District hires new law firm

CLINTONVILLE – The Clintonville Board of Education ignored a motion it passed at its Sept. 22 board meeting to interview the law firms of Renning, Lewis & Lacy, s.c.; von Briesen & Roper, s.c.; and Attolles Law, s.c., and selected von Briesen & Roper at its Oct. 13 meeting to represent the district in all future legal issues the district has.
No interviews were conducted by the board prior to choosing von Briesen & Roper.
With the selection of von Briesen & Roper to represent the district, the board also approved that any pending legal issues the district is currently involved in would be handled by the law firm currently working on those issues. New legal issues would go to von Briesen & Roper with a start date of Nov. 1.
The approval to switch to von Briesen & Roper to represent the district was passed by a 4-3 vote, with Board President Glen Drew Lundt, Board Treasurer Jason Moder, Board Clerk Klint Barkow, and board member Christopher Hoffmann voting in favor of the switch. Those same four board members also voted in favor of selecting Renning, Lewis & Lacy; von Briesen & Roper; and Attolles Law, as the law firms to interview at the Sept. 22 meeting.

Sept. 22 meeting

At the Sept. 22 meeting, Lundt told the board that the district had received six proposals from law firms in response to the district’s request for proposals (RFP) to represent the district in its legal issues.
The law firms included: Renning, Lewis & Lacy, s.c., Green Bay; Buelow Vetter Buikema Olson & Vliet, LLC, Waukesha; Strang Law, LLC, Middleton; BoardmanClark, Madison; Attolles Law, s.c., Milwaukee; and von Briesen & Roper, s.c., Milwaukee.
Lundt said he wanted the board to select three law firms for interviews. No board members objected, and the board proceeded to discuss the selection of three law firms to interview.
Hoffmann said he thought the law firm that the district is currently using should be one of the three brought in for an interview.
Board member Mark Zachow said Clintonville Superintendent Troy Kuhn works directly with the district’s law firm more than the board does, so Kuhn should pick the three law firms for interviews.
Kuhn thanked Zachow for the comment but said this is a decision the board should make.
“These attorneys do not represent me individually, these attorneys represent the school district,” Kuhn said.
The district’s current law firm is Renning, Lewis & Lacy.
“For the reason, to clarify, because the attorney has been Robert Burns,” Kuhn said. “…We’ve kind of been following wherever Robert Burns has been.”
Zachow said he thinks Burns has treated the district “well” for the past 15 years.
“I think one of my concerns is one of these law firms is out of Madison, I don’t know how that’s going to save us any money,” Zachow said. “I mean there’s travel time. To me that just doesn’t make any sense.”
Regarding the law firm that the district sometimes uses for special education matters, Lundt said his impression was that the firm was a “smaller” law firm.
Strauman said some of the larger law firms who sent a proposal represent larger school districts in the state.
“The larger districts don’t have the same issues that rural districts have, so I’d like to have somebody that’s a little bit more knowledgeable with that,” Strauman said.
When narrowing down the choices, Zachow expressed his concern about choosing a law firm located in Milwaukee.
“The whole reason is to save money, why would we vote for a law firm out of Milwaukee,” Zachow said. “That makes no sense.”
Hoffmann said remote services may be an option for law firms further away.
Lundt said that would be a question to ask the law firms during the interviews.
After the board approved three law firms to interview, Lundt provided board members with grading systems that could be used by the board members when the district conducted the law firm interviews.

Oct. 13 meeting

At the Oct. 13 meeting, Kuhn led off the discussion by stating that he spoke with Lundt since the Sept. 22 meeting regarding the legal services RFPs. He asked the board if it was going to conduct interviews with the three law firms that the board chose at its Sept. 22 meeting to be interviewed, and if those interviews would be conducted at one board meeting or three separate board meetings.
Lundt acknowledged that discussion with Kuhn and asked the board if interviews should be conducted for the law firm RFPs. And if so, would interviews be conducted for all RFPs in the future.
Huber said he’d rather not have the board dedicate a lot of time to selecting a new law firm when the district is in the middle of working toward an operational referendum.
“Personally, I would say that we could put the legal services RFP on the backburner for a while, that’s my recommendation,” Huber said.
Lundt agreed with Huber that it would require a lot of time to conduct the law firm interviews.
Moder said the district has a lot of issues it needs to deal with.
“We should get this out of the way, I mean, I’ve looked through and researched some things, and I actually called a couple of references and whatever on some of them,” Moder said.
Strauman said, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
She added that the district has received “great service” from its current legal team.
“We’ve got big things to take care of and if we’re not having any issues now, other than personal feelings, I think you need to put those personal feelings aside and just leave it the way it is and go forward with our referendum plans,” Strauman said.
Huber expressed concerns about von Briesen & Roper being headquartered in Milwaukee.
“So, the primary place that this is out of is Milwaukee and Madison, so you’re saying an extra four hours, roundtrip for a board meeting for an attorney to come is going to save us money for the district, I don’t see how that’s possible,” Huber said.
Zachow added, “I’m going to say it again. The whole reason this is going on is because certain people in this room did not like Bob Burns’ opinion about Title IX. Plain and simple. And that’s the whole reason, 100%, why you guys want to change this.”
Kuhn told the board that Burns has been the district’s attorney for as long as he has been with the district. In the past, the district changed law firms when Burns changed law firms.
“When he joined Renning, Lewis & Lacy, it is a larger law firm with lots more educational expertise,” Kuhn said.
Kuhn said he is most familiar with Renning, Lewis & Lacy, as well as the other school districts who use that law firm.
“There are a lot of school districts that have Renning, Lewis & Lacy now for that reason,” Kuhn said.
Huber asked Kuhn what the district uses an attorney for the most.
Kuhn said for staff issues, and sometimes student issues.
Based on his relationship with Burns and others at Renning, Lewis & Lacy, Kuhn said they “have done a good job” for the district because they know the district’s policies and the case law behind the recommendations for those policies. He added that a new law firm would have to learn the history behind the district’s policies.
Moder told the board that “everyone’s afraid” whenever change is suggested in the district.
“It is human nature for people to be afraid of change, but that doesn’t mean change can’t be for the positive,” Moder said. “We’ve changed a lot of things in the last three years, and I’m going to sit here and say, a lot of it has been for the greater good.”
Strauman said since Kuhn deals the most with the district’s law firm, if he is satisfied with the district’s current law firm, the district should not change law firms.
“We don’t need to pile more stuff on his plate,” Strauman said. “I say we leave it as is.”
Kuhn said the district is currently dealing with three “big” legal issues, and he would like to continue with the district’s current law firm for those issues if the board would decide to change law firms.
Moder said, “That would make the most sense.”
Huber responded by stating the current motion being considered did not allow that, adding that would be another reason to defeat the current motion.
The motion to switch to von Briesen & Roper, s.c. to represent the district moving forward was defeated by a 2-5 vote. Lundt and Moder voted in favor of the motion.
Hoffmann then made the motion that the board eventually approved. But before the vote to approve that motion, Huber asked if the district could use additional law firms in the future, as it does now, if a specialty attorney is needed.
Kuhn also questioned the board and asked it if it had done the research to make sure von Briesen & Roper have the specialty attorneys that the district is currently using.
“Have we done that research?” Kuhn asked. “…I just want clarification on that.”
Lundt told Kuhn Clintonville wouldn’t be the first school district to hire von Briesen & Roper.
“I can’t say for 100% the answer to your question, but they have 200 attorneys on their roster, I would be shocked that other districts wouldn’t expect what you’re asking,” Lundt said.
Huber once again asked if the superintendent would have the option to call an attorney he is comfortable with.
Kuhn said he would just like to know who his legal team would be.
“I don’t think from your perspective, your authority is going to change at all, it’s just the first phone call you’re gonna make is to a different law firm, and then they are going to legally represent you or advise you, period,” Lundt said. “And if you need an expert, I would sure hope they would say, ‘yes we do that’ or ‘here’s where you go to.’”
Strauman responded, “We’re going to vote on this on an assumption? I would rather have some very definites before I make a decision.”
Lundt said he wasn’t making an assumption, claiming he asked von Briesen & Roper about that since the Sept. 22 board meeting.

Cost
According to the RFP proposal submitted by von Briesen & Roper, it charges a blended rate of $345 per hour, but that amount can be higher if the services of a specialty attorney is required.
In comparison, the RFP proposal submitted by Renning, Lewis & Lacy included an hourly rate of $240-$350 per hour. The rate for Burns is $315 per hour. The paralegal and law clerk rate is $150-$220.
Also, in the proposal submitted by von Briesen & Roper, it stated it wanted to negotiate a retainer amount with the district. It asked the district to submit an amount it feels is fair. During the board discussions, there was no mention of the district paying a retainer amount if it chose von Briesen & Roper.
The Clintonville Tribune-Gazette did ask Lundt via email about the cost comparison between von Briesen & Roper and Renning, Lewis & Lacy, and whether the district would have to pay a retainer amount to von Briesen & Roper. As of press time, Lundt had not replied to that email.