The claim, filed by attorney James Quadra of Quadra & Coll LLP, argues that the county's refusal to pay for Corpus's defense violates California Government Code section 995, which requires public entities to provide a defense for current and former employees sued over conduct within the scope of their public employment, subject to certain exceptions.

"The County's refusal violates its obligations under the Government Code," Quadra said in a statement. "The record described in this claim shows retaliation is driving the decision, rather than an impartial application of the law. Officials cannot turn their hostility toward a former sheriff into a lawful basis for forcing her to personally finance the defense of claims arising from her public service."

The two lawsuits at issue were filed by Carlos Tapia, president of the sheriff deputies' union, and Valerie Barnes, a former friend and coworker of Corpus.

Tapia has accused Corpus of unlawful arrest after she authorized his detention on suspicion of timecard fraud. Tapia was a vocal critic of Corpus, and his arrest was widely seen as retaliation. The San Mateo County District Attorney's Office later dropped all charges against him.

Barnes has accused Corpus of discrimination and retaliation stemming from Barnes's disapproval of the hiring of Victor Aenlle as chief of staff. Barnes's complaint alleges that before Corpus took office, Corpus directed her to research Maui wedding venues for Corpus and Aenlle, procure alcohol for their lunch meetings, conceal bags of condoms in her office, and clean up residue of what appeared to be crushed white pills with blue speckles in Corpus's workspace.

Since May, the county has declined to pay for Corpus's defense or reimburse her legal fees in both suits, according to the claim.

Corpus's attorneys argue that because some of the actions described in the lawsuits were conducted within the scope of her employment as sheriff, the county is obligated to cover her defense. They also point to what they describe as selective treatment: in Tapia's lawsuit, former Undersheriff Dan Perea and former Acting Assistant Sheriff Matthew Fox are also named as defendants. The county has refused to pay for Perea's defense but agreed to cover Fox's legal fees.

Fox led the investigation into suspected timecard fraud by Tapia, and Perea ordered Tapia's arrest, according to court documents and testimony from the administrative removal hearing.

"The County is funding a defense for the investigator who says he believed the evidence supported probable cause to arrest Tapia, while denying a defense to Corpus and Perea, who relied on that investigation," said attorney Christopher J. Rillo, who represents Perea. "Those admissions directly bear on their defense. The County's selective treatment raises serious questions about whether it is evaluating these requests fairly."

Thomas Mazzucco, who represents Corpus in the two pending cases, said county officials who participated in what he called the "unlawful campaign to remove Sheriff Corpus from office" are now denying her a defense.

"The County is relying on its own disputed removal findings to justify that denial," Mazzucco said.

Corpus was removed after a lengthy process that began when the county hired a retired judge to investigate numerous complaints against her, including retaliation, intimidation, and an alleged secret affair with Aenlle. In March 2025, San Mateo County voters overwhelmingly approved a charter amendment granting supervisors the temporary power to remove the sheriff, a step taken after Corpus refused to step down. That August, a 10-day administrative hearing gave Corpus the opportunity to defend herself; the presiding judge upheld allegations that she retaliated against members of the Sheriff's Office and had a conflict of interest in hiring Aenlle. The county paid for her legal team during that hearing.

The county acknowledged the claim and said it maintains that Corpus is responsible for the legal costs associated with the lawsuits. Officials declined to comment further.

The claim seeks reimbursement for past and future attorney fees incurred by Corpus as a result of the two lawsuits, both of which remain ongoing.