On the Ballot: New Orleans City Attorney Charter Amendment

• Bureau of Governmental Research
							
						

This On the Ballot report examines the November 15, 2025, proposed charter amendment on New Orleans’ City Attorney.

 

Overview

On the Ballot: New Orleans City Attorney Charter Amendment analyzes a proposed City charter amendment to clarify that the City Attorney represents the entire City of New Orleans, and not just the mayor or the City Council. It also would allow the council to block the mayor’s firing of the City Attorney under certain circumstances. BGR’s report analyzes whether the proposal would effectively address a clear problem or need, and whether it is necessary or desirable to change the charter to improve public outcomes.

The council proposed the amendment to help ensure even-handedness in the City Attorney’s dealings with both branches. This followed legal disputes with the mayor in which the council questioned the City Attorney’s neutrality and independence. The mayor vetoed the proposed amendment, but the council unanimously overrode the veto to place it on the ballot.

If approved by voters, the charter amendment would take effect January 13, 2026. This is the first day in office for the next mayor and City Council.

BGR graphic explaining the City Attorney charter amendment

Report Highlights

  • The City Attorney is the City’s top lawyer, with duties to both the executive and legislative branches. The mayor appoints an experienced, practicing attorney, subject to City Council confirmation. The mayor has broad authority to supervise and remove the City Attorney under the current charter. In New Orleans’ “strong mayor” government, the City Attorney and the Law Department mainly support the executive branch, due to its responsibility for the daily operations of City government. However, the attorney’s client is the City of New Orleans. The City Attorney advises both the mayor and the City Council.
  • The amendment would affirm that the City Attorney’s client is the City. It would drive home the City Attorney’s obligation to act in the best interest of the City and its citizens. It would emphasize that the City Attorney must follow the Louisiana Supreme Court’s ethical rules for lawyers. All of these principles currently apply to the City Attorney.
  • The amendment would add other guidance based on current ethical rules. It would clarify how the City Attorney consults on legal matters with the mayor and council, exercises independent legal judgment on the City’s behalf, and acts during interbranch conflicts. The goal is to make essential rules well known to future City officials, especially those who are not attorneys. By setting clearer expectations among the City Attorney, the mayor and the City Council, proponents say the amendment might improve how they handle the City’s legal affairs.
  • The current mayor contends these proposed changes are unnecessary because they address matters that are already covered by the charter and existing ethical rules.
  • In addition, the City Council would gain the option to block the mayor’s firing of the City Attorney under certain circumstances. This would take a supermajority vote (five of the seven council members). The council must find that the mayor removed the City Attorney “without valid cause.” Or it must find that the mayor removed the City Attorney “for a reason inconsistent with the policy of independence” in the charter amendment.
  • The current mayor criticized this new council authority as overreach into executive authority over legal operations. However, proponents view the process as an important safeguard. It would provide some protection against the City Attorney’s termination for having exercised independent professional judgment. The City Attorney frequently works in gray areas of the law. At times, the attorney may need to deliver legal advice that the mayor may dislike.
  • BGR found two potential concerns with the objection process. If the council blocks the firing, the City Attorney would likely return to a hostile work environment. And, if left undefined, the term “valid cause” invites competing interpretations by the mayor and the council. This could create further conflict between the two branches.
  • The charter amendment allows the council to adopt ordinances to address these potential concerns. However, the council has not yet proposed any such ordinances. In the ordinance-making process, the mayor approves or vetoes what the council adopts. So, the mayor can participate in reaching a mutually acceptable approach. This is important because certain aspects of the process, such as the definition of valid cause, may affect the mayor’s firing decision and explanation of the reasons for it. The ordinance could also provide a way for the council to give its advice and consent prior to the mayor’s termination decision.

BGR Position

AGAINST. The proposed charter amendment is not necessary to achieve the desired goal of improving the working relationship between the City Attorney, the mayor and the City Council. It is clear from the current charter that the City Attorney and the Law Department represent the City as a whole, and not just the mayor or the council. The City Attorney also must advise both the mayor and the City Council and follow all other charter duties and ethical rules that the amendment seeks to affirm. From a practical standpoint, the amendment would provide greater cover for the City Attorney to give legal advice to both the executive and legislative branches of City government in a professional, neutral manner. But the same guiding principles for dealing with interbranch conflicts will apply even if they are not explicitly stated in the charter.

In addition, the council will be able to confirm the next mayor’s choice for City Attorney after a public hearing at which the council can vet potential appointees. It can evaluate their understanding of the City Attorney’s duties to the City, the mayor and the council under the current charter, as well as the ethical rules and how they would apply to the position. A successful candidate could be held accountable for a failure to act consistently with the answers given during the public confirmation process. This public vetting may be a more effective way of fostering the City Attorney’s positive working relationship with both branches than the proposed charter amendment’s process for allowing the council to block the mayor’s firing of a City Attorney. That process is not clearly defined in the amendment and could lead to more interbranch conflicts.

Click here to download the full report.


This report is part of BGR’s On the Ballot series, which provides voters with independent, nonpartisan analysis of significant ballot propositions in the New Orleans metropolitan area. In producing these reports, BGR recommends positions consistent with its mission of promoting informed public policy making and the effective use of public resources to improve local government. On the Ballot reports highlight the strengths and weaknesses of ballot propositions and assess the potential for government expenditures or actions to efficiently achieve beneficial outcomes for citizens.

Previous Next