Lago Vista's outside legal bills grew 17 times in two years

Lago Vista's legal bills rose from $27,383 in the 2021-22 budget year to $468,390 in 2023-24, a jump of about 17 times ($468,390 divided by $27,383 equals 17.1, our math).¹ The most recent full year on record, 2024-25, cost $422,844 in money from the city's General Fund.² On January 6, 2026, the City Council voted 6 to 1 to raise the 2024-25 legal budget from $405,000 to $430,000.^3,4 Council Member Adam Benefield cast the lone vote against the increase.³ A city budget document explained the request by pointing to "grievance investgations, lawsuits, and multiple separations."⁵ Over the same years, the city stopped paying a salaried city attorney, whose position cost $128,437 in 2021-22 and nothing by 2023-24.¹

An earlier Watchdog story, Lago Vista's city manager settlement, described the October 3, 2024, meeting where the council voted 4 to 2 to accept a separation agreement with its city manager.⁶

Legal spending by year

The Legal department's main account, 10-518-6120 Legal Services, is part of Fund 10, the city's General Fund.¹ In the year that ended September 30, 2020, the city spent $110,109 on what its budget book calls "Outside Counsel Attorney Fees."⁷ Spending fell to $37,543 the next year and to $27,383 the year after that. For 2022-23, the council had adopted a $50,000 budget for the account. By March 31, 2023, the city had already spent $151,160, and staff projected the year would end at $350,000.⁸ The account's actual spending that year came in at $369,532. Spending rose again to $468,390 in 2023-24.¹ It was $422,844 in 2024-25.² The city's 2025-2026 budget book requested $450,000 for the account.¹ The city's adopted 2026-2027 budget approves $450,000 for legal services.²

The Legal department also carried personnel costs separate from the outside-lawyer account. In 2021-22, it paid a salaried "City Attorney" line of $128,437, and its total personnel costs that year were $170,354. Personnel costs fell to $52,156 in 2022-23 and were $0 from 2023-24 on. Counting both personnel and the Legal Services account, the whole department's cost was $219,501 in 2021-22, $427,268 in 2022-23, and $474,430 in 2023-24, a bit more than twice as much as 2021-22 ($474,430 divided by $219,501 equals 2.16, our math). The 17-times growth figure applies to the Legal Services account alone, not the whole department.¹

The city's 2025-2026 budget book lists $6,000 spent in 2023-24 from the Legal department's settlement account, 10-518-6700.¹ In its "Actual" column for the 2025-26 budget year, the city's 2026-2027 budget book lists $239,492 for legal services and $25,000 for settlements. The book does not say what the $25,000 paid for.²

The city's annual audit does not list legal costs on their own. It reports broader categories instead, such as "General government," which cost $4,569,450 in the year that ended September 30, 2025.⁹

2020 to 2023, the first suits

On December 29, 2020, David Stewart sued the City of Lago Vista in a Travis County district court, in a case the court classified as "Employment Discrimination Harassment." John Foster Melton represented Stewart, and Joanna Lippman Salinas represented the city.¹⁰ On July 6, 2019, Lago Vista Police Department officers arrested Alicie Reed outside her home for public intoxication. Reed's federal lawsuit, filed in 2021, alleged that the arrest caused "permanent and severe damage to her wrists, particularly her right wrist, which required surgery to repair injuries and nerve damage." The suit raised a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against the officers and a Monell claim against the city, a claim that city policy or training caused the harm. On February 10, 2022, a federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing the claims against the city, while the Fourth Amendment claims against the two individual officers remained pending. The court record we reviewed does not show a final order or any settlement terms in the Reed case.¹¹ Brittany Henry filed a separate federal lawsuit against the Lago Vista Police Department on August 18, 2021, over a claim the court listed as "42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)." Holt Major Lackey, and later Jay D. Ellwanger, represented Henry, and Joanna Lippman Salinas represented the police department.¹² On March 16, 2023, the council held a closed session with updates on the Stewart and Henry lawsuits and on an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, matter, number 451-2023-00406. The minutes list no action taken on any of those items that night.¹³

2023 to 2024, a new suit and a settlement vote

On March 3, 2023, Caelum Capital, LLC sued the city in a case the court classified as "Debt/Contract," cause number D-1-GN-23-001164. The county docket now lists Bradford Eugene Bullock and Sara B. Kerr as the city's lawyers and Hallie Elizabeth Graves and Connor Coleman Cox as Caelum's.¹⁴ The council held a closed session on the Caelum case on April 6, 2023, and took no action.¹⁵ On November 30, 2023, two law firms, Bojorquez Law Firm and Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta, presented to the council under a request for qualifications for city attorney services, RFQ 23-09. The council took no action on the presentations.¹⁶ In a separate court filing against a developer, in which the city was not a party, Caelum said it owns a lot in the Marshall's Harbor subdivision. It said a 2007 settlement agreement among the city, developers, and property owners fixed the subdivision's density.¹⁷ The records we reviewed do not include Caelum's petition against the city, so they do not show what Caelum claims.¹⁴ Separately, the city had been in a condemnation case against Axel Sigmar since July 16, 2014, a proceeding to take private property for public use.¹⁸ On March 21, 2024, on a motion by Council Member Paul Roberts and a second by Council Member Rob Durbin, the council voted unanimously to authorize the city attorney to negotiate and settle the Sigmar case.¹⁹ The minutes call the court "Probate Court No. 1," while the county's docket lists it as County Court at Law #1.^18,19 The court entered an order of dismissal on April 19, 2024, two days after a motion to enter an agreed order of dismissal, and the docket does not show a dollar amount.¹⁸

2024 to 2025, new lawyers

The minutes list Cobby Caputo as city attorney at the March 21 and December 5, 2024, council meetings.^19,20 At the December 5, 2024, meeting, the minutes list Teresa Hudson as "Special Counsel." That night, the council voted 7 to 0 for Resolution 24-2096, appointing Messer Fort, PLLC, as Interim City Attorney and authorizing the city manager to sign the engagement agreement.²⁰ On February 6, 2025, the council held a closed session on "termination of engagement agreement for legal services with Munck Wilson Mandala/Teresa Hudson" and took no action.²¹ On February 20, 2025, the council held closed sessions on a "letter related to termination of legal services by Munck Wilson Mandala" and on the appointment of Bradford Bullock of Messer Fort, PLLC, as city attorney, and took no action on either item that night.²² On March 6, 2025, on a motion by Council Member Paul Roberts and a second by Council Member Paul Prince, the council voted 7 to 0 to authorize the city manager to execute the contract making Bradford Bullock of Messer Fort, PLLC, the city attorney.²³ On April 3, 2025, the council held a closed session on employment-related claims of J. Bartholomew, and on a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Rob Durbin and a second by Council Member Paul Prince, voted 7 to 0 to direct the city attorney to act as discussed in that closed session. The minutes also list a closed session that day on the city's golf course irrigation contract with Duininck, Inc., and show no action was taken.²⁴

Late 2025, a judgment and a budget fix

On July 22, 2025, two self-represented plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit naming the City of Lago Vista among many defendants, saying Lago Vista police officers "appeared at Plaintiff's residence on or around June 19." The suit sought "monetary damages in an amount $3,000,000, or such amount as may be determined at trial."²⁵ On August 6, 2025, the court entered an order denying the city's motion for summary judgment, a request to decide the case without a trial, in the Stewart case.¹⁰ On November 6, 2025, the council held closed sessions on "a complaint made against the City of Lago Vista alleging discrimination" and on a "civil action filed against the City of Lago Vista," and took no action on either.²⁶ On November 7, 2025, the city's lawyer, Joanna Salinas, filed a motion to dismiss the July 2025 federal suit.²⁷ The council held the same two closed sessions on November 20, 2025, again with no action.²⁸ On December 4, 2025, the council held a closed session titled "Claim # LB114381; Dave Stewart Vs City of Lago Vista," with no action taken.²⁹ That same meeting, the council considered a budget amendment that would have raised the Legal Services account from $405,000 to $430,000, citing "grievance investgations, lawsuits, and multiple separations."⁵ On the meeting video, Council Member Paul Prince said, "Same thing with legal services. It was a small overage well within the city manager's discretionary spending levels."³⁰ The council voted 7 to 0 to table the item that night.²⁹ On December 12, 2025, an agreed final judgment was entered in the Stewart case, closing it. The docket we reviewed does not show the terms of that judgment or any payment made under it.¹⁰

2026, new claims and a policy

On January 6, 2026, the council took up the budget amendment again as Ordinance 26-01-06-01. Staff told the council the increase in the General Fund was "covered by underspending in non-departmental Contract Services." The council voted 6 to 1 to approve the ordinance, with Council Member Adam Benefield voting no. The same meeting, the council appointed Dave Stewart to the Planning and Zoning Commission by a vote of 5 to 2, with Benefield and Council Member Amanda Chavarria voting no.³ On the meeting video, the member the chair called on as Mr. Benefield said of Stewart, "Last we were told from council, he was under active litigation against the City of Lago Vista." Another speaker on the video said Stewart had described the matter as "totally resolved."³¹ That same night, the city attorney told the council the Caelum Capital case was "ongoing litigation that's been hanging around for a number of years now," and the council took no action on a closed-session update on the case.^3,32 At the same meeting, during a discussion of the city's ethics policy, the minutes say City Attorney Brad Bullock gave the council a legal opinion.³ On the video, a council member said, "While we still have Brad, I did want to bring him in," and the reply said his "reentry into doing some work for Lago Vista was as the outside counsel on an ethics matter before I then became your city attorney." He said, "You have to hire outside counsel when there are complaints against council."³³ He said the previous day's proceedings on one complaint would probably cost "a couple thousand dollars in attorney's fees between my office and outside counsel," adding, "I'll be surprised if the total is less than $2,000 for one complaint."³⁴ On February 19, 2026, the council held a closed session on a "Notice of Claim and Demand for Corrective Action by A. Benefield," with Council Member Adam Benefield listed as present, and took no action. The minutes do not describe the claim or the demand.³⁵ The council held a closed session on "notice of claim and demand from A Benefield" again on March 19, 2026, with no action. That meeting, on a motion by Mayor Pro Tem Norma Owen and a second by Council Member Amanda Chavarria, the council voted unanimously that "Boards and Committees are to use their City Council liaison or staff for legal opinions."³⁶ On the meeting video, a council member said, "Legal hours are expensive."³⁷ On May 7, 2026, the council held another closed session on the Caelum case, again with no action.³⁸ On July 31, 2026, Judge David A. Ezra signed an order granting motions to dismiss, and the federal docket lists the "Terminated party City of Lago Vista."²⁷ Joanna Lippman Salinas, the same lawyer who represented the city in the Stewart case and the police department in the Henry case, filed the city's motion to dismiss in this case.^10,12,27

Where the cases stand

What it costs taxpayers

The Legal Services and settlement accounts are both in Fund 10, the city's General Fund.¹ The Legal Services account alone grew from $27,383 in 2021-22 to $468,390 in 2023-24, about 17 times, and cost $422,844 in 2024-25, the most recently completed year. The 2025-2026 budget book requested $450,000 for the account, and the adopted 2026-2027 budget approves $450,000 as well.^1,2 Separately, the Legal department spent $6,000 from its settlement account in 2023-24.¹ The 2026-2027 budget book also lists $25,000 in actual settlement spending for 2025-26, without saying what it paid for.² The city's audit does not list legal costs separately. It reports spending in broad categories such as "General government."⁹

What you can do

Residents can file a public records request with the city for the invoices paid from the Legal Services account, 10-518-6120, and from the settlement account, 10-518-6700. Residents can also request the Stewart agreed final judgment and any payment made under it, the Henry settlement papers, any Reed settlement papers, the Sigmar dismissal terms, any claim or payment records from the Texas Municipal League risk pool, and the Caelum Capital petition against the city.³⁹ State law makes public "information that is in a bill for attorney's fees and that is not privileged under the attorney-client privilege." It also makes public "a settlement agreement to which a governmental body is a party."⁴⁰

If you have records on this, you can share them with us at /share-records. We protect your identity and publish the evidence when we can do so safely.