LA city attorney defends return-to-office mandate amid union dispute

Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto is pushing back on deputies' claims that the office can function largely remotely, arguing its legal work requires a strong in-person presence.

In October, she instituted a policy requiring three to four days in the office each week, up from the previous two-day requirement.

"It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of my office and the work that we do every day to say that most of the work can be done remotely. It can't," Feldstein Soto told the Daily Journal in an interview on Thursday. "It is the kind of approach that someone who has only researched and written briefs and pleadings would ever suggest. That is not the bulk of what my office does."

Feldstein Soto, who is seeking reelection in the June primary election, made the remarks while an unfair employee relations claim by the Los Angeles City Attorneys Association (LACAA) over the mandate remains pending, highlighting a rift with the attorneys' union that previously backed her.

According to the claim filed in November, "LACAA expressed its opposition to the change, emphasizing that telework increases productivity as a result of members spending less time and energy commuting to the worksite, which in turn improves work-life balance, job satisfaction, and morale, strengthens recruitment and retention, and increases flexibility for using office space and managing parking capacity."

While the association endorsed Feldstein Soto in her first election in 2022, it has yet to offer an endorsement to her or any other candidates just over a month out from the June primaries.

Despite the association's arguments, Feldstein Soto remains steadfast in her belief that a substantially reduced in-office requirement would hamper her office's operations.

"By way of example, my criminal prosecutors have to be in court every single day. They have to staff calendar court in the morning, and then they have trials in the afternoon," the city attorney said in Thursday's interview. "They are not allowed to take out of the office sensitive criminal justice information, like rap sheets. They're supposed to bring those things back to the office to the extent that they need them in court.

"We do not have the technology sufficient to support remote access to many of our confidential databases," she continued. "So, years ago, my first year in office, I cut off remote access to the criminal justice databases in the office, because we do not have the point-to-point encryption that is required to utilize those databases remotely. Period. We just don't."

Feldstein Soto further pointed to the work her civil staff does in attending public hearings which cannot always be held remotely.

"Our work is just not conducive to being an ivory tower," she said.

Apart from arguments related to work-life balance, the city attorneys' association argues that Feldstein Soto's mandate wasn't properly bargained over.

"One area of concern is that the city unilaterally stopped bargaining," Joshua M. Geller, former president of the LACAA board of directors, said in a phone call on Monday. "Another would be that there was no objective evidentiary support for the changes that the office was proposing, which we had asked for numerous times, to justify why they wanted to change from a policy that appeared to be working from the perspective of supervisors, clients and the employees."

Geller declined to comment on potential endorsements for any candidate in the upcoming election.

The previous policy, which allowed for a maximum of three days of remote work a week, began in 2023. That was long enough to become a "legitimate expectation" of employment in the city attorney's office under Employee Relations Board standards, according to the claim.

"For the vast majority who have worked capably under the telework arrangements, these changes feel like a penalty without justification and an arbitrary exercise of power," the claim read. "This feeling is exacerbated by the office's inability to point to any evidence that the prior policy had any discernible operational impacts."

In response on Thursday, Feldstein Soto said her office had engaged in bargaining on the impact of the change as required by the labor agreement defining wages, benefits and other items subject to collective bargaining.

She said her in-office mandate was intended to preserve supervision, accountability and transparency to the public while also guarding confidential and sensitive case information.

"We have an office for a reason," she said. "The laptops, the documents, the files - those are all city assets that belong in a city location. God forbid one of my lawyers gets hit by a truck and lands in the hospital; I have to be in a position to show up in court through another lawyer.

"The idea that one of the largest public law firms in the country can operate in a million different locations, I think, shows a great naivete about the work that we do," she continued.