Pappas on Hook for Farr’s Legal Fees

In a somewhat surprising decision that aligns with a new opinion recently rendered by the California Supreme Court, an appellate court said Tuesday that Doreen Farr is entitled to recoup attorney’s fees from Steve Pappas, who had sued her in order to dispute the results of the 2008 election for 3rd District Supervisor. The same court in October had denied an appeal from Pappas contesting the election. The decision means Farr will at least get back a good chunk of the money she paid to defend herself against the suit from Pappas. Originally, Farr wasn’t terribly optimistic the appellate court would agree with her argument, but the ruling (which was actually issued past the court-mandated 90-day deadline) came as an early Christmas gift.

At the Superior Court level in 2009, Judge William McLafferty found Farr met two out of the three necessary conditions to be awarded attorney’s fees under the Code of Civil Procedure, but failed to meet the requirements of the last — that her action imposed a financial burden that was out of proportion to her personal stake in the outcome. McLafferty (who has since passed away) noted at the time that Farr’s campaign raised money that exceeded the annual salary and attorney’s fees in the case, and that “[c]learly the value of the office of Third District Supervisor is not the annual salary. Public office involves non-pecuniary interests of the office holder and his/her supporters that the court must consider in this context.” In denying Farr, McLafferty relied on a history of cases where the court considered nonmonetary interests.

However, the state Supreme Court — in the midst of Farr’s appeal — made a ruling in another case saying that the court may not use a person’s nonmonetary interests to disqualify him or her from recovering attorney’s fees. Instead, the state’s highest court said in Conservatorship of Whitley that courts must look at the financial burdens and incentives in bringing the lawsuit. Based on that opinion, the Court of Appeal weighed Farr’s personal financial benefit — she makes $84,500 a year while her attorney’s fees are in excess of $250,000 — with the cost of litigation and found that, as a matter of law, she is entitled to attorney’s fees.