View on CFMS →