William Jefferson & Co., Inc. v. Board of Assessment and Appeal
695 F.3d 960
9th Cir.2012Background
- William Jefferson challenged the Orange County Tax Assessor’s valuation after an administrative appeal was denied on statute of limitations grounds; merits were not at issue in the district court.
- Orange County Counsel’s office operated a dual-representation scheme: one attorney advised the Board while another represented the Assessor, authorized by Cal. Gov. Code § 31000.7.
- The district court found Whaley (advisory) and Harmon (litigation) were screened by an ethical wall and procedures to prevent information exchange; Whaley did not meaningfully influence findings of fact.
- Whaley advised the Board and prepared the written findings; Harmon defended the Assessor; both were from the same County Counsel’s office but functionally separated.
- William Jefferson argued dual representation violated due process, that Whaley’s discussions with the Board were ex parte, and that the County’s financial interests could bias advisory services.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the screening measures and the nonparticipation of the Board in Valuation decisions ensured impartial adjudication under § 31000.7 as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 31000.7 violate due process as applied? | Dual representation risks impartiality and appearance of bias. | Screening procedures prevent improper influence; adjudicators are impartial. | No due process violation as applied. |
| Are Whaley’s interactions with the Board ex parte? | Whaley’s contact with the Board was improper ex parte communication. | Whaley advised the Board in her capacity as board advisor; not a party to the appeal. | Not ex parte; communications were permissible. |
| Does dual representation by County Counsel create appearance of bias that defeats impartial adjudication? | Prosecutorial and adjudicative roles overlap and may bias the Board. | Withrow framework supports adjudicatory impartiality when properly screened. | Impartial adjudication is maintained; dual representation does not undermine fairness. |
| Could the County’s financial incentive influence the proceedings? | Fees connected to written findings may incentivize adverse outcomes. | Fees are not tied to case outcomes and are independent of party success. | Insufficient to show bias; no due process violation shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (appearance of bias inquiry for adjudicators)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) (dual roles in administrative proceedings require screening to preserve fairness)
- United States v. Inzunza, 638 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2011) (facial vs. as-applied challenges in statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Oregon, 44 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 1994) (agency advisory functions and bias considerations)
- Gonzales v. United States, 348 U.S. 407 (1955) (ex parte communications considerations and due process)
- Portland Audubon Soc. v. Endangered Species Comm., 984 F.2d 1534 (9th Cir. 1993) (ex parte contact considerations)