News

Editorial: More bad legal advice

Law firm leads school board into sham 'confidential' settlement provision

Will the Palo Alto school board ever learn that the legal advice it gets doesn't always serve the public interest?

Following years of frustration with its prior law firms and the routine guidance they gave to withhold information from the public and aggressively defend, at great expense, the district against parent complaints, the school board ditched its two primary firms two years ago with high hopes of obtaining better representation and showing the public it really believed in maximum transparency and less opposition, whenever legally possible.

So far, not only have legal costs soared well beyond the high billings of the previous firms, but the same old law-firm attitudes against transparency continue to improperly guide many district decisions on releasing public records.

The latest embarrassment occurred Tuesday night, when the board agreed to a settlement that included a provision written by its lawyer, Mark Davis of the San Jose litigation firm Davis & Young, that barred both sides from disclosing the amount of the settlement and "contacting the press."

Public agencies in California may not legally withhold information on settlements, so the provision was a deliberate attempt to throw obstacles in front of disclosure.

The school board should have rejected the clause and admonished its lawyer to never include such a provision in the future.

According to school board President Ken Dauber, the terms of the settlement were not known to the board until presented by Davis for approval in closed session Tuesday.

While Dauber could not disclose anything about the board's discussion since it was a closed session, he told the Weekly he intended to ask for a future agenda item to discuss the district's policy on confidentiality provisions and transparency of settlements of claims made against the district.

By law, a public agency must disclose legal settlements and payments upon request, and it must announce any "actions" taken in closed session. A confidentiality provision such as the one inserted by the district's law firm therefore has no legal standing and is entirely designed to make it less likely that the public will ever find out about it. It's also an attempt to prevent board members and the superintendent from answering questions or making any comments.

In many communities, where public and media scrutiny is minimal, this cynical strategy to circumvent the intent of the law could be successful. But in Palo Alto there is virtually no chance that such a closed session agenda item would go unnoticed. Unless, of course, it wasn't properly placed on the agenda as required by the Brown Act.

That is exactly what happened in this case. The original agenda posting for Tuesday's closed session incorrectly cited the case to be discussed by using a meaningless internal school district reference number. The law requires that the agenda state "the title of or otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be discussed," and after seeing the agenda the Weekly requested the proper citation of the case, which was then updated with the federal court case number but still lacked the title of the case, "James Chadam et al vs Palo Alto Unified School District." But with the case number the Weekly was then able to access the proposed settlement in the court file.

Unfortunately, it's not the first time the Weekly has had to point out the improper posting of closed session items pertaining to litigation or prod the district into releasing public documents that one of its law firms advised against.

The settlement in this case will pay $90,000 to a child whose medical information was shared by the school district with two unrelated parents of children with cystic fibrosis. The child's attorney will receive attorneys fees totaling $60,000. But that $150,000 expense does not begin to capture the costs of fighting this family for almost five years in federal court. The total cost will have to await the district's response to a Public Records Act request by the Weekly for the law firm's billing records.

This case is yet another example of why the school district needs to hire a competent general counsel who can manage the legal strategies and expenses and help the board understand the line between legal requirements and transparency. Even with good intentions, the board and superintendent are ill-equipped to do this and almost always will simply follow the advice of their attorneys.

California law firms representing school districts are in lock-step believing their job is to arm their clients with ways of denying requests for public records. It's long overdue for the school board to embrace the opposite philosophy, that records are assumed to be public unless there is a clear legal necessity for them to be withheld.

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Comments

43 people like this
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 24, 2018 at 7:52 am

The problem is two fold:

(1) Board has the wrong values - covering up messes of their own creation (by poor supervision of law firms, staff) rather than transparency
(2) Board spends taxpayer money without much thought.

PAUSD has a budget which spends more than $18,000 per student. That is more than cost of tuition at a UC ($14,000).


56 people like this
Posted by Kathy Jordan
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 24, 2018 at 8:17 am

Kathy Jordan is a registered user.

How many other non-disclosure agreements and other directives to not contact the press has the district included in its legal settlements fighting district families?

Why the lack of transparency?


8 people like this
Posted by R. Davis
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 24, 2018 at 8:28 am

It's hard to find a really good lawyer these days as most are focused on their retainer fees & billable hours. Believe me, I've been there.

As far as transparency is concerned, while the public has a right to know where their tax dollars are going, most governing agencies prefer to remain surreptitious when it comes to certain financial disclosures.

Imposing various 'confidentiality' provisions/clauses is the 'art' of being an attorney.


18 people like this
Posted by look at the numbers
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 24, 2018 at 9:59 am

@common sense: The University of California budget is $22.6 billion. They have around 273000 students in total. That's close to $83,000 per student. The cost of tuition does not pay for the true cost of attending UC.


31 people like this
Posted by Samuel L.
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 24, 2018 at 10:23 am

Samuel L. is a registered user.

Shows the lengths to which PAUSD will go in order to hide their mistaiand poor treatment of some of its students. Dragging this through the courts for five years to hide the truth is pathetic.

Will interesting to see how much district spent to try to hide this.

PAUSD should immediately fire Mark Davis and his firm. His values do not support the students.

In the last budget presentation discussing legal bills, why wasn't this firm listed with the expenditures?


14 people like this
Posted by legal eagle
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 24, 2018 at 11:03 am

Mark Davis probably comes via the district's JPA rather than being hired directly by the district, so is paid by the district indirectly. I don't see what the fuss is about honestly. If the district doesn't want a confidentiality clause in the future they can remove it. Sometimes the other side wants one for their own privacy. Anyways at the end of the day these are public documents so the public's right to know isn't really being impaired. There are a lot more important things going on than this.


6 people like this
Posted by Agree with Eagle
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 24, 2018 at 12:18 pm

Agree with @legal eagle - tempest in a teapot. The exposure is mostly the insurance company's, so they hire the lawyer. My guess is that the school board actually knew nothing about this document until it was put in front of them for approval, already approved by the judge and the other parties. Must be a slow news week.


39 people like this
Posted by Kathy Jordan
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 24, 2018 at 2:23 pm

Kathy Jordan is a registered user.

It's our taxpayer dollars being spent. We have a right to know how those dollars are being spent.


27 people like this
Posted by Green Acres parent
a resident of Green Acres
on Aug 24, 2018 at 2:29 pm

Green Acres parent is a registered user.

It's quite clear that the district requested the non-disclosure agreement. The other side no doubt accepted the request in order to get the issue settled. It's also quite clear that the district intentionally obfuscated the agenda in an attempt to hide this from the public. Kudos to Palo Alto Online for not letting them get away with it.


37 people like this
Posted by yet again
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Aug 24, 2018 at 2:31 pm

"According to school board President Ken Dauber, the terms of the settlement were not known to the board until presented by Davis for approval in closed session Tuesday."

How many more times is this board's excuse going to be "we didn't know"?!

This case has been going on for over 5 years and they've done nothing to stop the waste and didn't know the terms of the settlement. They have runaway legal expenses totaling millions each year and they "didn't know".

They're worse than potted plants. Roll on November.


5 people like this
Posted by Legal Beagle
a resident of another community
on Aug 24, 2018 at 2:40 pm

"It's our taxpayer dollars being spent. We have a right to know how those dollars are being spent."

In a perfect world, yes. But we do not reside in a perfect world & there are certain internal issues that the public need not be aware of.

This is a common practice & not just limited to school districts. Just ask your congressman or US Senator.

Speaking as an attorney, I have found that the concealment of certain facts is often the best route to take when it comes to winning vs losing a case.

Reason being...as Americans, we all want to be winners. Right?

No one feels sorry for losers. They just kept swept by the wayside as they should.


15 people like this
Posted by legal eagle
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 24, 2018 at 3:23 pm

"It's quite clear that the district requested the non-disclosure agreement."

Actually, no. The insurance company (aka JPA) probably "requested" the non-disclosure agreement, but only in the sense that they hired an attorney who probably puts it in all settlements. Dauber said the board didn't even know about the clause beforehand so obviously didn't request it.

As for Kathy Jordan's point, what isn't known about the settlement? The editorial says that it is for $150,000. The district's share will be less than that and was probably announced after the closed session on Tuesday. I don't see reporting about that. The document itself is subject to a public records act request.

There's a lot of good reasons to criticize the district. I just don't see this as one of them. It's a mountain from a molehill.


5 people like this
Posted by Green Acres parent
a resident of Green Acres
on Aug 24, 2018 at 3:47 pm

Green Acres parent is a registered user.

@legal eagle

See the other article: Web Link
> The settlement bars either party from contacting the press regarding the
> settlement, a provision Jaffe said was requested by the school district's
> legal counsel.
>
> "I cannot speculate on its motive, but you can," Jaffe wrote in an email
> to the Weekly.


7 people like this
Posted by legal eagle
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 24, 2018 at 4:08 pm

Reread my post, you'll see that's exactly what I said.


7 people like this
Posted by legal eagle
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 24, 2018 at 7:12 pm

From the district superintendent report:
"PAUSD is a member of the Northern California Relief Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA functions as an insurance company representing school districts regarding liability claims. Keenan and Associates administers the assignment of attorneys to members of the JPA when claims arise. The attorneys represent the JPA as a whole and the individual school district. The assigned attorney often has no direct agreement with the school district. School districts have deductibles in the same way insurance works for vehicles." Web Link


35 people like this
Posted by Legal fees?
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 24, 2018 at 7:40 pm

How much did PAUSD spend on Mark Davis's legal fees? This has been going on for 5+ years. Is this one of the reasons that PAUSD's legal spending has been spiraling out of control?

PAUSD: Legal expenses

2015: $379,400
2016: $386,000
2017: $997,000
2018: $2,000,000

Does the public record show how much the district spent on attorney fees in addition to the settlement amount in this case? I have the feeling that the settlement amount is a small portion of Davis's fees. It's in Davis' interest to drag this out for as long as possible, billing PAUSD for each and every hour. It's a shame that the board approved such strategy and caused this family so much pain and suffering! What a waste of district funds that should have been spent on educating our children!


1 person likes this
Posted by GraceBrown
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 24, 2018 at 7:52 pm

GraceBrown is a registered user.

@ Legal Fees?

Would you be able to run the numbers that would analyze class size, using real time data (11 day enrollment figures) in GenEd classes, and not the negotiated class size of 28/28.5 class size, relative to legal fees? It would be interesting (?) to see if/how these costs are impacting classrooms.

gb


25 people like this
Posted by The Old Professor
a resident of Stanford
on Aug 24, 2018 at 8:16 pm

Don't kid yourself. The legal fees far exceeded the $150K settlement.

Continuances, discovery, depositions, procuring 'expert witnesses' & the filing of countless petitions made for a very expensive case. It's no wonder certain individuals want to keep this information confidential...too outrageous and/or embarrassing.

As in most legal scenarios, the only ones who come out ahead are the attorneys.
Davis & Young have done quite well representing PAUSD..in revenue billings.

Then again, when one is a typical bureaucrat & playing with someone else's money rather than their own, it's easy to be a big spender. We see it all the time.


3 people like this
Posted by Paly Parent
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 24, 2018 at 8:50 pm

The insurance company pays the litigator, not PAUSD. They pay their deductible, that's it. Think about it - if you get in a car accident and get sued (hope it never happens!), you don't pick or pay the lawyer; the insurance company handles it.


23 people like this
Posted by Rebecca Eisenberg
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 24, 2018 at 9:18 pm

Rebecca Eisenberg is a registered user.

This kind of mismanagement has been going on and getting worse for years. As I posted in other threads, I have stood before the School Board dozens of times urging them to change their legal strategies and rely on in-house counsel rather than outside counsel for advice. It does not matter which outside counsel the district hires -- all outside counsel have the same conflict of interest that in-house counsel lacks: outside counsel's business model of billable hours is directly contrary to the District's business model of saving legal costs.

Ironically, in the Board meeting approximately 3 years ago where the School Board officially decided not to hire a General Counsel, one of the Board members actually cited as her reason that "in-house counsel have conflicts of interest that outside firms lack." That ignorant statement, of course, is 180 degrees opposite from the truth, but it is emblematic of the kinds of toxic, wasteful, counterproductive advice that the district's outside firms -- EACH one of the outside firms -- gives the School Board, and the Board, meaning well, but horribly wrong, believes. An experienced in-house counsel knows how to manage the outside firms. That is one of the most important parts of the job.

Another essential aspect of the job of GC -- something that the District sorely needs -- is to exercise integrity and act honestly, in order to re-establish the trust that we, the community, so badly seek in the district's leadership.

I confess, however, that I am biased. I have two school-aged children in Palo Alto and have been applying for the role of GC of PAUSD for more than four years (I have 25 years experience including 7 roles as GC in Silicon Valley). Honesty, I would be fine if the District did not hire me (as much as I have wanted the job for so many years) -- it is just becoming more urgent than ever that the District hire *someone* with the experience, ethics and *courage* to fix these problems. How many more public scandals will it take until the Board does the right thing?


19 people like this
Posted by Rebecca Eisenberg
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 24, 2018 at 9:23 pm

Rebecca Eisenberg is a registered user.

As to insurance (I forgot to mention), insurance only pays for attorneys's fees if the outside lawyer is approved panel counsel. Do we know that has been the case generally, and specifically, with Mr. Davis? I have a feeling that the District has not been using insurance appropriately, because if it has, the legal fees that we taxpayers are paying (via the Board) would not be so high.

Outside law firms always insist that they are better than insurance-approved panel lawyers. Having managed legal budgets for companies for more than 2 decades, I can assure you that simply is false. Panel lawyers, if selected appropriately by in-house counsel who know how to choose them, tend to be the most qualified at resolving conflicts quickly, justly and appropriately. This is yet another extremely expensive consequence of the Board outsourcing legal budget decisions to the vendors. That kind of delegation never would be acceptable in the nonprofit, corporate or government sectors, and it is not acceptable here in the PAUSD, despite the fact that the Board has done this for years, and possibly always.


7 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 24, 2018 at 9:34 pm

> Would you be able to run the numbers that would analyze class size

This year's budget is about $230M. How much do you think that $2M in legal fees is going to affect classroom spending?


19 people like this
Posted by Hire Rebecca!
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 24, 2018 at 10:03 pm

I remember Rebecca Eisenberg attending several board meetings offering her expertise and help, free of charge, to PAUSD. Her posts have always been backed by solid facts and data. She has shown a great depth of knowledge in the legal area, particularly education law. I hope PAUSD will hire her as the general counsel. We desperately need someone like her!


5 people like this
Posted by This discussion is an Ignorant hot mess
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 24, 2018 at 10:08 pm

This discussion is an Ignorant hot mess is a registered user.


Mark Davis is hired by the Joint Powers Authority. There is a board of the JPA, which has to approve settlements. Counsel is hired and paid by the JPA. That's why Davis isn't on the list of district-retained counsel.

The JPA and the Court both approved the settlement, as did the plaintiff. The board did not retain Mr. Davis, did not review the settlement prior to its approval by JPA and the court (and that was proper) and did not know about the provision because there was no way for it to do so. Was the board supposed to unravel an agreement entered in to by the Chadams and their own counsel? Did the Chadhams object to that provision? Does the Weekly know whether the Chadham's objected?

It would have been of questionable responsibility for the school board to blow up a settlement that was negotiated by the JPA counsel, approved by the plaintiff, approved by the JPA board, and approved by the court over a provision that no one has even alleged that plaintiff's counsel ever objected to.

The board can simply not enforce the provision. And that is obviously what is happening here since everyone appears to be commenting to the press about the settlement and no one is enforcing the provision even though it is bilateral.

Should the board tell counsel it is never to request an NDA but may agree to one requested by the plaintiff on a case by case basis? Maybe so. But this criticism is unfair, most of it is ill-informed, and it is just stirring people up without a factual basis.

This is a giant nothing burger.


18 people like this
Posted by @Bob
a resident of Community Center
on Aug 24, 2018 at 10:12 pm

PAUSD's current legal spending is close to half of PAUSD's PIE donation income. Picture this - half of your PIE donation is being spent on lawyers like Mark Davis, instead of your kids' classroom needs.


10 people like this
Posted by Parent
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 24, 2018 at 10:37 pm

@ hot mess
One question: Who is the named defendant in this case, PAUSD or the JPA? PAUSD can’t pretend it has no say in the settlement regardless of it using an insurance pool for risk management JPA. If that’s its position the problem is even worse than this editorial describes.


10 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 25, 2018 at 5:55 am

Posted by Legal Beagle, a resident of another community

>> This is a common practice & not just limited to school districts. Just ask your congressman or US Senator.

Yes, it is a common practice. Just ask DJT. But, it is a practice that doesn't always serve -justice-.

>> Speaking as an attorney, I have found that the concealment of certain facts is often the best route to take when it comes to winning vs losing a case.

Who could argue against that? And, when I hire a personal attorney, I naturally want them to represent me. But, when a public or governmental agency is involved, then, as a citizen, I want -justice-. Governmental entities can and should be expected to reach for a higher standard than just the "self interest" of the bureaucracy.

>> Reason being...as Americans, we all want to be winners. Right?

No, we all want -justice- to be served. People want legal outcomes to be fair, just, and proportionate.

>> No one feels sorry for losers. They just kept swept by the wayside as they should.

I'm not sure where this comment came from, but, you are wrong. The authority of the legal system depends on people perceiving the law as legitimate. Spend some time on Google Scholar if you don't believe me.


13 people like this
Posted by Palo Alto
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 25, 2018 at 8:07 am

How can the vast majority of us, send our kids to school, and have them thrive? Something is deeply wrong. And it's generally not the schools. They must react to the constant onslaught, of the Palo Alto parents so, this is what we get......

When a real issue comes up, the system is so overburdened with the other noise, it can't work.

There are so many crazy makers here, in this community. It is sad, as I grew up here. Before the onslaught. Where in
you might of asked my mother who my teacher was, and she would say "what".


9 people like this
Posted by R. Davis
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 25, 2018 at 8:43 am

QUOTE: No, we all want -justice- to be served. People want legal outcomes to be fair, just, and proportionate.

It doesn't always turn out that way.

Law vs justice is the usual conundrum.


5 people like this
Posted by Midtown Citizen
a resident of Midtown
on Aug 26, 2018 at 1:28 pm

Midtown Citizen is a registered user.

This is a litigious community that highly values their children; Palo Alto parents are always going to have a lot (some legit, some less so) complaints about how their child is being treated in school. Litigation costs are not going anywhere but up for the District. It seems like the smart move is to hire a GC to control and guide outside counsel.

BTW, even under an insurance defense situation, the real party in interest has input on settlement conditions. And a violation of a contractual non-disclosure provision would likely be mooted as against the public interest, particularly when the school district has a public duty to disclose.


Like this comment
Posted by A Practicing Attorney
a resident of Atherton
on Aug 26, 2018 at 2:39 pm

People should realize that legal counsel is costly.

If you cannot pay the price, either don't create the problem or be a part of it.

Everybody cries victim these days. Some are, some aren't.

Regardless of the side, you're gonna pay...get over it.


15 people like this
Posted by Sad Attorney
a resident of Jordan Middle School
on Aug 27, 2018 at 8:59 pm

Sad Attorney is a registered user.

@ A Practing Attorney - We are discussing cases of rape of teenage girls on high school campuses, bullying of disabled children so severe they cannot attend school, and school staff publicizing the most personal and damaging of medical information held in their trust. Your "counsel" is: "don't be a part of it" and "get over it." Highly likely the girls raped by their teachers would rather not be a part of it, and don't want to "cry victim", as you say "everybody" does "these days." You do an excellent job of discrediting your entire profession, demonstrating a group only in it for the money.


9 people like this
Posted by Good/Bad Attorneys
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 27, 2018 at 9:25 pm

Attorneys are like dentists. There's a whole lot of them out there but only few really good ones.

The ones strictly in it for the money are usually the worst of both professions.

Rework is the dental equivalent of lawyer's & their continuances.


13 people like this
Posted by R. Davis
a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 28, 2018 at 5:45 pm

>>People should realize that legal counsel is costly.

I suspect that most folks are fully aware of your somewhat obvious insight. The problem is that those with money & who can afford high-priced attorneys often have the advantage, regardless of the matter (or issue) at hand.

Those representing themselves are often at a distinct disadvantage due to their lack of legal knowledge & filing/court room procedures while poorer folks simply cannot afford high quality (aka costly) legal assistance. This arises frequently in civil litigation as there are no 'freebies' compared to CAAs (court-appointed attorneys) in criminal court proceedings.

As a result, it's like playing poker & 'buying' the pot due to having surplus chips.

I've had my share of experiences with lawyers & while there are a few good ones with a personal sense of integrity, most are money-grubbing opportunists who would just as soon sell your body & soul down the river.


18 people like this
Posted by Good
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 28, 2018 at 11:29 pm

@Midtown

In light of district employee behavior in recent years, I would say this is clearly NOT a litigious community or the school district would be up to its eyeballs in suits and legitimately so. Who are you to judge whether anyone’s complaints are legit? Apparently, the 9th Circuit and the government thought the Chadam’s case was legit, but it took the Chadam’s a helluvan unnecessary fight to get there.

Working with people and not dismissing people offhand like that is way cheaper and better serves the public.

Lawyers telling their clients to behave in overly defensive ways by scaremongering is actually a way to get them sued. When Harvard studied medical malpractice, they found that people only sued in a fraction of one percent of cases where clear and irrefutable malpractice had harmed a patient. Another study found that of people who sue, about half wouldn’t if an honest apology and steps to right whatever wrong had occured were taken. What lawyer is going to tell you that? They make way more money if you get sued, while thinking you need them at every turn (which you do because of the bad advice they gave).


6 people like this
Posted by Pay to Play
a resident of Woodside
on Aug 29, 2018 at 10:02 am

The $450/hour billable hours & the $10K retainer complaints that some people have with lawyers is unfounded. We have overhead just like ay other business or practice.

The fee structures also cover those periods of inactivity when we are not doing anything in particular and/or awaiting future clients seeking our services. In other words, it all balances out.

There are many attorneys who are not wealthy or successful. It is a numbers game based on one's legal reputation and winning results. Just like professional sports.

Unfortunately there are too many incompetant lawyers hanging their shingle. Going to law school teaches you the law and passing the bar means you retained some of the course material. It doesn't make one an actual lawyer.

The same can be said of any profession.

So if you want quality legal representation, you're gonna have to pay through the nose. Accept it or be prepared to lose your case.



1 person likes this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2018 at 10:24 am

Posted by Pay to Play, a resident of Woodside

>> The same can be said of any profession.

Yes and no. I have had very good experience with old-school doctors, lawyers, dentists, (animal) vets, and other professionals who were educated by the old state university systems. (e.g. UC law schools- Hastings, Boalt Hall, UC Davis King Hall etc)). Heavily subsidized by taxpayers and GI Bill, of course.

OTOH, all the new young fresh out of school professionals are apparently saddled with $500K in debt and no way to pay it off except by charging exorbitant rates. I liked the old way better. Not only was it cheaper and more efficient, but, the people were nicer and less money-oriented.

>> So if you want quality legal representation, you're gonna have to pay through the nose. Accept it or be prepared to lose your case.

I can't tell if you are endorsing this state of affairs or sarcastically rejecting it.


Like this comment
Posted by Avoid Lawyers... If You Can
a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 29, 2018 at 2:31 pm

>>>Yes and no. I have had very good experience with old-school doctors, lawyers, dentists, (animal) vets, and other professionals who were educated by the old state university systems. (e.g. UC law schools- Hastings, Boalt Hall, UC Davis King Hall etc)). Heavily subsidized by taxpayers and GI Bill, of course.

That was then & now is now.

>>>>OTOH, all the new young fresh out of school professionals are apparently saddled with $500K in debt and no way to pay it off except by charging exorbitant rates.

Established lawyers charge the same (or even more).

Shakespeare had his own commentary on attorneys...Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2


12 people like this
Posted by Questions
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 29, 2018 at 5:58 pm

> Shakespeare had his own commentary on attorneys...Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2


I took the LSAT exam during my senior year at college. Did OK. Enough to get into a second-tier law school.

Then I started exploring the primary fields...divorce, personal injury, criminal, real estate, patents, estate planning, corporate + a few others I have overlooked.

What fun! Making money on other people's misfortunes & avarice.

I passed on the opportunity & became an actor instead. You've seen me in bit roles on TV. Nothing spectacular or noteworthy...just a job playing make-believe.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 12 comments | 1,804 views

Mountain View's Hangen Szechuan to close after 25 years
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 1,787 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,444 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,244 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 984 views