Nevada County has racked up more than $1.28 million in outside legal costs to date from pending litigation.

Auburn-based AtPac, a software supplier, is suing the county, Clerk-Recorder Greg Diaz and software firm Aptitude Solutions for breach of contract after the firm claimed the Clerk-Recorder's office gave away AtPac trade secrets when it switched from AtPac to Aptitude in 2008 for its software services.

That case makes up the bulk of the county's outside legal cost commitment, at a little more than $1.2 million.

It's one of 13 cases actively pending against the county, and one of four currently handled by outside legal counsel, said County Counsel Michael Jamison.

Altogether, the three remaining suits contracted to outside counsel have cost the county $55,147.81 and are being handled by Sacramento's Porter Scott law firm, which has handled a number of county cases over the years.

One of the suits was filed by a juvenile female against a former county employee for sexual harassment while he was still employed with the county, according to court records.

Thus far the county has spent $8,391.60 on the claim and has a contract with Porter Scott for up to $50,000.

Another suit is a child protective services/ custody dispute involving two county employees. The county has spent $12,419.10 on the suit and has a contract for up to $50,000 with Porter Scott.

The third suit is a workplace accommodation claim from a county employee. Nevada County has spent $34,337.11 defending itself in that suit.

Jamison and his office of three full-time and one part-time attorneys are charged with making recommendations to county staff and its Board of Supervisors on how to handle the cases.

The office handles most claims in-house for economic reasons, but, as in the AtPac case where experience was needed in copyright laws, it turned to outside firms to handle the litigation, Jamison said.

“The primary concern regarding that decision ... is whether the area of law that is involved in the lawsuit is something requiring a specialized type of legal training,” Jamison said.

“We look for someone who is qualified to handle the subject matter.”

While the county runs the gamut in what it defends against – everything from AtPac to land-use planning disputes to people being injured in accidents with county-owned vehicles – most of the liability claims come from law enforcement and child protective services, Jamison said.

“Because of the very nature of their activities, and the nature of what they are required to do ... they are required to interact with people in a non-consensual way,” which can give rise to claims, Jamison said.

Liability claims against the county have generally fallen during the past 20 years, according to the county's risk management office.

In 1990-91, more than 140 claims were filed against the county, a trend that mostly dropped through the 2009-10 fiscal year, the most recent for which statistics are available, when 30 claims were filed against the county.

The trend can be attributed to better risk management practices and good job performance at the county, Jamison added.

What the county pays out in liability claims varies from year to year depending on the type and amount of cases the county faces, Jamison said.

AtPac's previously proposed settlement of $1 million – a number supplied by county officials and not confirmed by AtPac attorney Michael Thomas – would mark a substantial rise in what the county has paid in claims over the past few years.

County officials have not announced a plan to settle with the firm, but say the possibility is on the table.

In 2007-08, the county paid out $90,000 in claims, rising to $490,000 in 2008-09 and $510,000 in 2009-10, according to figures supplied by the risk management office.

The rise in the last two years can partially be attributed to a rise in liability claims against the county, meaning the county must commit more money to defending or paying out claims, as well as the run-up in spending on the AtPac suit, Jamison said.

In the 2010 calendar year, 15 of the 27 lawsuits filed against the county were thrown out, and 12 of the 15 that proceeded resulted in no payment for the county, Jamison said.

The claims it lost included a $15,000 claim paid out in a vehicular accident, and $35,000 paid out for the county's failure to accommodate a disabled person at a county facility.

Insurance pays for some covered liability loss. The county is insured by itself and the California State Association of Counties.

In fiscal year 2009-10, the county paid $550,688 into its insurance pool, and $781,576 in 2010-11, according to the risk management office.

Factors playing into the rate include a county's “past experience.” Past experience is an evaluation made by insurers as to the frequency and severity of the claims the county is found liable for.

Just as a driver's insurance rates are liable to rise if he has multiple speeding tickets, the county's rates are bound to rise if it is found liable at an increasing rate, according to information from the risk management office.

Other factors affecting the county's insurance rates include the performance of the investments CSAC makes with the insurance pool, and current economic conditions, according to information supplied by the risk management office.

Most of the claims against the county in the AtPac suit would be covered, besides that of breach of contract, Jamison said.

If the county were forced to pay up in the AtPac suit, it would then be determined what the county would pay for the uncovered breach claim, he added.

To contact Staff Writer Kyle Magin, e-mail kmagin@theunion.com or call (530) 477-4239.