I received the following email from City Attorney Teresa Stricker less than an hour ago:

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,

I hereby resign as City Attorney.  Consistent with the terms of my employment agreement, my last day as City Attorney will be Monday, January 3, 2022.  Please note that I will be out of the office on a preplanned vacation from Thursday, December 23, 2021 through Sunday, January 2, 2022, and will return to the office for my last day. 

To assist with a smooth and orderly transition, the City Attorney’s Office will immediately commence a transition plan.  And I am happy to discuss how I may assist the City further in that process.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve the City of Richmond for the last year.  I wish Richmond my very best in the future.

Teresa

Since no reason was given for the resignation, I can only speculate that the resignation may have been pursuant to California Bar Rule 1.13(d), which states:

“(d) If, despite the lawyer’s actions in accordance with paragraph (b), the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization insists upon action, or fails to act, in a manner that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization or a violation of law reasonably* imputable to the organization, and is likely to result in substantial* injury to the organization, the lawyer shall continue to proceed as is reasonably* necessary in the best lawful interests of the organization. The lawyer’s response may include the lawyer’s right and, where appropriate, duty to resign or withdraw in accordance with rule 1.16.”

In my opinion, the RPA City Council majority has been consistently directing the city attorney to act in ways that are illegal and/or a breach of the California Bar Rules, professional ethics and the professional standard of care. Perhaps she had no alternative other than to resign.