A unanimous California Supreme Court held last week that public officials charged with “conflict of interest” cannot necessarily claim they were misled by city staff, including a city attorney.

In People v. Chacon, Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley charged a former member of the Bell Gardens City Council with violating state conflict of interest law. When she was on the City Council, she didn’t like the paltry sum she was paid. There was an opening for a city manager post that paid big bucks. However, city rules prevented her from applying for the post until at least one year after completing her service on the council. Chacon wanted to have the rule changed or waived so she could get the job sooner.

She asked her city attorney if doing so was a conflict of interest that could get her charged with violating conflict of interest laws. She probably knew that relying on “advice of counsel” would be a defense to a conflict of interest charge- “But my lawyer said I could murder my wife.”

She claimed that her city attorney told her that there was nothing wrong with her course of conduct, which she pursued. Her council repealed the rule; she got her job and she caught the eye of D.A. Steve Cooley. He charged Chacon with violating state conflict of interest laws.

“But I relied on the advice of a city attorney that I wouldn’t be prosecuted,” she said.

Lower courts agreed with her; she had a complete defense because of that.

The defense is called “entrapment by estoppel.” In English, it simply means that the government may not actively provide assurances that conduct is lawful then prosecute those who act in reasonable reliance on those assurances

But the California Supreme Court emphasized that the reliance must be reasonable.

For example, in People v. Chacon, Ms. Chacon employed the city attorney she was seeking advice from. She supervised him, approved his salary and his office budget. If he didn’t give her the advice she wanted, he might be fired. A jury, therefore, could conclude that it was not reasonable for her to have relied upon his advice.

Reacting, the court made it clear that public officials may not take action on matters in which they have a financial interest unless they have truly independent legal advice from a competent government attorney.

In San Diego, the Chacon case applies to investigations that involve securities fraud and conflict of interest. Councilmembers say they didn’t know there was anything illegal about votes on their own very generous pension and health benefits because they were just following the advice of counsel.

Counsel at that time was not Mike Aguirre, who, as we know, tells this council not what they want to hear. He tells them what the law is. And they’re not used to that.

In the past, they got their advice from then City Attorney Casey Gwinn. He told them that the lease of public land to the Boy Scouts didn’t violate the local Human Dignity Ordinance I drafted that specifically prohibits use of public lands by groups that discriminate. Gwinn’s own Web site had a memorandum from his staff completely contradicting what he told council.

The Kroll Report thrashed Gwinn for the pervasive fraud, corruption and incompetence on his watch.

Who could be stupid enough or pretend to be naïve enough to rely on his advice? Probably those who stood to gain from it.

The practical reality of the Chacon case is that now officials whose actions are in question must be taken before a judge or jury to decide whether those actions were reasonable.

My guess is that prosecutors were waiting for the Supreme Court to decide People v. Chacon before pursuing claims against a host of public officials, perhaps here and elsewhere. Indictments should be forthcoming. Mike Aguirre appears quite smug.

Councilmembers, as we have reported, are spending millions of our dollars on legal fees. It’s for their expected defenses.

Let’s hope their $100,000-a-month lawyers have told them about the Chacon case and what it means to their “advice from professionals” defense. But I suspect that when you’re paying a lawyer $25,000 a week of tax money, you get the advice you want to hear.

My advice: Resign and let new folks take your posts so that they can devote full time to the needs of their districts. Robert DeKoven is a professor at California Western School of Law