The question before us is the award to defendants, on the abandonment of eminent domain proceedings, of their costs and disbursements and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in preparing for trial and during trial.
From studying the briefs and the records I conclude:
1. The award of $77,000 in fees cannot be justified for the performance of strictly legal services.
*4492. The great bulk of services for which the award was made involved political representation and not legal representation.
3. The purported legal issue at stake—that acquisition of land for a high school was not for a public purpose—involved political (policy) argument advanced in political forums and not legal argument presented in court.
4. The court based its award of fees in substantial part on political services.
5. Because such services are not a proper basis for an award of attorneys’ fees under section 1255a, the cause should be remanded to the trial court with instructions to assess fees against the school district for legal services only.
1. The Award of $77,000 in Fees Cannot Be Justified for the Performance of Strictly Legal Services
Court activity in this case was minimal.1 Valuation activity was skeletal. Considered as a legal proceeding the cause had scarcely proceeded beyond the preliminaries before its abandonment. Neither counsel for defendants had kept any time records to substantiate his estimate of time spent on the case, nor did either counsel have any specific data to indicate what amount of time he had spent on any particular aspect of the ease. The daybook of one of the counsel, brought to court at the request of plaintiff school district, indicated no more than a total of five days ’ work on the case.
In my view Mr. Hadley’s estimate of the value of all legal services in the ease at $7,500 to $10,000 was substantially correct.
2. The Great Bulk of Services for Which the Award Was Made Involved Political Representation and Not Legal Representation
The paucity of strictly legal services was recognized by counsel, who consequently emphasized the political nature of their services and the happy results achieved for their clients as a result of their services. In using the words political serv*450ices in no way do I derogate the services performed or belittle their merit. Perhaps the use of a neutral phrase, such as policy services, would avoid the connotation attached to the phrase political services and attached to the word lobbying. ' Nevertheless, under whatever label we choose to use and however described, these services appear to have been political and to have constituted the overwhelming bulk of the services performed by counsel in this matter. These were not legal services connected with the representation of defendants in court. As described at length by counsel, their services consisted in advising their clients how to defeat the proposal for ' a high school in the immediate area and how to persuade the new school board not to build a high school on their property. ■ In addition to advising their clients on these matters, the attorneys themselves took an active role in publicizing views favorable- to their clients’ interest and persuading persons and institutions -in the area to adopt their point of view. The mechanics of the campaign were—first to propose a division of the existing high school district into two separate parts (consolidating each separate part with the lower schools in the area), next to persuade the voters to approve this division, then to persuade the voters to elect school board members sympathetic to the interests of the defendants, and finally to . persuade the newly elected school board members to abandon the condemnation. The basic arguments used by the attorneys in this campaign were that another high school in the district was not needed, and-even if one were needed the particular location had been poorly chosen.
In this endeavor counsel were wholly successful, and the ' new school board determined in February 1965 to abandon - plans for a high school on the Lautrup property. Both attorneys testified at length about their services. Mr. Baggot testified :
■ “. . .we also checked with the Chamber of Commerce officials in the City of La Mirada and tried to develop what we . knew was there, and that is an opposition to this taking for a . school site. We felt that the City was against the taking, which they were, and we felt the Chamber of Commerce was against the taking, and they were, and we felt that all'the . help we could get from the City and Chamber of Commerce ' would perhaps rub off on the School Board and help to get this property abandoned as a school site, and we had a number of conferences in that connection, and we did a considerable amount of study in that connection, including some *451report put out by the School Board. . . . Well, the City Manager of La Mirada was one of the men, and he informed us that the City was against the school going in there. I can’t remember the name of the man. I don’t think I have it down here that we met with from the Chamber of Commerce. We met with Mm in the morning. Then we went to lunch and discussed it some more. He was very much opposed to the school site and promised to help us all he could. I don’t remember Ms name, though. . . .
A. Yes, there was a unification election, and then following that—which, as I understand, unification was voted in—and then there was an election for the board members of the unified district.
Q. And after the unification, was there a change in the superintendent of schools ?
A. Yes.
Q. And there was a different school board, is that true 1
A. Yes. . . .
“We raised these points regarding public use, and importuned the City officials and Chamber of Commerce officials and anybody else we could to assist to get the school board to back off this site, and did everything we could think of, both legally and politically, to save the property from condemnation.
Q. You stated on direct examination in support of your contention that your services were worth $50,000, that you saved the property from comdemnation is that correct?
A. That is one of the main factors, yes.
Q. Is it your contention that your activity is the sole and proximate cause for the abandonment in this ease ? . . .
“I think it was motivation because obviously the School District had to follow the notice of abandonment. We couldn’t do that. But I think our efforts were the main reason for the abandonment. ’ ’
In his declaration to support his fee Mr. Baggot asserted:
“One of the declarant’s primary objectives in representing Minnie Margaret Lautrup herein was to secure an abandonment in this proceeding. Much of the time spent by declarant in this matter was devoted to the pursuance of this objective. ’ ’
Mr. Atkinson testified:
“Now, when I finally got into the case, as I have said, after the negotiations between Mr. Norman Lautrup and the County Counsel’s office broke down, I immediately began to *452investigate the conditions in the area relative to the possibility of endeavoring to keep this property from being taken by condemnation. When we filed the answer, at that time we did not know the facts, but I contacted first of all Mr. Alex Googooian, who was the City Attorney of La Mirada, and he advised me that the City was up in arms about the taking of this piece of property, and he advised me to talk to Mr. Chapman Bone, who was the City Administrator, and to talk with the officials of the Chamber of Commerce, and to talk with the newspapers and various other people in the community to see what their feeling was with regard to this.
“And so I did talk with a number of these people and found that the City was very disturbed and very much opposed to the taking of this piece of property for the reasons that they felt: first, there was no need for the school because there was a school that was either just completed or was about to be completed in the general area; there was no expected substantial growth in the area insofar as residences were concerned because the area had already been built up; and because this was one of the last—probably the last remaining site which could be developed for a substantially beneficial use of the city; and, finally, because it was an extremely hazardous location for a school because it was right on the two main boulevards, which would eventually and even then had become —particularly Imperial had become extremely dangerous traffic-wise, and they urged me to do everything I could to see if the property could be kept from being condemned and offered to make all the information that they had available, and to assist in whatever way they could.
“Then, in the course of this, a number of consultations were held with these people. One—I think I remember one, in particular, where we spent the morning talking, and Mr. Bag-got and I then went to lunch with them and then went further into the matter. In the course of this, I obtained from the Chamber of Commerce the study—this is where I first learned of it, from the La Mirada Chamber of Commerce—the study in future district planning of this particular district, which had been prepared by the University of Southern California by its four—one, two, three ... six leading administrators there in the field of education, and then there was the survey staff, and they had made a specific study of the problems of this district. And I made a very extensive study of this report, and I came to the same conclusion that had been, given to me by the City officials and by the Chamber of Commerce *453that this was an absolutely ridiculous place for the location of this school. It was on the actual northerly boundary of the school district, and all of the growth was going—or a substantial portion of any growth was going to take place in the middle and even further below that toward the south of the district in what would be the Dairy Valley, Artesia area, because of the fact that that had been kept as dairies through the years by the forming of the City of Dairy Valley, where they restricted housing development, but everybody knew that that was changing. I, particularly, knew that that was changing because of the fact that the property taxes were becoming so extremely high that the dairymen could not continue to operate their dairies in that location. . . .
“The Court: You said they had three million dollars worth of unsold bonds ?
The Witness: Yes, in excess of three million dollars’ worth of unsold bonds, and it was bonded to 75 percent of its capacity, and here they were to build a school, they were going to have to— . . .
“I found that if they built this school, they were going to have to haul by bus children from the southern part of the district clear up to the very northerly line of their district to use its capacity, and even then, it probably wouldn’t be used to capacity, and I found that they were even, as of then, doing some hauling to fill their other schools. So, as I said, after reviewing it, I was of the opinion that this was not a taking for public use, and that in my opinion, it was a taking of a very valuable piece of property, which I think they hoped—in my opinion, they hoped to get at a very unusual bargain price, and I came to the conclusion that Ldoubted if a school would ever be built there, and they would use it to trade for land in some other area, so that they could—because this was going to be a tremendously valuable piece of property. Now, in the course of things— . . .
“Q. Is it your estimate, then, you spent 48 hours on the telephone ?
A. I would say that that is a conservative estimate because I talked to many, many people about this because we hadn’t gotten into it. But after this election came up and the unification of this school district became a very vital issue, and we felt that if a proper school board could be elected that we would have a chance of getting an abandonment without having to litigate the question of public use, I spent many hours talking to a number of people and many hours with my client *454advising him. as to the thing to do to assist in this election, your Honor, and we participated very actively in that.
Q. Was this on the telephone ?
A. A great portion of it was on the telephone, yes.
.. Q. You have no records to support that; this is just an estimate.
A. No, it"is my best estimate.
Q. That is applicable to all your topics in your declaration, the times that you have are estimates only ?
A. Well, yes, except on the court appearances. . . .
“You know, and from what has been testified, we worked together as a unit. He did certain things, I did certain things, and we combined our joint talents and joint ability to produce what we thought was an excellent result.
Q. You feel that you have the same reputation and standing in the field of comdemnation as Mr. Baggot does ?
. A. No. I don’t think so, but I think I have other assets in this case that are equally as valuable and perhaps more so in this particular ease, such as my knowledge of the property and conditions out there, and my ability to contact and get the information from the officials and to get their assistance and to know what was going on, and to particularly assist in stirring up this consolidation of the. school district—unification of the school district and endeavoring to see that a board was elected that would be in favor of abandoning this case.
Q. Would you classify your efforts in this case as being more of a lobbyist rather than an attorney?
A. No, I acted strictly as an attorney. I advised my client as to what to do with regard to the political problems involved. ...
, Q. However, you contend it was through your efforts and Mr. Baggot’s efforts that the action was abandoned, is that -correct ? . '
A. Well, being frank and fully fair, I don’t think our efforts were the only efforts that contributed to this. The entire community was aroused over this situation. But I am sure that, Mr. 'Stewart, I know this, I know that the school— let me correct that. I know that the Chamber of Commerce and City had given up in this matter, and that when Mr. Baggot and I—when I particularly came "in and started fighting on this thing, we aroused the whole thing all over again, and then a vehicle came along which made it possible for this •to be unified and brought to the public’s attention, and it was .one of the k"ey issues in the election of the new directors—not *455‘directors’, but trustees of this school board, and I had my client, for example, Mr. Norman Lautrup, contact these people ■ and find out their position, and then he backed and worked with the people in the community to try to see that people were elected that would vote for us, and I was guiding this and assisting in this. I talked to the Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Benton, myself. He was very much opposed to taking this site. . . .
Q. Who did you talk to in the Lá Mirada-Norwalk School District ?
A. I talked to Mr. Benton, the Superintendent of Schools, at several times, discussing the entire problem, getting his cooperation and learning his position, and Mr. Lautrup also had a number of meetings with him at my suggestion.
Q. Is Mr. Bentón a voting member of the Board of Education ?
A. Well, under their setup, sir, he would not be a voting ' member, but as the head of the district, he certainly would have a great deal to say as to what would occur, and his recommendations are presented to the Board of Trustees, and I know given great weight.' . . .
“This Reginald M. Benton is the Superintendent of Schools of the Norwalk-LaMirada City School District that I referred to originally in stating that I had held consultations with him in person and by telephone, and he is the man along with this ■ Chamber of Commerce that I and Mr. Lautrup worked at • great length with on this unification question, and on the political action that we took in the matter. Now, I personally talked to him, not only when the unification question came up, but when I was reviewing this 197-page report, which has been referred to, which was studied by the USC editors to be sure that the facts, as far as he could tell me over the telephone first relative to that, to the enrollment, was true because as was subsequently proven to be correct, when the. School Board had a chance to vote on it, there was just absolutely no need for the school in that location, and the study showed it and the facts I got from Mr. Benton showed it, and that convinced me. . . .
“And I had obtained details on all of the parties that were running for the election to the school board, and I had the brochure that was out, and I discussed with Mr. Benton what his attitude would be in the event this unification took place, and he told me that in his opinion, there was absolutely no • need for this school, and that if the unification took place that *456he was going to recommend against the construction of the school, and he said although he could not advise us what to do, but that he would be very glad to see a school board elected that would follow his recommendation, and I then—well, that is something else.
Q. What did you do next then ?
A. Then I discussed at length with Mr. Lautrup the parties that were running, and he, at my direction and under my instructions, interviewed a number of these directors—not ‘ directors, ’ but the persons running, and, in fact, interviewed Mrs. Aegerter, whom we had actually taken the deposition of before, and he and I discussed how she should be interviewed, and what should be said to her to determine what her position would be, and we also discussed having him interview her husband, which he did do, and the same thing occurred with regard to Mr. MacTaggart and several of the other persons that were running.
“And after determining their attitude, he and I then consulted further, and then he, along with the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce, the newspapers—I would report our position to the newspapers so that they could publish articles relative to the fact that there was no need for this school, and it was discussed with Mr. Chapman Bone by me and by him that even though the Planning Commission had approved this site—because if there would have been condemnation, a fixed decision at that point, that they were very much opposed to this, and they would rezone it. And so at the instigation of Mr. Chapman Bone, the City Administrator, I discussed it with the local newspaper, the Lamplighter, and they wrote articles on it, and the question of the stand of the people running, as we worked on, became the material issue in this whole election, and it is interesting—not ‘interesting’, but it turned out that the part that we worked on was successful the first time, in other words, the unification of that part was successful, your Honor, which was testified to here, and the part where we didn't work, which was what was going to be left after this part was unified, was not successful the first time. They had to go through it all over again.
And Mr. Benton worked with me and with Mr. Lautrup in trying to accomplish this. Then when it was finally accomplished, Mrs. Aegerter had changed her position, was elected to the new board. Mr. MacTaggart was elected to the new board, and he recommended just what he told us he would recommend. And the school board then did—the new school board *457did then elect to abandon or recommend it be abandoned by the old school board, and the old school board had to—in effect, followed that, and there was a great deal of work done by me talking to Mr. Hurley, who was very active over there, Mr. Helms, who was very active over there, and the City Attorney, and naturally, I even talked to Mr. Hutchison, although frankly at the moment, I don’t remember what it was about, I can’t remember that. ...”
In his declaration Mr. Atkinson stated:
“At the time declarant was employed, he was instructed that he was to take all means legally available to endeavor to secure an abandonment of the above-entitled action, and it was expressly understood and agreed orally between declarant and Norman Lautrup that the first primary objective in representing him in the matter was to endeavor to secure the School District’s abandonment of the case. As will appear from the further facts set forth in this declaration, a great deal of the time spent and work done by declarant in this case was devoted to securing the objective of the abandonment of the proceedings by the School District. ’ ’
In arguing to the court the value of their services both Mr. Baggot and Mr. Atkinson stressed the fact that they had succeeded in persuading the newly elected school board in the newly created district to abandon the condemnation. Mr. Atkinson stated:
“. . . the desire of the parties was to save this property, if possible, from condemnation. Now, that becomes a very important thing, and our actions went—from that time on—went to that point a great deal, and that is shown by the extensive research, for example, that I did on this study, so that I could get the facts with which we then questioned in the deposition, and then all of the work that I did with regard to the City Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the newspapers, the political thing with the School District, Mr. Benton, who was the head of it—and none of this is disputed—■ and all this went toward the abandonment, and this abandonment just didn’t accidentally happen. I will admit there is some question of fortunate circumstances which came along—we don’t deny it—which assisted us, and that was—this problem of unification came up, but the whole battle—and this has not been disputed—one of the main battles was the taking of this school site and the necessity of putting a school there, and that was the issue, as I have testified to. That is the whole thing. And who stirred that up? Mr. Lautrup and myself. *458Because the City had already by their Planning Commission given up and approved the site, but it became such an issue that this board was elected, and then the two people that had testified under the directions of—not, say, ‘directions,’ but with Dr. Miller, the superintendent of the Excelsior School District that had testified as to the necessity of this thing, reversed themselves and were entirely in accord with what I and Mr. Baggot had been arguing from the very beginning, that this whole thing was not justified by the fact and was not in truth the taking for public use, and that was a very vital issue, and we fought it from the very beginning and went along with that. . . .
‘Now, how much were our services worth in the political field, shall we call it? I mean it wasn’t truly political in one sense. It was taking advantage and stirring up a community so that an issue became very vital. It is almost impossible to measure that in dollars and cents. But you cannot escape the fact that those actions on our part and in my directing of our client caused this whole thing to come about. . . .
“We worked on the unification. Mr. Stewart has said the unification was a crucial factor. Certainly, the unification had a substantial bearing upon this, and we both worked on that, Mr. Atkinson in particular. We worked not only on the unification, your Honor, which was one election, but worked on the board elections that followed the unification election. There were two districts involved here. There were three unification elections, one in one district and two in another, and they were followed by board elections, and Mr. Atkinson worked on those, trying through his contacts and friends in the area and through Mr. Lautrup as well, to work and try to get elected those members who were in favor of abandonment of this school site. ’ ’
Mr. Baggot stated:
“We worked on the unification elections, worked on the board elections and did everything possible, and I particularly have reference to Mr. Atkinson’s efforts here, although I did participate in a number of them to get this thing abandoned. . . .
“You can call it ‘lobbying’ or whatever you want. I don’t care what you call it. It isn’t ‘lobbying’ in the sense that I was trying to pass any bill through. But I was trying to arouse within the community and within the officials that could do something about it the fact that this was not a taking for a public use at all, and that there was—although there was a conclusive presumption—there was no necessity for it. ”
*4593. The Purported Legal Issue at Stake—That Acquisition of Land for a High School Was Not for a Public Purpose— Involved Political (Policy) Argument Advanced in Political Forums and Not Legal Argument Presented in Court
The thrust of counsel’s argument against a high school on the Lautrup property was not that the operation of a high school did not involve a public purpose, but that as a matter of policy the high school was not needed at the time, its location was poorly selected, and perhaps a high school would never be needed at that particular location. To support this argument reference was made to population statistics, future growth in the area, and the like. Clearly these are arguments of policy properly addressed to the policy-making body and improperly addressed to a court in legal proceedings relating to condemnation. It is certainly not debatable in the courts that the operation of a high school is for a public purpose. Where a high school should be located, whether the district can afford to build another high school, whether there should be five or six in the district, etc., are matters committed to policy-making bodies over which the courts have no jurisdiction. This case differs from State of California v. Westover Co., 140 Cal.App.2d 447 [295 P.2d 96], in which counsel were reimbursed for arguing public purpose, in that Westover involved a condemnation of land for a wild life sanctuary under relatively new statutory authorization, at that time a public purpose considerably more debatable than the operation of a public high school has ever been.
4. The Court Based Its Award of Fees in Substantial Part on Political Services
As we have seen from the extracts of the record, the lack of substantiation for strictly legal services caused counsel to place great emphasis on their political representation in the case. Not only may we infer from the paucity of the showing of legal services that the trial court gave weight to these claims but we have the statement of the court itself that it considered such services an important factor in the case :
"The Court: In the line of results, Mr. Baggot, I am interested in the point that Mr. Stewart is raising here, that is what is there in the record in this ease that you feel constitutes evidence that the services of the counsel for the defendants, yourself or Mr. Atkinson, or both of you, were an effective factor in bringing about the abandonment?
“Mr. Baggot: Well, your Honor—
‘‘ The Court: That is an important factor.
*460“Mr. Baggot: That is a very important factor, obviously, and gets us into the labyrinth of cause and effect. ’ ’ (Italics added.)
5. Because Such Services Are Not a Proper Basis For an Award of Attorneys’ Fees Under Section 1255a, the Cause Should Be Remanded to the Trial Court With Instructions to Assess Fees Against the School District for Legal Services Only
In vacating the present award of fees against the school district, in no way would we limit counsel’s right to collect for their services or would we downgrade the value of political and policy-influencing services performed by lawyers. The sole issue here is whether under section 1255a the school district is required to reimburse the Lautrups for moneys spent for such services. Under my reading of the statute reimbursement for attorneys ’ fees is limited to fees incurred in preparing for the trial of the condemnation proceedings and may not include fees for political and policy-influencing services. While the matter has not been directly passed upon by the Supreme Court, the language in La Mesa-Spring Valley School Dist. v. Otsuka, 57 Cal.2d 309, 315, 316, 318 [19 Cal.Rptr. 479, 369 P.2d 7], strongly implies such a limitation:
‘ ‘ The value of all services rendered in preparation for trial after the complaint was filed are clearly recoverable. The question is whether the value of such services for such purpose, rendered prior to the filing of the complaint, is recoverable, if reasonably necessary in preparing for the expected trial . . . The fees recoverable must be a reasonable incident of the suit, proximately and directly resulting from the action
“Of course, the defendant cannot recover any fees of his attorney incurred in connection with the proposed taking of his property unless such fees were incurred in preparation for the defense of the action. It is only those services rendered in preparation for trial of the proposed action that are recoverable. It is for the trial court to determine what services were rendered in preparation for trial and the reasonable value of such services.” (Italics added.)
I would reverse.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 26, 1969. Fleming, J., was .of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied April 2, 1969.