Violation Of Due Process? One Lawyer In Firm Represents Police Department While Another Advises City Council. Result?

A police officer once dated a woman who lives at an apartment complex which has a pool and Jacuzzi behind a locked gate. Seven or eight years after the relationship ended, he was spotted using the Jacuzzi by the woman he once dated. She called the police, and the police officer told the investigating officer he was visiting his girlfriend, implying he did not understand why the police had been called. He left. Another woman resident of the complex told police the previous March she saw the police officer masturbating in the Jacuzzi. Internal Affairs found the police officer violated various provisions of the police department’s policies and procedures by trespassing, committing a lewd act in public and engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer. He was terminated. The police officer requested an advisory arbitration. At the arbitration, the police department was represented by a lawyer. The advisory opinion was that the police officer’s termination should be converted into a suspension without pay or benefits. At that point, the City Council asked another lawyer from the same law firm to be its legal advisor. The law firm “implemented an ethical wall” between the two lawyers. The police officer objected “to attorneys from the same firm acting as an advocate for the Department and as a legal advisor to the City Council.” The City Council thereafter rejected the recommendation the termination be converted into a suspension. The police officer filed an administrative writ in court arguing he was denied due process of law. The superior court denied the writ petition, and the appellate court reversed, stating:  “We hold that when a partner in a law firm represents a department within a city at an advisory arbitration regarding a personnel matter, and when the city’s decision-making body later reviews that arbitrator’s award for confirmation or rejection, the principles of due process prohibit the decision maker from being advised on the matter by a different partner from the same law firm.” Sabey v. City of Pomona  (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 2; April 16, 2013) (Case No. B239916).