San Diego County officials aren't actively helping the Chargers find a new stadium site - they met only once with team representatives last year - yet since September they've paid $109,787 to two consultants who specialize in stadium deals.

Nixon Peabody, a law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 16 cities, charged the county $79,847 from Sept. 18 through Dec. 28, according to bills it submitted. Sports business consultant Barrett Sports Group of Manhattan Beach billed the county $29,940 for work it did from Oct. 2 through Feb. 26.

It's not clear what the two firms did to earn their fees. County Counsel John Sansone edited out most of the portion of the bills that describes the work the consultants did.

He said the information he removed from the bills is generally related to the financing of a stadium, site acquisition and construction. He said specifics are being withheld because they fall under attorney-client privilege. The county can waive that right but chose not to in this case.

"The attorney-client privilege is used to encourage a client to discuss an issue that will not be disclosed to others," Sansone said. "Without it, they would not be as willing to be as candid or frank. If we reveal what they said, they won't be as willing to give the expertise we need in the future."

The bills from the two firms show the number of hours worked and the hourly rates, including:

The $680 hourly fee for Peter White, a partner at Nixon Peabody who was named a "dealmaker of the year" by American Lawyer magazine, and the $565 hourly fee for Rick Jones, another attorney at the firm.

A one-hour phone call between Jones and Sansone on Dec. 15 that cost $565.

Telephone conferences or e-mails exchanged on 22 days where the purpose of the conversation has been blacked out by Sansone.

An hourly fee of $375 for consultant Dan Barrett and $200 an hour for his senior consultant.

Thirty-five billing entries by Barrett and his senior consultant in January and February with a one-word description: "analysis." Sansone blacked out the rest of the words in those entries and refused to explain what work was done.

Three potential sites

The Chargers are considering possible stadium sites in Chula Vista, National City and Oceanside, and plan to make a decision this year. Team executives want to place a proposal before voters in November 2008 for a stadium and a commercial development that would help pay for it.

With voter consent, the stadium could open in 2013, the Chargers say.

County officials hired their consultants in September, the same month they announced with much fanfare that they were teaming with the city of San Diego to help the Chargers find a new stadium. But there has been little collaboration since then, and the county hasn't helped the three local cities negotiating with the Chargers.

Sansone said the consultants primarily brainstormed possible stadium development scenarios and "explored different ideas that might make sense." The work was general and didn't involve an analysis of any of the sites that have been recommended in Chula Vista, National City and Oceanside, he said.

It's premature to discuss details of talks between county officials and consultants, Sansone said, adding, "Once there is a (stadium) proposal, there needs to be a public discussion and public comment."

Sansone said he was "not in a position" to waive attorney-client privilege, but said the Board of Supervisors or Chief Administrative Officer Walt Ekard could do so.

County Supervisor Ron Roberts said he hasn't seen the bills, but supports Sansone's position. He said the county "has nothing we need to hide," but doesn't support the release of unedited billings.

Supervisor Dianne Jacob said she "has to respect" Sansone's decision to black out the information. She said the money was "well-spent."

Supervisor Bill Horn referred questions to Roberts, and Supervisor Greg Cox referred questions to Sansone. Supervisor Pam Slater-Price and Ekard didn't return calls for comment.

Disputing privilege

Political reform expert Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, said he agrees that an attorney-client privilege would pertain if the consultants were dealing with a lawsuit.

"There is an exception for litigation," Stern said. "If there is no litigation, then what is the rationale (for not disclosing)? What are they trying to hide?"

Terry Francke, general counsel for Sacramento-based Californians Aware, a nonprofit that promotes open government, said research or strategizing between an outside law firm and county counsel is privileged. But he said the privilege doesn't apply to an outside consultant who isn't a lawyer, so Barrett's work should be disclosed.

Roberts and Jacob - who form the county's stadium subcommittee - and the consultants met with the Chargers on Oct. 26. Chargers general counsel Mark Fabiani said that since then, team executives have had no meetings, phone calls or e-mail exchanges with Nixon Peabody. He said team officials have spoken with the Barrett group several times by phone.

Six months ago, Fabiani suggested that the county use its consultants to help Oceanside, National City or Chula Vista with their stadium plans. In January, the Chargers agreed to pay $200,000 for consultants in Chula Vista. Last month, the Oceanside City Council voted to spend up to $100,000 to hire its own consultants.

"So at this point, it's not clear what role the county's consultants could play," Fabiani said. "But it was a good suggestion when we made it six months ago."

Roberts said the county could help Chula Vista, Oceanside or National City with their stadium plans in the future. He said the consultants helped him and Jacob understand what it takes to develop a stadium.

"They are an experienced and probably an expensive team," he said. "But I've learned over the years that you've got to get good advice when you take on an issue like this."