> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Expenses don’t fit the bill - URL: https://www.smdp.com/expenses-dont-fit-the-bill/ - Published: 2005-10-17T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T07:59:01.000Z - Author: Carolyn Sackariason - Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import *Expenses don’t fit the bill* CITY HALL — A lawyer battling City Hall over pricey expenses being billed to taxpayers has denied that those bills ever included the use of a private jet, according to documents in the bitter dispute. The disagreement comes in the wake of a settlement of City Hall’s lawsuit against 18 oil companies for contaminating the city’s drinking water. In the case, the city hired three outside law firms, all working on the basis they would share the fruits of the settlement. The city already has declined to pay some of the additional expenses lawyers have run up at expensive restaurants and hotels around town. But Marshall Grossman, a lawyer representing other lawyers who did the eating and drinking in the case, disputes a city contention that the expenses included use of a private jet used by one of the law firms involved in the case, Baron & Budd. The case has shed light on a culture clash between high-powered attorney lifestyles and the expectations of a City Hall charged with protecting taxpayers’ money. At issue is $88,543 worth of travel expenses the city claims was billed by lawyer Fred Baron, who used a chartered private jet. Though Grossman denied the billing, a copy of the 2002 invoice shows $88,543 in air travel charges. Grossman also claimed that city attorneys routinely dined on the contingency lawyers’ dime at Le Merigot Hotel and other high-end spots. Those dimes have now come back to haunt the city in the form of bills the contingency lawyers want taxpayers to pay. “They had champagne tastes when it came to eating with the lawyers,” asserted Grossman, who added that meals at high-end restaurants are sometimes needed. “There are times when business meals need to be held in appropriate venues. “But most of the time, they ate in their rooms.” City Attorney Marsha Moutrie said she accepted a few meals from Baron based on his insistence that he’d pick up the tab and the fact that she had herself personally paid for several meals previously. She viewed the situation as a meal trade. One of those meals was an August 2002 lunch at Michael’s Restaurant when Baron told Moutrie that his firm hadn’t yet billed City Hall for any expenses and he wanted to wait until the case was over before being reimbursed. But she replied that city officials wanted an estimate of how much they owed, Baron claimed. So Baron submitted an invoice the following month, which included $88,543 in what he said was commercial, coach air travel expenses. But Baron said he never expected to get paid for the estimated 75 trips he made relating to the case alleging MtBE contamination of the city’s water. “We did not seek any reimbursement for travel or airfare,” he said. “There were no bills for private airfare and to my knowledge, the city has never paid us for air travel.” City attorneys felt the air travel costs were exorbitant and refused to pay them without proper detailed documentation. As for pricey restaurant bills, Baron claimed city attorneys joined him and his colleagues. “The city staff was very interested in eating at nice restaurants,” Baron asserted. “We were dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars, so if we spent an extra $10 on a meal, then so be it.” Moutrie explained in a 2003 letter that she might have inadvertently confused the contingency lawyers because she and other city attorneys have personally paid for meals at high-end restaurants. Those meals were paid out of the city attorneys’ own pockets and were never billed to taxpayers. In response to Moutrie’s correspondence, attorneys made arguments in court and sent letters to City Hall asserting it refused to reimburse any of their costs. More letters from city attorneys ensued. “You have written two letters to me and to (Assistant City Attorney Joe Lawrence) that include a mix of threats, accusation and questions,” Moutrie wrote to Grossman on July 22, 2004\. “The city cannot and does not surrender either claims or public resources based on threats. The city has a duty to protect public resources and is fully accountable for all expenditures... “The city has paid a total sum exceeding $620,000 in cost reimbursements,” Moutrie continued. “Some unreasonable costs were partially reimbursed, including exorbitantly high meal and hotel charges. However, I understand that the submitted claims have been processed; and the only remaining issue involves Mr. Baron’s air travel. He opted to use his firm’s private jets for his own convenience. The city has offered reimbursement reflecting the cost of commercial airfare for each trip... that offer remains open.” Moutrie asserted in her Feb. 10, 2003 letter that City Hall received requests for reimbursement for travel not related to Santa Monica’s case. She also wrote that City Hall had received requests for reimbursement for more than one ticket for the same trip. She requested further explanation and added a note on the city’s policy on air travel. “Overall, as to commercial air travel, our expectation is as follows: In general, the city will reimburse you for the cost of traveling round-trip coach from the city where your office is located to the city of the meeting... as to procedures, your submissions should be itemized and supported by documentation...” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 17, 2005.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/101705.pdf?ref=smdp.com)