The battle for the future of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s office has shifted from legal strategy to a fundamental disagreement over where the perform actually happens. As candidates prepare for the June 2 primary election, the central point of contention has become the return to office (RTO) policy—a dispute that pits the incumbent’s focus on institutional cohesion against a challenger’s push for radical flexibility.
Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto has moved to tighten remote work rules, requiring most staff attorneys to be physically present in the office at least three days a week. Supervisors are held to a stricter standard, with a requirement of four days per week. This shift marks a departure from previous guidelines that allowed for up to three days of remote work weekly, reflecting a broader trend among public agencies to rescind pandemic-era liberalizations.
The move has created a rift between the incumbent and the Los Angeles City Attorneys Association, the union representing the office’s legal staff. While the association endorsed Feldstein Soto during her 2022 campaign, it has yet to weigh in on the current race. The tension has escalated beyond political disagreement; the union filed an unfair employee relations claim against the city last year, arguing that the toughened RTO rules should have been subject to collective bargaining.
The clash over professional cohesion and flexibility
For Feldstein Soto, the physical office is not merely a place of work but a tool for professional development. She argues that in-person presence is critical for the mentorship of junior staff and the overall stability of the department.
“It builds teamwork. It ensures cohesion,” Feldstein Soto said in a recent interview. She specifically highlighted the necessity of in-person oversight for new hires, noting that being on-site “ensures that you have the opportunity to review and evaluate the work of new employees while they are still on probation.”
However, challenger Marissa Roy, a deputy state attorney general, views the current requirements as an unnecessary burden. Roy, the most well-funded of the three challengers, has proposed a starkly different model: requiring lawyers to show up at the office only two days per month, excluding mandatory court appearances.
Roy’s proposal is modeled after the policy currently in place at the state attorney general’s office, where she works under Attorney General Rob Bonta. She contends that such a policy is not only feasible but necessary to attract and retain talent in the public sector.
“There’s no reason why the city attorney’s office can’t have that same policy,” Roy said. She framed the issue as one of equity and respect for the financial trade-offs public servants make, noting that government lawyers typically accept lower salaries than their private-sector counterparts. “You’re taking a pay cut from the private sector. You’re doing it because you care. You’re doing it for work-life balance and we have to respect that,” she added.
Competing visions for the city’s legal team
The debate over Los Angeles City Attorney return to office policies has divided the field of candidates, with each offering a different philosophy on the balance between productivity and employee wellness.
| Candidate | Proposed Office Requirement | Primary Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Hydee Feldstein Soto | 3 days/week (staff); 4 days/week (supervisors) | Teamwork, cohesion, and probationary oversight |
| Marissa Roy | 2 days per month (excluding court) | Work-life balance and public sector recruitment |
| Aida Ashouri | Supports current policy | Combines flexibility with in-person communication |
| John McKinney | Build on existing rules (unspecified) | Remote work as a tool for work-life balance |
Aida Ashouri, a lawyer and activist, has aligned herself with the incumbent’s current framework. Ashouri argued that while flexibility is important, the effectiveness of in-person communication cannot be replaced. “I think meetings in person can be particularly effective and better for communication purposes,” Ashouri said.
Meanwhile, John McKinney, a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, described remote work as a “valuable tool for work-life balance.” While he indicated he would build upon the existing rules established by Feldstein Soto, he has not yet detailed a specific alternative policy.
Institutional risks and the recruitment struggle
The dispute is not merely about convenience; it touches on the logistical realities of municipal law. Feldstein Soto has pushed back against Roy’s two-day-a-month proposal, citing the practical needs of city government. She noted that lawyers must be available for court appearances and present to provide immediate legal guidance during city meetings.
the incumbent raised concerns regarding professional ethics and oversight, suggesting that overly liberal remote work policies could make it easier for city attorneys to engage in unauthorized outside employment.
From the union’s perspective, the struggle is about recruitment. Ann Rosenthal, president of the Los Angeles City Attorneys Association, stated that the current restrictive policy makes it difficult to recruit new attorneys in a competitive legal market where hybrid work has become a standard expectation.
This local conflict mirrors a larger citywide struggle. Matt Szabo, the city administrative officer, confirmed that while individual departments currently make their own RTO determinations, the city is in the process of discussing a draft citywide policy on remote work with employee unions to create more consistency across municipal operations.
The financial state of the race
As the June 2 primary approaches, the financial backing of the candidates suggests a high-stakes contest. Through the end of December, Feldstein Soto had raised more than $685,000. Her most significant challenger, Marissa Roy—who has earned endorsements from the county Democratic Party and the Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America—had raised more than $450,000 by the same deadline.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional employment advice.
The next critical juncture for the office’s workforce will occur next week, when union officials are expected to discuss whether to issue an endorsement for the primary election. That decision could signal whether the rank-and-file attorneys view RTO policies as a deal-breaker in their choice of leadership.
We invite readers to share their thoughts on the balance of remote work in public service in the comments below.
