LEGAL PONDERINGS

I don't know if you've read through yesterday long posting re: the latest motions, responses and re-responses in the saga of the SAD 63 lawsuit originally filed by the former District Superintendent, Ms. Regan, following her termination by the School Board. If you think the posting was long, you should have seen how many pages of legal documents and attachments (all public documents) I had to read through to try to synopsize what I did post (!). It took over 5 hours just to create that posting. Never let it be said that I don't try to provide current news to the residents of this area.

But comes today and the results of my musings from all that reading. So, some thoughts of the differences between the legal representation of our School Board (the Defendants) and Ms. Regan (the Plaintiff). I will also preface this by saying that after nearly 30 years in a business that involved a professional relationship with the legal field and periodic forays into the courts and court system and attorneys (and having a son who is an attorney in private practice for 14 years), one might expect me to be a bit biased.

According to Webster's New World Dictionary ( a frequently used reference in my office), the word bias in this case would mean "a mental leaning or inclination; partiality; bent." I'll admit I am biased against the generic lawyer jokes that paint all lawyers as sharks, bad guys just out for blood and money. I say this because I know my son is not like that either as a man or as an attorney. And I've met other attorneys like him in my professional career. Recently met two right here in Ellsworth and Blue Hill. Like and respect them both.

On the other hand, I have met some others. I'll let it go at that.

So I have given some thought to my observations to the two attorneys representing the two opposing parties in this School Board v. Ms. Regan lawsuit.

I certainly found the courtroom "presentation" of the Plaintiff's attorney at the hearing in Judge Kravchuk's courtroom (U.S. District Court) more than a bit unusual. It was the first and only time I have seen the man in person BTW. Even more than his constant "dancing" up and down the aisle in the small courtroom, his frequent winking to his associate before taking his seat was not what I considered professional courtroom behavior for an accomplished litigator. (Maybe he was nervous - or claustrophobic?) Ms. Regan, who was seated at the far left of the Plaintiff's table and looking rather gaunt, was not once, to my recollection, acknowledged by the slightest gesture by the "second chair" attorney seated right next to her and in the middle of the table. Under other circumstances one might feel sympathy for her, as though she were being dragged along in the undertow of something over which she has no power of controlling or re-directing, especially at this point.

From what I have been able to read, and that's all I've been able to do - read public documents after they've become public - one might wonder if, back at the beginning, the Plaintiff reacted emotionally and defensively, perhaps out of fear or anger, at the thought of being chastised at best or terminated at worse. And then, by contacting an aggressive attorney, took a step she now regrets but can not reverse because she is in so deep financially. Perhaps, because that attorney saw the Defendants not as a Board and five individuals with limited financial resources but as the "deep pockets" of three towns of taxpayers there was no incentive to take a reasonable approach to what began as a simple situation that had been compounded by bad decisions on the part of two individuals - one who overstepped her authority and one who lied about the existence of the audio tape of the meeting where that authority had (or had not) been given. And that's what this is all about, people.

Remember that adage about telling a lie because then you have to tell another to cover the first etc.?

So back to ponderings...

In most cases, the Plaintiff has all the issues identified and documented first. Sometimes additional issues come out in the course of an investigation but they are almost minor and, for the most part, irrelevant. THE issue is what the Plaintiff goes to court on - for which she seeks redress. In this case one would have expected THE issue to be the termination. And for that, the Plaintiff could have gone to the Commissioner of Education if the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with her "hearing" before the School Board. But as I've written before, when all this began we were looking at possible consolidation and the elimination of Ms. Regan's position if SAD 63 consolidated with Brewer, and so perhaps the target was not reinstatement but money. For that, she had to go to Court. For that she needed an aggressive attorney.

On advice of her attorney, the Plaintiff has chosen more than once not to go to the Commissioner and instead has chosen to file numerous actions - sometimes in several courts simultaneously - and add to charge after charge...charges, which anyone who has read the time sequence of events as documented in the various depositions, are without merit.

The U.S. District Court has ruled against her on the majority of her claims and has at least encouraged her to take her primary complaint - the termination - to the Commissioner of Education. And still the Plaintiff refuses.

Now why would anyone do this? Can anyone truly believe that Ms. Regan is doing this? Or could it be that her attorney is pushing this covered wagon over the cliff in an attempt to drive up his fees and costs? Every time the Plaintiff's claim is amended, every time there is a motion filed in any court, every time a deposition is conducted (and all of the time each of these actions takes to write, file and complete) the attorneys get to bill at their hourly rate which must be well over $200. per hour. Eaton & Peabody is one of the largest law firms in Bangor with offices in Augusta, Brunswick and Ellsworth). And the Plaintiff has done a lot of all of these things. Since she has been unemployed (for the most part) most of this time, how can she (or her attorney) hope to pay this bill except by winning some kind of judgement against the Defendants? Which may explain why the Plaintiff's attorneys keep adding (looking for?) additional charges in the hopes that one of them will stick. Somewhere. Somehow. Even if it's only to pay Ms. Regan's attorneys' fees. Because you can expect there won't be anything left for Ms. Regan at this point.

Which takes me to the attorney representing the School Board and the five individuals also named as Defendants. I watched him as well at the U.S. District Court hearing. This attorney is calm, professional and contained in his presentations. He never moved from his position behind his assigned table. His arguments (that's what an attorney's justifications for his case's legal position is called - an argument) were rational, easy to follow, there was a sense of logic in his application of case precedents to the case at hand. And this man is no Fred Astaire. He didn't dance. Not one step. It was reassuring. He sat at his table alone. Not even a second chair so there was no winking - at anyone. Those Defendants who came to the hearing sat in a row behind him (not that there are that many rows in that small courtroom).

The Defendants' attorney has, for the most part been dealing with responding to all of the actions the Plaintiff has initiated. For every deposition the Plaintiff has required, someone from the Defendants' legal team had to be present. Of course the Plaintiff's legal team had someone there (one or more - more means each one gets to bill her for as many hours as the process takes) . Some of the Defendants were kept in their depositions in excess of eight hours. And the Plaintiff chose to depose a lot of people - not just the Defendants - which meant someone from the Defendants' legal team had to be there, too.

Thanks to the Plaintiff's attorney, some of the Defendants found that their personal lives being scrutinized - former marriages, even old parking tickets. I wonder how much that cost Ms. Regan. Dion Seymour and his wife were under such pressure and stress they have both experienced multiple strokes because of the harassment tactics employed by the Plaintiff's attorneys. I wonder if their medical bills could be charged to the Plaintiff's attorneys. This has all been because of the termination of an employee - and one who chooses not to use the proper procedure of appealing that termination.

Has the Defendants' attorney been recommending any course of action to look into the personal or professional background of the Plaintiff ? According to the public documents, No.

Has there been any attempt to discredit the Plaintiff other than to state the justification of grounds for the termination? According to the public document, No.

Has the Plaintiff even been willing to explain her actions to the Board that caused the termination in the first place? According to the public documents, No.

Has she been given that opportunity by the Defendants? Yes, with the support and encouragement of the Defendants' attorney. It was rebuffed by the Plaintiff's attorney with what was perceived as threats by both the Defendants and their attorney.

So, in Conclusion I think the School Board is walking the higher ground here. As a taxpayer here I feel we have the better attorney on several levels. I don't know what it will cost us in the long run. Maybe these latest motions to recover some of the School Board's legal costs will succeed. Maybe not. But I think Mr. Dench and his team serves us all well and should be commended.

Hats Off, Gentlemen and Ladies. Nice to have some of the good members of the Bench on our side.