Skip to main content
Office of the County Counsel
Office of the County Counsel

County Counsels’ Association of California Recognition Awards

County Counsel Recognition Awards are given by the County Counsels’ Association of California to deputies who have made a significant contribution to the Association or have performed other extraordinary service benefiting counties statewide.   Recipients are nominated by a County Counsel and selected by the Association’s Board of Directors.   

County’s COVID-19 Litigation Team recognized  

five people in suits holding awards

In 2022, the County’s COVID-19 Litigation Team, composed of County Counsel Tony LoPresti, former Chief Assistant County Counsel Greta Hansen, Assistant County Counsel Douglas Press, Lead Deputy County Counsels Meredith Johnson and Melissa Kiniyalocts, and Deputy County Counsels Bryan Anderson, Claire Cormier, José Martinez, Michael Serverian, and Robin Wall, were recognized.

The COVID-19 Litigation Team won a series of victories in federal and state courts to keep the first-in-the-nation shelter-in-place and risk reduction orders in place.  Over the first winter surge and before COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and community testing were widely available, enforcement and coordinated defense of these core public health orders ensured that businesses were complying with the orders and taking the necessary steps to protect the community.   

These litigation victories were pivotal in establishing the viability of progressive and effective public health measures that protected communities in Santa Clara County, the greater Bay Area, and throughout California. Notable examples of these multi-jurisdictional and/or significant COVID-19 matters from 2020 and early 2021 include cases involving COVID public health measures concerning firearms, supportive housing, retail sales, and amicus cases involving executive emergency authority. 

Jennifer Tsou recognized  

In 2019, Deputy County Counsel Jennifer Tsou, along with counsel from the San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Luis Obispo County Counsel offices, were recognized for identifying a need within the County Counsels’ Association Child Welfare Study Section for mentoring the section’s younger lawyers and developed a program to fill that need.   

The Mentoring Program pairs attorneys new to child welfare with the section’s more experienced lawyers. This program allows for a lifeline by promoting peer mentoring and sharing of legal knowledge and best practices. It helps foster career development and creates a dedicated and integrated community of child welfare attorneys for the state. 

Kavita Narayan and Laura Trice recognized  

In 2018, Chief Assistant County Counsel Kavita Narayan and Deputy County Counsel Laura Trice were recognized for their work spearheading nationwide efforts to coordinate a broad coalition of counties, cities, and national local government organizations in providing amici curiae support in federal litigation raising issues of critical importance to California counties.  

In four major cases challenging unlawful laws and policies relating to immigration enforcement, Ms. Trice and Ms. Narayan: 

  • promoted counties’ vital interest in retaining local discretion over policy decisions, particularly in the law enforcement arena;  
  • explained the ways in which policies limiting local involvement in immigration enforcement protect public safety; and  
  • highlighted the costs and harms of the challenged laws and policies to localities and their residents.   

The amicus briefs were joined by dozens of other counties and cities, and by major organizations including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities. 

James Williams, Greta Hansen, Kavita Narayan, and Laura Trice recognized  

In 2018, former County Counsel James R. Williams, former Chief Assistant County Counsel Greta Hansen, Assistant County Counsel Kavita Narayan, Deputy County Counsel Laura Trice and former Deputy County Counsel Dax Goldstein were recognized for their work in County of Santa Clara v. Trump.   

The County filed a lawsuit in federal court against President Donald Trump and members of his administration challenging one of President Trump’s first Executive Orders after taking office, through which he sought to deny all federal funding to any state or local government that declined to participate in the Administration’s immigration enforcement activities. Counties throughout California that have their own “sanctuary” policies or that comply with state “sanctuary” laws risked losing billions of dollars in federal funding annually.   

The lawsuit challenged: 

  • the President’s authority to unilaterally impose conditions on federal funds—a power the Constitution places exclusively in the hands of Congress; and 
  • the denial of all federal funds, the vast majority of which have no connection to immigration or law enforcement.   

They sought and were granted injunctive relief when U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick issued a preliminary injunction blocking the key provision of the Executive Order.  

In November 2017, Judge Orrick declared that provision unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement nationwide.   

These efforts also drew an International Municipal Lawyers Association Amicus Service Award, which recognizes exemplary work to protect and advance local government interests. 

Dax Goldstein recognized  

In 2017, former Deputy County Counsel Dax Goldstein was recognized for their leadership in formulating and implementing the response by the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) to the Fair Political Practices Commission’s (FPPC) proposed Political Reform Act (Act) revisions.   

The FPPC launched a project to modernize the Act, the first comprehensive effort of its kind since its adoption by voters in 1974.  Mx. Goldstein analyzed the complex and extensive proposed revisions, identifying many major issues with the proposal, and drafting the formal response submitted to the FPPC on behalf of CSAC.  When the second draft was released, many of the issues Mx. Goldstein had identified had been resolved and their extensive work on the project had a profound impact, and greatly benefitted County Counsels and other public officials statewide. 

Greta Hansen and Jenny Lam recognized  

In 2014, former Chief Assistant County Counsel Greta Hansen, Deputy County Counsel Jenny Lam, and others, were recognized by the Association for their work in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield, a lawsuit seeking to hold the former manufacturers of lead paint responsible for cleaning up lead that continues to poison thousands of California children each year.   

Attorneys from the Santa Clara County Counsel’s Office led the team of public attorneys throughout the litigation.  The case was originally filed by the County of Santa Clara in 2000.  The complaint alleged public nuisance, based on the fact that the five defendant paint manufacturers promoted lead paint for decades, despite knowing it was seriously hazardous to children.   

Nine other California counties (City and County of San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Los Angeles, Monterey, Ventura and Solano) and cities (Oakland and San Diego) eventually joined the County of Santa Clara in this litigation.   

After a 6-week bench trial in July and August 2013, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg handed down a decision on December 16, 2013, finding that three manufacturers (ConAgra, National Lead, and Sherwin Williams) had contributed significantly to the creation of a public nuisance placing children at risk of lead poisoning.   

Judge Kleinberg: 

  • found that children are significantly harmed by the lead in paint in older housing in California; 
  • found that lead paint was actively sold by these manufacturers even well after they were aware of the harms of lead to children; and 
  • ordered the three defendants to pay $1.1 billion into a fund to be administered by the State of California’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, for the benefit of the people within the cities and counties that prosecuted the case.  

Steve Mitra recognized  

In 2013, Assistant County Counsel Steve Mitra was recognized by the Association for his amicus work in the matter of Elk Hills Power v. Board of Equalization.   

The Fourth District California Court of Appeal issued an opinion on a matter of first impression: whether an electric power plant’s emission reduction credits (ERCs) (Health and Safety Code section 40709) should be included in its unitary tax determination.   

The State Board of Equalization (BOE) included the ERCs in the tax determination.  On appeal, the court held that the BOE properly took into account the value of the ERCs.  Because they were necessary to the ongoing productive use of the property, they were properly considered under Revenue and Taxation Code section 110, subdivision (e).  The court found that the county assessor is allowed “to assume the presence of the ERCs that are necessary to operate the taxable property productively, and to value the fair market value of the property accordingly.”   

The Supreme Court granted review to appellant Elk Hills.  Mr. Mitra drafted an amicus brief on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and California Assessors’ Association in support of the BOE in the California Supreme Court.  

Rob Coelho and Cheryl Stevens recognized  

In 2012, Assistant County Counsel Robert M. Coelho and former Deputy County Counsel Cheryl Stevens were recognized for their work in drafting the Employment Law: Discrimination/Disabilities section of the Association’s County Counsel Law Guide. 

Greta Hansen recognized  

In 2011, former Chief Assistant County Counsel Greta Hansen was recognized for her work in front of the Commission on State Mandates related to the AB 3632 program.   

Ms. Hansen and the Office secured a major victory before the Commission, successfully challenging an $8.6 million disallowance in state reimbursements for mental health services the County provides to special education students.   

This arose from a 2009 audit by the State Controller’s Office, which determined that the State was not responsible for funding mental health rehabilitation services to seriously emotionally disturbed children.  Ms. Hansen challenged the State’s disallowance for these services by filing an Incorrect Reduction Claim (IRC) arguing that these critical services were covered by the mandate, and thus the County was entitled to State reimbursement.  When faced with a long waiting period to have the County’s claim heard, Ms. Hansen sought expedited relief in court and was ultimately successful in persuading the Commission to expedite the IRC.   

Ms. Hansen’s success before the Commission not only saved the County general fund the $8.6 million at issue, but also shielded the County from comparable disallowances for other fiscal years, and protected other counties throughout the state from similar disallowances.  

Theresa Fuentes recognized  

In 2009, former Lead Deputy County Counsel Theresa Fuentes, along with counsel from the Sonoma and San Mateo County Counsel Offices, were recognized for their representation of the “County Intervenors” in the Coleman and Plata cases, long-standing federal prison overcrowding litigation.   

The three-judge panel in these cases, even before the counties were permitted to intervene, had indicated its intent to remedy state prison overcrowding by issuing a “prisoner release order” or a “population cap.”  The team of attorneys worked tirelessly to present evidence that the issuance of a prisoner release order could have substantial and wide-ranging adverse impacts on counties.  They argued that a prisoner release order would shift costs and responsibility for housing and providing prisoner services from the State to the counties that would be required to absorb this population.   

To address those concerns, the three-judge panel’s order provided that to the extent population reduction measures implemented by the State would increase the need for county-provided services, the State must confer with the counties and calculate the level of funding needed by the counties to maintain public safety at or near existing levels.  The fact that the court understood and cared about the counties was the result of the extraordinary presentation made by the “County Team.”   

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the order of the three-judge panel in 2011.  And, due in part to the efforts of the “County Team” in the Coleman and Plata cases, when the California Legislature began major public safety realignment efforts contained in Assembly Bill 109, the State accompanied the legislative changes with funding to the counties to house and provide programs for prisoners released or diverted.