Court Opinion

ID: 9546535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:31:46.396159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:35.560178
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J., dissenting.
The conclusion of my associates that the contract sued upon in this ease “is binding upon the municipality and may not be summarily canceled by a successor council” is rested upon decisions which, in my opinion, are not determinative of the question. Generally speaking, in the exercise of its business or proprietary power, the power of a board to make a contract binding over a term of years depends upon the subject matter, and the courts and text writers recognize, as being in a special category, those relating to personal services, particularly those of a confidential nature. No case has been cited in the majority opinion, or by counsel, upholding a contract with an attorney for a period of time beyond the terms of office of the members of the employing board, and the only decision in this state, except one in which the authority of a school board to employ a superintendent was challenged, concerned the right of an engineer to recover from a county upon a contract to extend a bridge. (Cope v. County of Sutter, 206 Cal. 445 [274 P. 750].)
In most jurisdictions, the rule has been adopted that where a contract of employment, by its terms extends beyond the term of the appointing municipal body, and the services to be *600rendered are subject to the supervision of that body, the contract is invalid. The courts of a few states follow the so-called minority rule, holding that, in legal contemplation, the new board is the one that entered into the contract. Under these decisions, unless the agreement is unreasonable it cannot be rescinded except for cause. (See cases collected in 70 A.L.R. 794, 802.) But the courts which follow the minority rule do not apply it to contracts providing for the employment of an attorney. They recognize the confidential relationship of attorney and client and hold that a municipal board should be free to select its counsel.
There are many reasons of public policy why an attorney’s contract for professional services to be rendered beyond the term of the board which selected him should not be enforced against a sucessor body which is dissatisfied with his efforts. Subsequently elected public officers are directly responsible to the people for the conduct of the municipal affairs, and in performing their duties, it is of the utmost importance that they should have the right to select the lawyer who is to carry out their plans and purposes. The very reason for a change in personnel of a city council may be the electors’ dissatisfaction with the manner in which the person employed to perform such special services has conducted the municipal business. To hold that the new council is required to retain that person because of the action of its predecessor in entering into a contract with him, may seriously interfere with the exercise of a discretion which the members of the governing body should be permitted to employ in its conduct of the city’s affairs. Moreover, if the attorney was engaged on a contingent basis, the subsequently elected officials may decide to allow him to continue representation of the city’s interests, regardless of their lack of confidence in him, rather than risk criticism by incurring an obligation to pay fees for services not completed.
It should also be kept in mind that, under circumstances such as are shown in the present case, although the city council is the immediate employer, the client for whom the legal services are to be rendered is the city. The members of the council are in a sense, trustees of the public welfare, and they may well insist upon the benefit of advice from counsel in whose capacity and judgment they have the fullest confidence. The assertion of public rights which are not entirely clear usually requires the expenditure of large sums of money as *601well as the determination of particular policies, and the decision as to action in a particular way should not be affected by either friction or distrust in the relations of attorney and client.
Recognizing these principles as controlling, although the Supreme Court of Indiana, following the minority rule, has held that contracts extending beyond the terms of office of the members of a governing body are valid if made in good faith, it places in a different category one providing for the employment of an attorney beyond the time when a change will occur in the membership of the employing board (Board, of Commrs. v. Shields, 130 Ind. 6 [29 N.E. 385]). Such a contract, said the court, is contrary to public policy and void, because it “deprives the board, as reorganized from year to year, of the right to employ its attorney for the next following year. If such contracts are binding, then, no [matter] . . . how distasteful an attorney may be to the members of the board, or how little confidence they may have in his ability, legal learning, or honesty, so long as he performs the conditions of the contract on his part they are bound to recognize him, accept his services, and assume the responsibility; and if the contract in question, extending, as it does, over a period of three years, is valid, why may not a like contract, covering a period of six, nine, or á dozen years be upheld ?' ’ (Jay County v. Taylor, 123 Ind. 148 [23 N.E. 752, 7 L.R.A. 160].)
More recently, the Appellate Court of Indiana held that “a board, in order to dispense with the services of an attorney, employed while organized in part at least with a different membership, and thereby be free to select one of its own choosing, [should not] be compelled to prefer charges against an attorney so employed, or allege and prove dishonesty or a lack of ability on his part, or that he was distasteful to its members, or that they had no confidence in him, as appellee’s contention would imply. ’ ’ (Jessup v. Hinchman, 77 Ind.App. 460 [133 N.E. 853].) And the Supreme Court of Alabama declared that a contract with an attorney to act as counsel for a board of revenue beyond the term of the board as it existed when the services were authorized was contrary to public policy. In effect, said the court, such a contract ties the hands of the succeeding board which “should at all times be free to select its own confidential legal adviser. Such has been the ruling in New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Indiana, *602Illinois, Kansas, Iowa, and Colorado. " (Willett & Willett v. Calhoun County, 217 Ala. 687 [117 So. 311]. And see Ferkin v. Board of Education, 300 N.Y.S. 885; Light v. Lebanon County, 292 Pa. 494 [141 A. 291] ; McCormick v. Hanover Township, 246 Pa. 169 [92 A. 195]; Wilmington v. Bryan, 141 N.C. 666 [54 S.E. 543]; and annotation, 70 A.L.R. 794, 799-802.)
Considering the California decisions, although King City Union H. S. Dist. v. Waibel, 2 Cal.App.2d 65 [37 P.2d 861], approves the minority rule, the true basis for its holding is the universally recognized authority of a school board to contract with a superintendent or teacher for a period extending beyond the terms of the members of the board. Also, a contrary conclusion would nullify sections 2.90 and 2.92 of the School Code, which authorize a school district to employ a district superintendent for a period of four years. But in New York, it was recently held that a contract made in July, 1933, by a school board, purporting to employ an attorney at law for a period of two years, was an attempt to impinge upon the functions of members of that body elected in 1934 and was void. (Ferkin v. Board of Education, supra.)
McBean v. City of Fresno, 112 Cal. 159 [44 P. 358, 53 Am.St.Rep. 191, 31 L.R.A. 794], upheld a contract for the maintenance of a sewer farm. In Higgins v. Ban Diego Water Co., 118 Cal. 524 [45 P. 824, 50 P. 670], the court considered the validity of a contract leasing a water plant for a term of 20 years. A contract to supply water for 10 years was before the court in Marin Water etc. Co. v. Town of Sausalito, 168 Cal. 587 [143 P. 767]. Williams v. City of Stockton, 195 Cal. 743 [235 P. 986], concerned a contract for building a city hall. A later-elected city council repeated the contractor’s bid which had been accepted by its predecessor. This court held that the city was bound by its original action. In Skidmore v. County of Alameda, 13 Cal.2d 534 [90 P.2d 577], the question for decision was whether the plaintiffs’ claim was an account or the statement of several causes of action, some of which were barred by lapse of time. And the contract ordered executed in San Francisco v. Boyd, 17 Cal.2d 606 [110 P.2d 1036], was one providing for a survey of traffic conditions to be completed in five years by the contractor and a staff of his own selection; the question now before the court was not presented or considered.
Nor does Pacific Finance Corp. v. City of Lynwood, 114 *603Cal.App. 509 [300 P. 50, 1 P.2d 520], have any bearing upon the present problem, for the recovery upheld in that case was upon a contract to prepare plans and other writings required to carry through a street improvement project, compensation to be paid on the basis of a stated percentage of the construction cost. Skidmore v. Dambacher, 6 Cal.App.2d 83 [43 P.2d 1110], held valid a contract to secure certain information during an unspecified period of time. The court decided that the services had been performed within a reasonable period.
It requires no departure from the principles stated and applied in any of these cases to classify the contract now before the court as a valid one, but subject to an implied in law agreement that it may be terminated by the successor body with the obligation to pay only the reasonable value of the services rendered to the date of cancellation. Very evidently, the jury’s verdict for $2,000 was rendered in the belief that the sum awarded, plus the retainer paid by the city, is a reasonable amount of compensation for the services which the respondents performed. For the verdict was not responsive to any issue laid down by the pleadings, nor can it be justified under the theory of the conclusion reached by a majority of the court. As the city asserts, obviously if the contract is valid and not subject to cancellation, the respondents are entitled to $2,794, not $2,000. Under these circumstances, the applicable rule is stated in Gundry v. Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 104 Cal.App. 753 [286 P. 718], as follows: “While the defendant cannot ordinarily complain that the verdict is for an amount less than it might have been, if there is any evidence at all to sustain the verdict, a verdict may not be sustained which attempts generally to somewhat equalize financial conditions.” The Gundry and other eases which reach the same conclusion are controlling, this court has said, and require a reversal if the jury renders a verdict for an amount different from the only sum which the plaintiff could recover under the issues framed by the pleadings. (American States Pub. Service Co. v. Rath, 2 Cal.2d 670 [42 P.2d 1010].)
For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed.