In many cases, lawyers might sever ties due to unpaid bills. However, in the case of the Busch Law Group's resignation from the Ramapo Indian Hills Board of Education, unpaid bills cannot be the culprit, as the taxpayers would inevitably cover any outstanding fees.
At the May 22nd Board Meeting, Board President, Judy Sullivan, gave several reasons for the law firm's unexpected resignation. According to Ms. Sullivan, these included:
(1) scrutiny of legal bills by the board minority and members of the public (2) extensive interest and coverage by a local reporter (3) a single dissenting vote on legal invoices by one board members
These reasons were then framed as 'attacks' on Ms. Sullivan's and The Busch Law Group’s competencies, ethics, and reputations, a narrative that was further echoed by board members Ansh, Emmolo, and Bogdansky, and several of their supporters in the public.
Let's fact-check these assertions and shed some light on this narrative.
In examining Ms. Sullivan's assertions, the first point of contention concerns the legal bills for Busch Law and the scrutiny of these bills by the board minority and members of the public contributing to the law firm's resignation. While it's true that there has been interest in these bills, the attention is not unwarranted. The fiduciary responsibility of board members includes ensuring the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. Therefore, scrutinizing any expense, including legal bills, is within their duties and rights, not an 'attack.' It should be noted that in 2022, Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Emmolo asked questions often, many times a voluminous amount on a variety of issues, and never were they deemed “attacks”.
Looking at the legal bills themselves suggests that the questioning was more than warranted. Under the leadership of Ms. Sullivan, there has been a significant increase in the board president’s usage of legal counsel as compared to the previous board president’s usage. Some of the legal work, such as extensive hours billed for research into HIB matters, was not shared with the full board until after board members saw the legal bills and asked for it, raising questions about the need for such work that was commissioned by Ms. Sullivan and not shared with the full board.
Moreover, the sheer size of the legal bills gives pause. Historically, total legal expenses for the district averaged $145,000 annually over the prior six years (total legal expenditure for all firms used), with a range from $108,000 to $174,000. In stark contrast, the Busch Law Group's invoices for just 2.5 months amounted to $82,000. If that level of billing continued, the annual cost for Busch Law would exceed $390,000, nearly triple the previous high end of the range for total legal expenditures, just for one firm. At least six additional firms have been hired to assist the district in 2023, further increasing legal costs with numerous additional retainers paid.
When questions about these figures were raised, the responses from Ms. Sullivan were obfuscating rather than enlightening. They were replete with complex sentences and tangential details, muddying rather than clarifying the issues. The arguments became circular, spiraling back on themselves and losing the thread of logic. Even contradictory statements surfaced, further sowing confusion. Prime examples included Ms. Sullivan's claim of not approving a request for information due to its high cost and then later admitting her ignorance of the actual cost, and Ms. Sullivan’s claim of not being aware of narrative entries despite reviewing the invoice and receiving emails from the public on those specific narrative entries. In many cases, Ms. Sullivan’s responses lacked clear summaries or conclusions, and more often than not, they served to deflect from the crux of the matter: the sharp increase in her usage of legal counsel relative to previous Board Presidents.
The assertion that 'No' votes on legal invoices by one out of nine Board members contributed to the resignation of Busch requires further scrutiny too. The board member who cast this vote, Ms. King, clarified that her vote was not a reflection on the quality of the law firm's services. Rather, it was due to the lack of detailed information accompanying the invoice. Therefore, to interpret this vote as an indictment of the law firm's competence is at best a misinterpretation, and at worst, a deliberate distortion.
It is worth noting that in 2022, there were 15 finance-related resolutions on which Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Emmolo voted 'No.' Therefore, it is somewhat disingenuous for them to now suggest that a 'No' vote could lead a law firm to resign. There is a touch of hypocrisy in claiming that 'No' votes could trigger such a drastic reaction, while they themselves have collectively cast numerous 'No' votes without explanations in the past.
The narrative that the Busch Law Group and Ms. Sullivan were victims of "attacks" against their competencies, ethics, and reputations is a masterstroke of redirection. Instead of a case of unwarranted attacks, what we are observing is the natural process of scrutiny and accountability. Regrettably, this narrative appears to be a deflection tactic from the real issues at hand.
In fact, in their resignation letter, the Busch Law Group identified a breakdown in trust and communication within the board as the catalyst for their resignation. The letter stated: "we have witnessed what appears to be a marked degradation in the level of civility, trust, and respect that the Board members have shown one another... we have witnessed Board members weaponizing our legal advice in attacks against one another."
This statement from the law firm paints a starkly different picture from the narrative spun by Ms. Sullivan. It speaks to an internal discord and a lack of unity, rather than a problem originating from external scrutiny of legal invoices or press coverage or “No” votes on their invoices.
So, why do law firms choose to end their relationships with clients?
New Jersey Rule 1.16 of the Rules for Professional Conduct for Lawyers articulates the scenarios where an attorney may or is obliged to discontinue client representation. This may occur when the client insists upon taking action with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement, the client engages in illegal or fraudulent activities, fails to fulfill obligations related to the lawyer's services, or makes the representation unreasonably difficult for the lawyer. Link to New Jersey Rule 1.16 is provided below.
It’s highly unusual and almost unheard of for educational attorneys in NJ to quit a client. One is left to wonder why Busch Law really quit representing the RIH BOE.
It's important to move beyond sensational claims and finger-pointing, focusing instead on restoring the necessary trust and collaboration among the board members. It’s time for self-examination by Ms. Sullivan, board president. It’s time for her to reflect on her contributions to the lack of trust and collaboration on the board and make changes. There is also a pressing need for greater transparency and accountability in the board's decision-making process, particularly in matters related to the use of taxpayer dollars. As part of this transparency, the legal invoices and their accompanying details should be accessible and understandable to all board members and the public. The citizens of the FLOW community deserve a board that operates in the best interests of the students and community it serves.
The first step towards this goal is to establish a culture of openness, responsibility, and mutual respect, where decisions are made with prudence and careful consideration of the community's resources.
Update from the June 12, 2023, meeting.
At the June 12th meeting, Ms. Sullivan made assertions that the Busch Law Group specifically stated they resigned because of Board members Dr. Lorenz, Mr. DeLaite, and Ms. King. This is not consistent with what Ms. Sullivan said in the previous meeting (scrutiny of legal bills, interest, and coverage by a local reporter and one dissenting vote on invoices). It is really hard to reconcile Ms. Sullivan’s new claims to the events of the last few months. I will continue to share to try to break down the misinformation and help make sense of the chaos.
Link to New Jersey Rule 1.16: