Former Deputy City Attorney Alleges Abuse of Power by Eureka City Manager

Attorney Curtis Davis in front of City Hall. [Photo by Ryan Hutson]

(Part 2 tomorrow continues with a deeper look at Eureka’s City Charter, the hiring and firing process, and additional background—adding context and legal analysis. )

Attorney Curtis Davis, who served as Deputy City Attorney for the City of Eureka from January to June 2025, asserts he was fired by the City Manager under circumstances that raise questions about potential retaliation as well as the proper exercise of authority within city government.  [This will be addressed in Part 2] 

Stating assertively that he suspects “corruption” at City Hall, Davis explained in an interview what exactly he believes led to his firing just short of a six month review. Davis, who was still within his probationary period when he got the bad news, believes his dismissal was directly related to his efforts to uphold ethical standards and legal protocols within the city, and, he asserts, that the City Manager does not have the proper authority to fire a City Attorney. At his own risk – prepared to deal with backlash from his former employer – Davis contends that the public should know what transpired, and what he believes led to his “separation” from City Hall. 

Pulling back the proverbial Redwood Curtain to offer insights from outside professionals, we take a closer look at Eureka’s Charter and the two separate legal matters in which former Deputy City Attorney Curtis Davis says he issued advice that City Manager Miles Slattery didn’t like—advice Davis believes directly led to his firing. Davis enumerated several other possible points of contention that may have led to his termination but these are the two most compelling. 

[We are unable to provide the City’s perspective in regard to Davis’ termination, as both Eureka City Manager Miles Slattery and Mayor Kim Bergel stated earlier this was a personnel matter, and were unable to offer feedback.] 

Roughly a month before former Deputy City Attorney Davis was shown the door, he says he sat with City Manager Miles Slattery at the AA Bar and Grill across from the county courthouse, sharing a cordial conversation about work. Davis reflected on that casual moment, saying, “[Slattery] told me that once Bob’s temporary tenure had completed, that it was the council’s intention and his intention to appoint me as a City Attorney.” That was roughly a month before Davis was shown the door. Now, the new-to-Eureka attorney is speaking out, raising legal and ethical concerns that could have lasting implications—for both himself and the city.  

WHAT HAPPENED AT CITY HALL:

Saying that he was confident in the integrity of his choices to “push back” on actions or policy choices that he recognized as a lawyer were potentially ill-advised, Davis explained, he is sure that a few pointed ethical and legal concerns he raised following former Eureka City Attorney Autumn Luna’s departure from the office of City Attorney were the cause of his firing. 

Davis explained that on June 6, he was summoned to an impromptu afternoon meeting with the City’s HR Director, where Slattery told Davis, “We’re going in a different direction,” without further explanation, and handed him the exit paperwork. 

Davis says his termination was carried out by City Manager Miles Slattery, accompanied by the Director of Human Resources, Will Folger, within 48 hours of Davis having issued critical legal advice to the City Manager, himself, in regard to civil litigation the city is currently engaged in. That’s on top of a handful of other instances that Davis sees as possible precursors to his firing, each related to a piece of legal or ethical advice, or a statement in opposition to the City Manager or to a policy proposal. 

One of the cases where Davis believes his advice put him in contention with the City Manager occurred when he warned the City Manager via email about possible witness tampering repercussions in light of a request made by the City Manager. The other instance occurred in relation to a councilmember’s possible obligation to recuse themselves due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Witness 

The complaint against Fusion Smoke and Glass LP, drafted and filed by the City Attorney’s office, with Davis’ help.

The alleged witness tampered incident involved a civil lawsuit for fraud against a local tobacco smoke shop which was allegedly allowing unpermitted cannabis products to be sold to minors.  

After Davis interviewed a person he described as a “key witness” in the case, who had “just walked into City Hall”, he explained that Slattery, in his role as the City Manager, requested contact information for this witness with the intention of contacting this person for reasons still unknown, according to Davis. Then, following up with what he thought was the appropriate response, Davis says he advised against this contact in writing, warning that it could be construed as witness tampering and compromise the case. 

Within 48 hours, Davis was terminated. 

Davis explained, “That’s problematic, that a City Manager wants to contact a key witness in an active lawsuit filed by the city. That will not put the city in a strong or a good position in the litigation.” Davis continued, emphasizing the severity of his concerns, saying, “Because the defense attorneys will easily be able to argue that, ‘Look, the city is unethically and unlawfully, perhaps, abusing its power by influencing its witnesses, by directly contacting them’.”

“So,” said Davis, “I put out a communication, an email to the city with other departments involved copied, that just put people on notice – that any contact any city staff have with a witness implicates them as a witness, and potentially interferes with the City Attorney office’s investigation,” Davis explained. When asked if the Interim City Attorney Robert Black had weighed in on the matter, Davis recounted, “He did tell me that, in his opinion, it was ‘a blunt exercise of the City Attorney Office’s power’”. 

Attorney Michael Jenkins, Lecturer in Law at University of Southern California Gould School of Law whose expertise is in the area of municipal local law, provided several key insights related to Davis’ situation. Jenkins literally wrote the book on local law, and previously served as president of the City Attorneys Department of the League of California Cities (LCC). Jenkins co-authored the original publication of the League’s Municipal Law Handbook, and is listed as an editor on the current iteration. 

An experienced City Attorney with a celebrity level of notoriety in the exclusive California City Attorney circle (which is more expansive than we ever realized), Jenkins sided with Davis on this issue of advising against possible witness tampering, saying over the phone in an interview, “No City Attorney would want the City Manager to have an interview with a witness in a case that is being handled by the City Attorney. Not without understanding why the manager wants the conversation.” Backing up Davis’ decision to strongly advise against the City Manager’s request, he said, “Any City Attorney worth their salt, would say the same thing…. ‘Whoa, wait a second, why do you want to talk to this witness? What is it that you intend to say to this witness? This is my case, my witness. What’s going on?’” 

As to the witness in question possibly having been contacted by Eureka’s City Manager Miles Slattery, Jenkins, found the scenario concerning, saying that if true, this was “highly unusual” and “raises questions.” Jenkins noted that the City Manager “really plays no role in that sort of litigation. Litigation is handled by the City Attorney’s office. So it’d be very unusual to have a City Manager wanting to speak to a witness in that case.”

The other Attorney who was willing to be quoted on the record for this reporting was Mr. David Super, a Professor of Law from Georgetown University. David Super, who has also taught law at Columbia, Harvard, Howard, Maryland, Penn, Washington & Lee, and Yale on the East Coast, also weighed in on this scenario. 

Super conceded, “I’m not a California lawyer…but every jurisdiction that I do know anything about has a witness tampering statute, and for obvious reasons. You really can’t run a court system if people are doing that.” In regard to the circumstance as described by Davis, where a City Manager allegedly asked to contact a witness in the midst of a civil litigation suit brought by the city, Super agreed that former Deputy City Attorney Davis was correct to issue the advice against witness contact, and spoke to how that matter could have been handled more appropriately. 

“If I was the City Manager and I had some questions”, Super said “I’d tell the attorney to go ask the questions… because, as the attorney, presumably they know how to be careful about not asking them in an improper way.” He added, “In law, as in so many other things, too many cooks spoil the broth. You don’t want lots of people talking to your witnesses.”

As to the matter of Davis’ termination allegedly related to his legal advice issued to the City Manager, Super read California’s employment protection laws, and in a phone interview from the East Coast said his understanding is that the law says “that if you have a reasonable basis for believing either that there has been or will be a problem, that that is something that is protected, something that you can’t be punished for, so telling your employer that ‘I have a reasonable basis to think that you could run afoul of witness tampering if you contact this witness’ would strike me as within the scope of that statute, if that is, in fact, what happened.” 

Asserting that this instance of disagreement was a motivating factor for the City Manager to dismiss him, Davis said, “I believe that that email in response to the City Manager requesting the contact information of the individual resulted in my termination …because I believe the City Manager saw that as a direct undermining of his authority.” Davis added, “And my position is, no, I have an ethical duty to the city, to my client, to protect the integrity of the case and to protect my investigation.”

The Police

On the Tuesday before his Friday, June 6 firing, he also raised a conflict of interest concern related to a councilmember prior to the start of closed session meeting, suggesting to those present (including some City Councilmembers, the interim City Attorney Robert Black, the City Clerk, the Mayor and the City Manager) that disclosure of a conflict of interest on the part of a councilmember was appropriate, in his opinion. 

Davis openly brought up this specific concern on the brink of a closed session meeting, after he said previous email communications on the matter had reportedly gone unaddressed. Following the closed session meeting, Davis recounts how that councilmember had admonished him for his approach, and for his statements.  

The Complaint involving Councilmember Contreras-DeLoach, involving a criminal investigation done by Eureka Police Dept., which Davis contends involved a potential conflict of interest.

The lawsuit filed on March 28, 2025, in Humboldt County Superior Court involves a city Councilmember suing the Eureka City School District and teachers over an alleged assault on the Councilmember’s minor child at the Winzler preschool. The plaintiffs claim the school district failed to properly supervise a staff member who allegedly committed child abuse, with the Eureka Police Department serving as the investigating agency.

Flagging what he says was a problematic connection between the civil case’s Plaintiff/Councilmember and the Eureka Police Department (EPD) which responded to the matter initially, Davis voiced concern about the potential conflict of interest, should the Eureka Police Department (EPD) need to contribute further.

According to Davis, in response to his concerns about a possible conflict of interest related to ongoing litigation by a city councilperson named as a Plaintiff, he described this Councilmember becoming defensive, disputing Davis’ legal advice, and accusing the lawyer of being unprofessional, to which Davis conceded, in part. He says that in the presence of Interim City Attorney Robert Black, he responded by offering an apology for his approach, but held firm on the substance. Davis says he reiterated in that moment that “as an attorney representing the city” his duty was to “inform Councilmembers of legal concerns” in an effort to guard against liabilities for the city, including a possible conflict of interest involving any Councilmembers.

Attorney Michael Jenkins offered the differing view that a conflict only occurs when a Councilmember faces a decision that could be influenced by their personal interest. He explained that “a conflict of interest arises when a city council is faced with making a decision on an agenda item, and then the question is, does a councilmember have a conflict of interest that precludes him or her from participating in making that decision” with the other city councilmembers.  

Jenkins says there would not have been an immediate conflict unless a decision of some kind was before that councilmember, requiring disclosure of a conflict. Essentially, without a specific decision before the council wherein the councilmember would have an opportunity to apply pressure or bias, there would be no conflict presented.

But, if a conflict appears likely to exist, Jenkins clarified, a city attorney may point that out to the city councilmember for consideration, but it is then up to the councilmember to decide if they must recuse themselves. “If they chose to participate notwithstanding” in a vote or decision wherein a conflict exists, Jenkins said, “then they bear that risk.” 

In regard to the councilmember’s ongoing civil court case against teachers and a Eureka City School, Davis said, “I do believe that my communication, raising concerns and informing city administration and city council of a conflict of interest that was not disclosed… resulted in my termination, which is retaliation, which is unlawful retaliation.” 

RAISING THE BAR 

According to Practicing Ethics: A Handbook for Municipal Lawyers, the definitive guide on City Attorney best practices which notes Michael Jenkins as an editor, a City Attorney is bound by the most stringent expectations of confidentiality, and is at risk of losing their licence if advice is not adhered to. 

Offering a hypothetical, Jenkins explained, “If the City Attorney says to the City Manager ‘what you’re asking to do is inappropriate, I’m not going to give you access to this witness – take it up with the City Council’ …that’s just an internal disagreement.” Jenkins further explained that ultimately, “If the City Attorney thinks that the City Manager is up to no good, then the City Attorney has a duty to report that to the City Council, because City Council is the highest authority in the organization.” 

The Ethics Handbook explains the difficult choice an attorney may be faced with if recognizing harm on the horizon, and it clearly delineates a City Attorney’s options when reporting wrongdoing. “The attorney has limited options, including (1) urging the agent to reconsider their actions or (2) going up the chain of command to the highest level of the organization authorized to act.” Then, the real conundrum exists if and when that advice is ignored by the City Council or City Manager, because, “If the highest level of the organization refuses to act and no other legally permissible options can be discerned, then the attorney’s only remaining option may be to resign.” 

In light of the obligation a City Attorney faces if confronted with a heavy ethical dilemma could force an ethical attorney to “separate” themselves from the city, because as Jenkins points out, “When they bring wrongdoing to the attention of the highest decision making body in the city, and then this highest decision making body does not cure the wrongdoing, the City Attorney is basically obligated to resign,” or risk losing their License to practice Law in California. Because, as Jenkins put it, “They’re potentially collaborating and abetting wrongful conduct.”

But in Davis’ case, he never had that chance. He was fired within 48 hours of issuing his warning, before any determination could be made by the Interim City Attorney or the Council, and before it was clear whether his advice would be followed or rejected.

Walking The Line

All the attorneys interviewed for this story, including Davis himself, acknowledged the fine line he is walking by speaking publicly about his termination and the legal concerns he raised. As a former Deputy City Attorney, Davis remains bound by confidentiality rules—even after his employment ends.

The Practicing Ethics Handbook  advises City Attorneys that confidentiality is the underpinning of the job, reading, “Given that confidentiality is the cornerstone of trust between the client and the attorney, California public policy has long held this duty is paramount and may not be breached except in very limited circumstances.” In state law, the Business and Professions Code requires an attorney to keep city business confidential, and “at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets of his or her client,” with little room for exception, clarifying that “[A]n attorney may, but is not required to, reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client,” in this case, that’s the City of Eureka, “to the extent that the attorney reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the attorney reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual.” 

That legal framework raises a critical question: Is Davis violating attorney-client confidentiality by speaking out?

Davis says no. He argues that his disclosures have been carefully limited and driven by his ethical duty to protect the city’s legal interests, not harm them. He has not filed any complaints with outside agencies nor invoked whistleblower protections. 

Davis said, “My ethical duty and my oath is to my one client as a Deputy City Attorney, and that’s the city of Eureka, the public entity.” Davis added, in regard to the matter of the civil litigation witness, “The interference and the affirmative contact by the City Manager of a key witness in an active lawsuit that the city has filed, absolutely harms the city’s legal interest.”

Georgetown law professor David Super did not weigh in on whether Davis’ disclosures crossed any ethical lines, but emphasized the broader value of whistleblower protections. The term “whistleblower,” he noted, can be loaded—but with good reason. “It’s important that people disclose potential legal issues so that they can be addressed,” he said.

CONCLUSION to Part 1

Curtis Davis concedes that he may be “a disgruntled former employee,” but also feels he has a solid case of employer retaliation. Davis has suggested that the City Manager Myles Slattery has “effectively consolidated support and power across the city government,” while isolating the City Attorney’s office. Now, the former Deputy City Attorney is thinking of legal action against the City, potentially citing employer retaliation and unlawful termination labor code violations- an area of law that he considers a forte in his private practice. 

As for the strength of any potential claim, municipal law expert Michael Jenkins offered a pragmatic take, “He’s an employment lawyer, he’s going to figure out whether he has or doesn’t have causes of action, and what he’s able to do ethically, and not ethically.” 

[Continued in Part 2 tomorrow]