Brea officials extended their contract with a law firm after one city council member and the city’s elected treasurer have spent the past year calling out what they view as a $200,000 overbilling for travel time for legal counsel to drive in from Los Angeles.
Councilmember Steven Vargas and City Treasurer Denise Eby have been ringing alarm bells over the alleged overcharges since last summer, when Eby gave a presentation to the council outlining what she claimed is overbilling for travel time that isn’t allowed in the contract.
During last night’s city council meeting, officials voted 4-1 for Richards, Watson & Gershon to continue to provide legal services for the city until Oct. 1, 2027, when leaders are expected to review the contract again. Vargas voted no.
Leaders did make some updates to the contract, including adding explicit language about billing for travel time that was meant to address the alleged overbilling issue.
That was the recommendation of Sonia Carvalho, special legal counsel the city hired to specifically review the alleged overbilling dispute.
Carvalho, also the city attorney for Santa Ana, told Brea council members that there was a “missed opportunity” to be more explicit about travel time billing over the past several years, but her recommendation was to clean up the contract moving forward.
“I think there were some missed opportunities by both parties to have addressed this travel issue,” Carvalho told council during last night’s meeting. “ But I don’t think we should look back.”
She also said the city likely wouldn’t prevail in any legal action against the firm to try and get the alleged overbilled funds back.
“I think my legal advice to you is, I don’t think you will prevail if you were to seek a breach of contract case against the law firm,” Carvalho continued. “I don’t think a third party claim will prevail. If you want to move forward, I strongly recommend that you adopt the agreement that I was asked to prepare and that I placed before you. It is explicit as to travel time, modernizes a number of provisions and I think would resolve this issue once and for all.”
Did Brea’s City Attorney Overbill $200k?
Brea is one of a handful of Orange County cities that have an elected treasurer. Eby was elected in 2024 for a four-year term.
According to a July 30, 2025 report from Eby, she claimed the law firm had overbilled Brea $195,639.50 for unauthorized travel time since 2016.
The report said that Brea hasn’t issued a formal request for legal services since before 1977 and recommended that the city seek recovery for the approximately $200,000 in addition to terminating their contract and putting out a new call for legal services.
“During periodic reviews of the monthly warrant registers, charges were discovered for travel time by at least seven different contracted lawyers,” reads the report from last summer.
“These have been billed at a rate of $180-$230 per hour to attend meetings for City Council, Development, and/or Leadership Team. Travel charges are specifically excluded from both Legal Services Agreements since at least 2004. Generally, the City is being charged for two (2) hours of travel time for every meeting the attorney attends.”
The law firm sent the city a letter in February that denied all allegations.
“RWG has been transparent about our practice of billing for travel time when attorneys based in another office are required to travel to Brea to attend meetings at City Hall,” reads that letter. “That practice is consistent with legal industry standards and historically has never been controversial.”
The city had a longtime relationship with their attorney James Markman since 1977 before transitioning to the Richards, Watson & Gershon law firm. Markman stepped down as city attorney in 2018 when his colleagues from RWG took over legal services for Brea. Terence Boga has served primarily as city attorney since then.
While Markman lived close to town, Boga and other contract lawyers drive in from Los Angeles.
There was an amendment to the city’s legal services agreement when Markman stepped down, and while it didn’t specifically mention travel time billing, it included a reduced billable hour rate that staff said was meant to address the travel time issue.
Carvalho said the court would likely see that amendment, which was approved by the city council at a public meeting, as evidence that there were conversations and attempts to resolve the travel time dispute in public.
“The issue was never hidden from the public. It was raised at a public meeting,” Carvalho said at the meeting.
“Your appointed city manager… had conversations with the law firm and they came up with a solution. And they didn’t do that in a vacuum,” she continued. “They actually documented it in an agreement [and] brought it forward to the city council. From what I could tell, it involved a reduced billable hour rate. I can presume from that that that was to reflect the travel time, and it was presented to the city council and it was approved. There was no public opposition to it.”
Boga said he had a conversation with former City Manager Bill Gallardo about lowering his billing rate to compensate for travel time costs.
“The way the contract was written when I took over for Mr. Markman at the beginning of 2019, Mr. Gallardo had me coming to the weekly staff meetings at that time. That was being billed at the higher rate,” Boga said.
“I actually proposed this to Bill at the time — because we all knew that I was coming from Los Angeles for those weekly meetings — we proposed and the council ultimately approved a change of the contract to lower the rate to add the travel attendance at these staff meetings at the lower rate.”
Vargas, who successfully sued the city over how ballot arguments are written before he was elected to the city council, said that this billing dispute should still be pursued in court.
There’s also a lease agreement for the law firm to use office space in city hall that’s still under negotiation and hasn’t appeared in front of the council for discussion yet.
Councilmembers said they expect to put out a call for proposals from law firms — a process known as an RFP — when the contract expires next October.
“[An RFP is] something that is time consuming for all involved and needs to be done properly,” Councilmember Christine Marick said at the meeting. “So I think we need to allow sufficient time for such a process if we want to do it correctly and have a proper outcome.”
Carvalho emphasized that the city missed an opportunity to be more clear on this issue years ago.
“I don’t want anyone to get the impression that I am somehow defending these actions,” Carvalho said. “I think it should have been addressed when there was the transition, but unfortunately it wasn’t. That doesn’t mean that anyone did anything fraudulent.”
She also recommended language to add the contract that says all parties acknowledge that all billing or payment disputes are resolved as of the effective date of the agreement. That was part of the council’s vote last night.
The council is expected to review the law firm’s lease agreement at a future meeting.
Mark Strom, a Brea resident who’s become critical of the council in recent history, said it’s time for a fresh legal perspective in Brea, adding an RFP will be a positive step.
“Why are you trying to renew a contract under these circumstances? After 58 years, isn’t it entirely reasonable — in fact, responsible — to go out to bid and evaluate other options?” he said at the meeting.
“I believe it is time for a new law firm. I request that you think independently and vote for a fresh legal perspective in Brea.”
Angelina Hicks is the Voice of OC Collegiate News Service Editor. Contact her at ahicks@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @angelinahicks13.
