Judge Slams County’s “Obvious Conflict of Interest” in Suit Seeking Use-of-Force Records

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has put the county’s own legal office on notice, saying its lawyers face an “obvious conflict of interest” in a lawsuit over Sheriff’s Department records the county has spent more than a year refusing to hand over. The ruling could force the county to pay for a second legal team just to represent one of its own oversight bodies.

What the Judge Actually Said

Judge Jerrold Abeles issued a five-page tentative ruling on August 24 in a lawsuit brought by the L.A. County Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission, the body created to review Sheriff’s Department conduct. Abeles didn’t mince words: he described an “obvious conflict of interest” and what he called a “shocking breach of an attorney’s ethical duties to a client” on the part of the County Counsel’s office — the same office that represents both the Sheriff’s Department and the commission suing it.

The day after the tentative ruling, the court scheduled a September 17 hearing on an order to show cause asking County Counsel to justify why it shouldn’t be required to appoint independent counsel for the Civilian Oversight Commission going forward. That’s a real possibility now on the table, not just a rhetorical rebuke.

The county’s outside counsel, Mira Hashmall of the firm Miller Barondess, pushed back in a Friday court filing, maintaining that no conflict exists and that the county has acted appropriately and consistent with established law throughout.

The Records at the Center of the Fight

The dispute traces back to February 2025, when the Civilian Oversight Commission issued three subpoenas demanding Sheriff’s Department personnel records and other documents tied to three specific incidents:

• The 2020 fatal shooting of 18-year-old trade school student Andres Guardado, shot in the back several times by a deputy who was never charged
• A 2020 beating of Joseph Perez on a San Gabriel Valley street that left him needing 30 stitches and staples to his face and head
• A 2023 beating of 23-year-old transgender teacher Emmett Brock in a Norwalk 7-Eleven parking lot, after a stop over an air freshener hanging from his mirror — the deputy involved later pleaded guilty to a federal civil rights violation

The Sheriff’s Department has refused to release unredacted versions of the records. County Counsel has argued the documents are confidential and that a “meet and confer” process with Sheriff’s Department unions has to happen first. The commission calls that reasoning unfounded, pointing to state law and court precedent it says already require compliance with its subpoenas. It sued the Sheriff’s Department in June, asking a judge to order the records released.

Why the Conflict Question Matters

County Counsel’s office represents the Board of Supervisors, and by extension nearly every county body — including both the Sheriff’s Department and the very commission created to hold it accountable. When those two clients end up suing each other, as they effectively have here, one office representing both sides becomes hard to defend.

Judge Abeles questioned in his ruling why County Counsel never arranged outside counsel for the oversight commission in the first place, calling it a choice that raises “serious issues,” and noted the conduct raises questions about possible violations of professional conduct rules. Hashmall countered that state law reserves separately funded conflict counsel for officials with independent statutory authority, like an assessor or a sheriff — not for a Board-created commission like the COC, which she says isn’t authorized to act independently of the Board of Supervisors in the first place.

Hans Johnson, the commission’s chairman, called the ruling a validation of what the panel has been arguing for months, saying it was striking that a judge required the county to answer in court for the conduct. Robert Bonner, an attorney for the commission and its former chairman, said in a statement that the commission is glad to have the chance to make its case to a judge rather than leave the outcome to County Counsel’s own judgment.

Two Sheriff’s Department unions, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association, tried to intervene in the case; Abeles denied both motions. One union said in a statement that meaningful oversight shouldn’t come at the cost of ignoring collective bargaining obligations or employees’ confidentiality and due-process protections.

The Bigger Pattern

This isn’t the oversight commission’s first collision with County Counsel over access. A county civil grand jury concluded in July that the watchdog panel needs its own lawyers to do its job, and the commission and Sheriff Robert Luna have been at odds over subpoena compliance since at least last year. It’s also not unique to Los Angeles: a California appellate court ordered the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office in March to comply with a similar subpoena from an oversight body investigating a whistleblower complaint. Voters gave the LA commission subpoena power six years ago, and a state law that took effect January 1 was specifically designed to let oversight bodies like it review confidential law enforcement personnel records in closed session — the same authority the county is now resisting in court.

What Happens Next

The September 17 hearing will determine whether Judge Abeles’s tentative ruling becomes final, and with it, whether County Counsel is formally ordered to step aside and let independent counsel represent the Civilian Oversight Commission. That outcome wouldn’t resolve the underlying subpoena fight over the Guardado, Perez, and Brock records — it would just determine who’s allowed to argue the county’s side of it.