This is KPBS Midday Edition . I am Maureen Cavanaugh. It is Friday, June 30. Our top story, the San Diego city Attorney's office is waiting for the guilty party to support. That is the person or persons who leaked a confidential memo about the proposed SoccerCity development to the developers. Mara Elliott said whoever leaked the memo should resign and could be prosecuted. She has harsh words for Chris Garrett who reportedly distributed the memo to the Tribune. We have a state bar that refused the conduct of attorneys. This is an ethical lapse that is inexcusable. We will look at that. We have dealings with this law firm. It is important to analyze whether we are getting the best attorney we need because it has shaken my competence. We have Andrew Bowen. Welcome. Thank you. The city Council voted down for the special election this year. In a separate vote, put this development on the 2018 ballot that is despite strong support for the Mayor. Why are we hearing about this confidential memo about soccer city -- SoccerCity now. They what a competitive process for the cell and development of the Qualcomm Stadium property. They have not released a proposal for the property. The president, at the request of the other councilmembers, agreed to place a discussion on the Council agenda of declaring the Qualcomm Stadium surplus property. That would trickle the initial process of going out to the city or public agencies to see if they want this property. The confidential memo was included in a story about this very issue, whether the property is surplus land and the city attorney's all this and read about it in a letter from the lawyer representing FS investors which is behind SoccerCity. This is attorney/client privilege information. How did you get this? You should not have it . The substance of the memo is out for all eyes to see since it is posted on the website. What is so important about the memo? It is 60 pages long. It addresses the legal concerns about the soccer city initiative. What the city should look out for also. There is the mention of the timing of the placement on the ballot, whether it is this year or next year and whether promises made by major-league soccer to the mayor is enforceable and the timing of the different parts of the development with the initiative like the stadium and the Riverpark. Basically, it is what could make the city formidable to litigation. They say FS investors should have known this memo was confidential and only meant for city officials. What does FS investors say ? Nick Stone, the main point person says he did not get it from a city employee. He was unaware that it was not meant to be made public. There was a public memo that was issued with overlapping information and they are not the same memo. Nick Stone says he gave the memo to his attorney. At the top of the memo, it says early to claim -- confidential use only. They may not be clear at the offset what that means. What the city attorney told me is that a lawyer like that should understand that this is privileged information and he is not supposed to see it so he should have thrown it away and destroyed it and alerted the city attorney office and saying this is out there in public domain. Be aware. Is the attorney launching a criminal investigation ? The 30 -- the city attorney office is trying to figure out who gave the memo to someone outside the officials, the people who are supposed to have it. And there are maybe staffers who are advising the Council member on what decisions they make whether or not it is a crime will presume on a lot of factors. It is hard to say whether there is criminal. There is an ethics law to say they cannot disclose confidential information except when it is a necessary function. Maybe there is some ambiguity. If they find out who leaked the memo, the city attorney office would have a conflict in prosecuting a official who is their client. They would refer this case to the DA office and they would decide whether to further investigate. Mark Elliott says this leak was the city in a weaker bargaining position with FS investors over SoccerCity. Why is that ? It lays out the city argument pro and con for whatever actions the city might take on the table for the other side to see. This is a deal that is worth millions. It is prime real estate in the heart of the city. Having that analysis -- analysis on what arguments might not hold up in a court of law is not something you want the other side to see. Having that information in the public domain is something that the city does not want to happen. Elliott said she spoke with the mayor and he was outraged that this memo had gotten outside of where it was supposed to be Is the proposal buyable since the city Council vote is no this year ? It believed -- it depends. It is written into the initiative. The whole thing is null and void. If MLS decides to award a city and MLS franchise before we vote on that initiative, it would be moot. If they decide to delay that decision and maybe San Diego will vote for this initiative and we could end up getting a soccer team, maybe it will be relevant. I guess, it is too soon to say. [ laughter ] Maybe. I have been speaking with Andrew Bowen. Thank you. You are welcome.
San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott said Thursday that whoever provided a confidential memo outlining the city's position on Qualcomm Stadium to developers behind the proposed SoccerCity project should resign.
"Given this egregious breach of public trust, I further expect that the person or persons responsible will step forward, identify themselves, and resign their positions with the city," Elliott said.
However, SoccerCity project manager Nick Stone said he didn't receive the document from a city worker.
RELATED: SoccerCity Media Push Targets San Diego City Council
The 16-page memo was issued June 15, four days before the City Council declined to submit SoccerCity to a public vote in an earlier special election. It covers legal issues raised by the developers' ballot measure and questions about how to handle implementation if the initiative is approved by voters.
Elliott said she discovered the document found its way into the hands of the developers, led by FS Investors of La Jolla. It was also published on the San Diego Union-Tribune's website.
"The mayor and City Council members requested this analysis so they could best protect the public's interest in their dealings with FS Investors," Elliott said.
"Nearly a dozen attorneys in my office devoted hundreds of hours to researching and preparing this memorandum," she said. "The person or persons who gave this confidential legal analysis to FS Investors did more than commit a crime. They betrayed the taxpayers of San Diego."
She said she has asked Stone, through his attorney, how he came into possession of the memo but hadn't heard back.
RELATED: San Diego City Council Votes To Put SoccerCity On 2018 Ballot
However, he responded to an inquiry by KPBS, saying it appeared to be an internal city matter.
"The document did not come to me from a city employee," Stone said.
"Had I been aware that the memo was not intended to be made public, I would not have shared it with my attorney — and he certainly would not have referenced it in a public letter," he said. "In our minds, this memo was consistent with an earlier public memo about the initiative from the City Attorney's office that was sent to the media even before it was released to the client, the City Council and the mayor."
San Diego Ethics Ordinance at San Diego Municipal Code section 27.3564(e) makes it illegal to disclose confidential information.
— Gerry Braun (@GerryBraun) June 29, 2017
He said the memo included "important information not typically kept secret from the public by its attorney."
Elliott, though, said, "Make no mistake: this was not a leak to inform the public."
"This was a covert and strategic act that undermines the city's position in negotiations," she said. "It was committed by a person or persons who clearly have greater allegiance to FS Investors than to the citizens they serve."
Elliott added that Christopher Garrett, an attorney from the firm Latham & Watkins who represents FS Investors, had given the confidential memo to the media — something she called an "ethical lapse that I think is inexcusable."
"We also have dealings with this law firm," she said. "I think it's important for us to analyze whether or not we're getting the best attorney we need, because this certainly has shaken my confidence in this law firm."
.@MaraWElliott says Latham & Watkins lawyer Christopher Garrett giving confidential memo to media is "an ethical lapse ... inexcusable."
— Andrew Bowen (@acbowen) June 29, 2017
