Editorial: Elect Ryan Richardson as the next Oakland city attorney

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

As Barbara Parker, Oakland’s elected city attorney, prepares to retire, voters face a choice between two very different candidates to replace her.

Ryan Richardson, one of Parker’s two top assistant attorneys, is the better choice to lead the office of about 50 lawyers. He brings 20 years of legal experience, including 10 working for Parker, and solid relations with the city’s elected officials that should provide him with credibility to steer them away from legal peril.

Richardson is running against Brenda Harbin-Forte, a judge for 28 years who retired from Alameda County Superior Court in 2019. For three years after, she served on the Oakland Police Commission and most recently has been a leader of the recall campaign against Mayor Sheng Thao.

It’s that latter position that’s problematic for the otherwise respected jurist. As a recall leader, she has pitted herself against the mayor and her allies on the City Council, some of whom would be her clients if she were elected city attorney.

The job requires a balancing of public accountability with protection of the attorney-client privilege regarding legal advice, on everything from litigation to labor relations, that the office provides the city’s elected officials.

Unfortunately, in recent years, especially during Parker’s last term, the City Attorney’s Office has become more insular, making it hard for the public and press to get basic information. To his credit, Richardson says he wants to change that, to be more transparent when appropriate.

In most California cities, the legal adviser is appointed, usually by the city council. But in Oakland since 2000, voters have elected the city attorney.

That leads candidates to seek support from people and groups who may present legal issues for the city. In this race, each candidate, with justification, has accused the other of problematic politicking that presents potential conflicts of interest.

Richardson, for example, has taken a campaign contribution from, and been endorsed by, Jim Chanin, one of the attorneys who brought the still-ongoing litigation against the city that has led to more than two decades of federal court oversight. (After we raised questions about the contribution, Richardson said he would donate it to a Common Cause fund.)

We wish there were a candidate in this race who, like most appointed city attorneys in the state, stayed away from the political fray. But there isn’t.

For his part, Richardson insists he has made no promises to the groups backing him to win their endorsements. Perhaps not, but he didn’t win the solid support of the city’s labor-dominated political structure without signaling allegiances or sympathy.

That said, Harbin-Forte’s decision to lead the recall campaign against a potential future client is even more troubling — and is likely to undermine her ability, if she were to win, to work effectively.

While both candidates bring the legal expertise needed to lead the office, it’s important that their legal advice, even if it’s unpopular, will be respected and carefully considered by the client.

It’s why Richardson is the better choice for the job.