A Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury report has recommended that the civilian commission overseeing the Sheriff’s Department seek independent legal representation, stating the County Counsel’s office is obstructing its watchdog function.
The Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission has frequently clashed with the Office of the County Counsel, whose attorneys also advise the Sheriff's Department. These conflicts have arisen as county counsel lawyers have advised the Sheriff’s Department to disregard the commission's subpoenas. The grand jury's June report supports the commission's desire for external legal counsel to effectively carry out its oversight responsibilities, noting that county counsel may be conflicted in representing the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff's Department, and the oversight commission simultaneously.
The oversight commission has initiated a lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Department to compel the release of three confidential use-of-force reports. To represent its interests in this legal battle, the commission has enlisted the pro bono assistance of Robert Bonner and Sean Kennedy, former chairs of the commission and experienced attorneys. According to the lawsuit, attorneys from L.A. County have repeatedly hindered the commission's oversight efforts, directing the Sheriff’s Department not to provide confidential documents requested by the commission.
Hans Johnson, chair of the commission, asserted that county counsel has actively sought to undermine, suppress, and intimidate the commission's lawful execution of its duties since it began rigorously enforcing its subpoenas. The commission was established in 2016 by the county Board of Supervisors following a jail abuse scandal, with the mandate to provide civilian oversight of the department. Johnson emphasized that the grand jury's finding validates the commission's concerns about the conflicted nature of county counsel's representation.
The Office of County Counsel, in a statement, maintained that its office is exclusively responsible for providing legal representation to all county entities as stipulated by the county charter. They argued that a conflict of interest cannot exist because the legal advice provided to sub-entities like the oversight commission is not a separate attorney-client relationship but rather advice to the Board of Supervisors. Johnson dismissed this explanation as "laughable."
The ongoing legal dispute centers on the Sheriff’s Department's refusal to release unredacted records related to several incidents, including a fatal shooting. Sheriff Robert Luna confirmed at a commission meeting that the department was withholding these reports based on advice from county attorneys, who cited a requirement to "meet and confer" with the Sheriff’s union before releasing such documents. The commission, however, contends that recent laws and court rulings, including Measure R granting subpoena powers and Assembly Bill 847 allowing oversight bodies to review confidential law enforcement records in closed session, empower them to access these records without union consultation, while maintaining confidentiality.
