San Mateo County won't say how much sheriff battle is costing

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - Taxpayers are paying for a portion of the legal battle between San Mateo County and Sheriff Christina Corpus but the county is not releasing how much it's costing or what they're paying for, until the entire matter is resolved.

County won't disclose legal costs

It's even possible that San Mateo County is paying for Corpus' lawyers who are suing the county; but it's unclear because county officials won't answer that question – at least for now. 

These questions are only heightened as Corpus enters her fourth day of a civil removal hearing on Thursday, following an independent investigation and a civil grand jury accusation alleging misconduct and retaliation in her office – allegations which the first Latina sheriff of the county has vehemently denied. 

To date, Corpus is being represented by at least 10 attorneys, and the county has at least eight stemming from two law firms, according to a tally of court documents filed in both the state and federal court systems.

KTVU filed a California Public Records Request seeking how much the county is paying for these lawyers: Some of whom are working on behalf of the San Mateo County supervisors to oust the sheriff, and some who are defending Corpus, as she is a county employee and was granted county-funded legal representation. 

In addition, Corpus has filed five suits against San Mateo County as it pertains to her removal. But the county, citing a California Supreme Court ruling, won't say if they're paying for these lawyers. 

All of KTVU's requests for these legal costs have been denied as long as the litigation is ongoing. 

Public wants to know

Residents of San Mateo County say they want to know what their tax dollars are going toward. 

"We strongly believe in government transparency and accountability—especially when taxpayer dollars are being spent," said Jim Lawrence, board chair of Fixin' San Mateo County, a grassroots organization working to create independent civilian oversight over the sheriff's office. "San Mateo County’s refusal to disclose the cost of its legal defense in the matter involving Sheriff Corpus is deeply concerning. Taxpayers have a right to know, in real time, how public funds are being used, not after the fact."

Lawrence added that releasing the finances would garner more public trust. 

"When public institutions withhold financial information during active controversies, it erodes public confidence. We are also calling for the disclosure of any public funds being used for Sheriff Corpus’s personal legal representation. Transparency is not optional in a democracy—it is essential. We urge county leadership to act in the public interest and release these financial figures immediately. The public deserves nothing less."

Attorney-client privilege 

In a series of emails, Chief Deputy County Attorney Brian E. Kulich said  his office is not releasing the legal costs, citing a California Supreme Court decision that concluded when a legal matter is still active, everything about it, including its cost, doesn't have to be disclosed until the litigation has concluded. The court ruled in the 2016 case of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court that "the privilege encompasses everything in an invoice, including the amount of aggregate fees."

"For now, I can say that the County is not funding all of these lawsuits," Kulich emailed, saying he would be happy to say more once the matter is resolved at an unknown date. 

County not paying for Tom Perez

The county did decide to tell KTVU one lawyer it is not paying for.

Of Corpus' attorneys, the most high-profile and recently added is Tom Perez, a former senior advisor to the Biden administration, US Secretary of Labor and chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Perez is representing Corpus in her civil removal hearing and also suing San Mateo County in federal court.

County spokeswoman Effie Milionis Verducci stressed in an email to KTVU that the county is "not covering any costs associated with Mr. Tom Perez."

However, she did confirm the county is covering the legal costs for the San Francisco firms of Keker, Van Nest & Peters and Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney in connection with the Measure A matter. These lawyers are representing both the county and Corpus. 

The county is also using the law firm of Hanson Bridgett in San Francisco. 

"We understand and appreciate the public interest in the costs associated with the Measure A proceedings," Milionis Verducci wrote in an email. "However, as the County Attorney’s Office has advised, specific financial details related to ongoing legal proceedings are protected by legal privilege and cannot be disclosed at this time. This confidentiality is well-established and supported by the courts to ensure the integrity of the process."

Perez did not answer KTVU's question as to who was paying him or what his fees were. 

Potential problems of disclosing cost

First Amendment Legal Director David Loy, whose organization argued to make the sheriff removal hearings public, said that while the California Supreme Court ruled that costs fall under attorney-client privilege, that privilege only falls to the attorney to keep that information protected.

But in this case, he said, San Mateo County is also the plaintiff and defendant, and therefore could choose to release the fees in that regard, if it wanted to.

Loy did note, however, that releasing the cost could lead to potential problems.

Critics could argue that if the county waived some attorney-client fee information, then it could be argued that the court might mandate the release of more or all the information about attorney fees, he said. And this detailed information, the Supreme Court concluded, could potentially expose the opponent's confidential legal strategies. 

In terms of paying for Corpus' lawyers who are suing the county, Loy said he sees why the county might pay that bill, as well.

Because Corpus is a county employee and requires county-paid representation, the argument could be made that she needs lawyers to defend herself against the county's efforts to remove her. 

Corpus files 5 suits

Corpus is vigorously defending herself against the county's accusations, arguing she is being unfairly scapegoated and targeted because of her gender and ethnicity.

To date, Corpus has filed five lawsuits against the county, which include the supervisors, the clerk and the District Attorney.

Four suits are in San Mateo County Superior Court and the most recent was in U.S. District Court. The county has not sued Corpus, but is engaged in trying to remove her through a special election ballot, Measure A, which requires lawyers. 

The topics of Corpus' suits include: Seeking relief from Measure A, which was a charter written to remove her; forcing the county to disclose how much they spent on Cordell's report; removing DA Steve Wagstaffe from civil grand jury proceedings; and blocking her removal hearing.

Lawsuits stem from removal efforts 

All these lawyers and lawsuits follow from the board of supervisors voting unanimously in June to accept a recommendation to proceed with removing Corpus from office. 

The removal process stems from the findings in a 400-page report authored by retired Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge LaDoris Corrdell, which alleged that Corpus misused her authority, created a high-level position for a close associate without qualifications and fostered a workplace culture marked by retaliation.

Also in June, the San Mateo County civil grand jury came back with an accusation of misconduct against Corpus.

On Monday, the county initiated a removal hearing before retired Judge James Emerson, who is presiding over the matter as an independent officer. The hearing could take up to 10 days. 

Supervisors won't speak

KTVU reached out to all the supervisors to get their thoughts on the costs, and the decision not to release the figures.

President David Canepa chose not to comment on the record. 

The chief of staff for Supervisor Noelia Corzo referred questions to the city's attorney's office. 

The other supervisors didn't respond at all. 

A LIST OF CORPUS' LAWSUITS

These are the active lawsuits Corpus has filed against San Mateo County. 

The county has not sued Corpus, but has legal teams working on the process to remove her. 

Here are the suits: 

Sheriff Christina Corpus v. County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors, et al., San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 25-CIV-00244 (Hon. Judge Nicole S. Healy)

Sheriff Christina Corpus v. County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors, et al., San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 25-CIV-02539 (Hon. Judge Jeffery R. Finigan)

Sheriff Christina Corpus v. County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors, et al., San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 25-CIV-04319 (Hon. Judge Nina Shapirshteyn)

 Sheriff Christina Corpus v. District Attorney Stephen Wagstaff, et al., San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 25-CIV-04325 (Hon. Judge Nicole S. Healy)

Christina Corpus v. David Canepa, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 25-cv-05962-VC (Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria)

San Mateo CountyNews