Central Basin Spent $465,000 on Rojas Litigation; Was the Law Firm Ever Properly Authorized?

June 22, 2026

By Brian Hews

Two weeks ago, Los Cerritos Community News exclusively reported that Central Basin Municipal Water District had spent nearly $871,000 on outside legal costs associated with the Alejandro Rojas and Leticia Vasquez Wilson lawsuits through April 2026. The report raised questions about the growing financial impact of litigation stemming from board actions taken in late 2024. Now, a new agenda item involving additional payments to outside counsel is placing renewed scrutiny on how the district retained one of the firms at the center of the controversy.

The legal spending stems from a controversial November 2024 board action in which Directors Juan Garza, Nem Ochoa, Joanna Moreno, and then-Director Martha Camacho-Rodriguez voted to remove General Manager Alejandro Rojas and strip then-President Art Chacon of key authority. The actions immediately triggered controversy, with LCCN calling out the board for violating district rules and California open-meeting laws.

Rojas subsequently challenged the actions, alleging that the board acted unlawfully and that the directors improperly coordinated outside public meetings. What began as an internal governance dispute quickly evolved into multiple legal battles involving the district, board members, and former executives.

According to records reviewed by Los Cerritos Community News, approximately $465,283 of the litigation-related spending was associated with the Rojas matter, while another $405,686 was tied to the ongoing Vasquez litigation, bringing the combined total to approximately $870,969 through April 2026.

The spending continues to grow.

On its June 22 agenda, Central Basin included Item 9.B, which asks directors to authorize the General Manager to approve and process payment of Buchalter LLP invoices related to the district’s defense in the Rojas arbitration matter.

The agenda states the invoices would be paid pursuant to an “already-existing Legal Services Agreement” between the district and the firm.

That language has raised new questions about how Buchalter was originally retained.

The agenda item does not identify when the agreement was approved, who authorized the firm’s retention, or how directors voted. Those questions have become a significant issue because multiple directors have disputed whether the firm was ever properly authorized by the board.

According to directors familiar with the matter, Directors Gary Mendez, Jim Crawford, and former Director Art Chacon did not support retaining Buchalter, while Director Leticia Vasquez Wilson was absent when the matter was allegedly considered.

If accurate, that would leave Directors Garza, Ochoa, and Moreno as the apparent votes in favor of the firm’s retention. Multiple directors familiar with the matter contend that four votes were required to authorize the firm’s retention.

Those same directors were involved in the actions that later became the subject of Rojas’s litigation.

Critics maintain the three directors should not have participated in decisions involving litigation connected to their own conduct. They contend that without those votes, there may not have been sufficient support to retain the firm.

To determine how Buchalter was hired, Los Cerritos Community News filed a California Public Records Act request seeking the firm’s engagement agreement, records identifying who authorized the retention, the vote count, and the identity of the person who signed the agreement on behalf of the district.

The district’s response was due June 19. As of today, the requested records had not been provided.

Questions surrounding Buchalter’s involvement go beyond the amount spent.

The firm’s role has attracted scrutiny because of its prior involvement in Central Basin matters. In 2019, the district approved a $2.25 million settlement in a whistleblower lawsuit filed by former employee Leticia Vasquez Wilson. The lawsuit alleged retaliation and exposed what critics described as a slush-fund operation involving public money. The settlement was largely funded by the district’s insurance carriers.

Buchalter later became involved in legal matters connected to the district, prompting critics to argue that Central Basin should have sought independent outside counsel rather than retaining a firm connected to one of the agency’s most costly and politically charged controversies.

District agendas throughout 2025 and 2026 repeatedly listed the Rojas litigation for closed-session discussion. By early 2026, directors themselves appeared concerned about escalating legal costs, placing a “Legal Services: Cost Reductions” item on a board agenda to discuss mounting attorney fees.

The litigation expenses are separate from the district’s routine legal-retainer costs and day-to-day legal services. Financial records show that Central Basin continued to pay substantial monthly bills for general counsel services, personnel matters, operational legal advice, finance-related legal work, and other special projects.

Demand-list records illustrate the scope of the spending. In one billing cycle alone, Burke, Williams & Sorensen billed the district more than $97,000 for general counsel services, litigation work, general manager support services, and operational legal advice.

Budget documents also show legal spending exceeding projections. Through January 2026, Central Basin reported $459,661 in special legal-services expenditures against a budgeted amount of $360,000, while total legal spending across multiple legal categories approached $585,000 during the first seven months of the fiscal year.

For ratepayers, what began as a dispute over the removal of a general manager has evolved over years of litigation, repeated closed-session meetings, hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees, and continuing questions about how one of the district’s highest-paid outside law firms was retained. With both the Rojas and Vasquez matters still pending, the legal costs to Central Basin taxpayers are expected to continue climbing.