Councilmember Curren Price had many ways to know about conflicts of interest, FPPC attorney says
The general counsel of the Fair Political Practices Commission testified Tuesday that L.A. City Councilmember Curren Price had a number of ways of knowing if a conflict of interest existed when he voted on matters during council meetings.
David Bainbridge was the opening witness in what is expected to be a multi-day preliminary hearing that will decide whether Price, 75, should stand trial in a public corruption case.
The Ninth District representative is charged with five counts of grand theft by embezzlement of public funds, four counts of conflict of interest and three counts of perjury by declaration. Price — who has represented the South Los Angeles/Exposition Park district since 2013 after previously serving in the Assembly and state Senate — has maintained his innocence.
Price could face up to 11 years and 4 months in custody if convicted, including up to 9 years and 4 months in state prison and up to 2 years in county jail, according to the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office.
The felony counts allege that Del Richardson & Associates — a company owned solely by Price’s wife, Delbra Pettice Richardson — received payments totaling more than $150,000 between 2019 and 2021 from developers before Price voted to approve projects.
Price is also accused of embezzling nearly $33,800 in city funds from 2013-17 to pay for medical benefits for Richardson, whom he falsely claimed was his wife while he was still legally married to Lynn Suzette Price, according to the DA’s Office.
Much of Bainbridge’s testimony centered on an FPPC form 700, or statement of economic interest, which every elected official and public employee who makes or influences governmental decisions is required to submit. He also was questioned on Government Code form 1090, which prohibits an officer, employee or agency from participating in making government contracts in which the official or employee within the agency has a financial interest.
Bainbridge said it is up to a politician and not his or her staff to know when a conflict of interest may exist. He further said that if a politician is unsure if a potential conflict is present, the state Attorney General’s Office, for one, is a place where opinions are regularly offered on the subject. In Price’s case, Bainbridge said, the council member also could have asked his wife.
But, Bainbridge added under cross-examination, “You can’t recuse yourself if you don’t know.”
Price pleaded not guilty to the initial 10 charges in December 2023 and was released on his own recognizance. Those charges were filed in June 2023.
In August 2025, prosecutors said subpoenas in the case had yielded additional evidence of public corruption — and they filed an amended complaint alleging two more counts of conflict of interest. The complaint includes an appendix of 39 exhibits of alleged evidence of the payments and Price’s voting history, prosecutors said.
A month later, Superior Court Judge Sean Coen rejected a challenge from the defense contesting the legal sufficiency of the complaint — a move that could have resulted in the dismissal of the case.
“Public officials will not violate the public trust on my watch,” District Attorney Nathan Hochman said in a statement shortly after the judge’s decision. “The District Attorney’s Office, by law, is mandated to serve as a watchdog against public corruption. Politicians are entrusted with immense power and control over vast sums of money and are accordingly bound to act in the interests of the public, not their pocketbook. Our Public Integrity Division will continue to hold politicians accountable. We look forward to moving forward with the criminal justice process in this case.”
Shortly after the new charges were added, Price’s attorney, Michael Schafler, said in a statement that the new charges were “nothing more than an attempt to pile onto a weak case.”
“They have gone back as far as six years, combing through thousands and thousands of votes, to find a couple more allegedly conflicted votes,” Schafler said. “The evidence will show that Councilmember Price had no knowledge of any alleged conflicts at the time he cast those votes. The fact is that every one of those votes was passed unanimously and by consent.”
“The councilman will continue to fight these charges until his name is cleared and his innocence is proven,” Schafler added.
According to court papers, between Oct. 22, 2019, and June 30, 2020, the Housing Authority of the city of Los Angeles paid Del Richardson & Associates nearly $609,600. During that time, Price voted to support a $35 million federal grant and a state grant application for $252 million for the agency, court papers show.
Between Oct. 27, 2020, and Oct. 20, 2021, LA Metro paid Del Richardson & Associates about $219,500. During that time, Price introduced and voted for a motion to award $30 million to Metro, according to prosecutors.
In both cases, Price’s staff had flagged the potential conflict of interest prior to the votes, prosecutors said.
Prosecutors also contend that Price took advantage of his position to award city lease agreements and more than $2 million in federal COVID-19 grants to the nonprofit Home at Last, which was a tenant of the Urban Healthcare Project, for which Price served as CEO.
Price is the latest Los Angeles official to fall into legal or political turmoil.
Former council members Jose Huizar and Mitch Englander have both pleaded guilty to federal charges in recent years, while former Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas was convicted in 2023 of federal charges for trading votes during his time on the county Board of Supervisors in exchange for benefits provided by USC to his son.
Former City Council President Nury Martinez resigned in 2022 after being caught on tape making racist remarks in a conversation with two other council members and a county labor official, discussing the council’s redistricting process.