Tuesday, November 22, 2005
What Would Thomas Do?
.
A number of questions arise as to whether the Dover School Board was informed of all the fine print involved, such as the possibility of the District having to pay $1,000,000 or more in legal fees in the legal challenge that was almost certain to follow the board’s action. Also, was the board given a reasonable estimate of the chances in the lawsuit (though it apparently was told something along those lines by their own lawyer)? There is a certain duty upon an attorney to protect a client from its own folly, no matter how much you'd like them, for your own reasons, to play the fool.
Perhaps the most interesting question is what the Law Center was really after and what did they tell the board about it? If the Law Center intended to win this case under present law, there is serious question of the competency of its investigation and/or its appreciation of the facts and the law in the case.
If they wanted to bring a test case to change the law (in hopes, say, that Justice Scalia's dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard would be adopted) did they tell the board this? If so, that opens the individual board members up to potential personal liability for the legal fees.
The board members are only protected from liability for their actions if they are acting in good faith in the interests of the school district. Using the district as a guinea pig, and potentially forcing it to incur significant liability, in order to advance the board members' own religious and political interests (as their testimony makes painfully clear) is, in my book, as much a misuse of the district's resources as it would be to have district employees use district supplies to build houses for the board.
If the Law Center hoped to make new law but didn't tell the board that or didn't tell them of their potential personal liability if things went wrong, they were committing malpractice, at least, if not outright fraud.
Some more musings about the Thomas More Law Center:
A number of questions arise as to whether the Dover School Board was informed of all the fine print involved, such as the possibility of the District having to pay $1,000,000 or more in legal fees in the legal challenge that was almost certain to follow the board’s action. Also, was the board given a reasonable estimate of the chances in the lawsuit (though it apparently was told something along those lines by their own lawyer)? There is a certain duty upon an attorney to protect a client from its own folly, no matter how much you'd like them, for your own reasons, to play the fool.
Perhaps the most interesting question is what the Law Center was really after and what did they tell the board about it? If the Law Center intended to win this case under present law, there is serious question of the competency of its investigation and/or its appreciation of the facts and the law in the case.
If they wanted to bring a test case to change the law (in hopes, say, that Justice Scalia's dissent in Edwards v. Aguillard would be adopted) did they tell the board this? If so, that opens the individual board members up to potential personal liability for the legal fees.
The board members are only protected from liability for their actions if they are acting in good faith in the interests of the school district. Using the district as a guinea pig, and potentially forcing it to incur significant liability, in order to advance the board members' own religious and political interests (as their testimony makes painfully clear) is, in my book, as much a misuse of the district's resources as it would be to have district employees use district supplies to build houses for the board.
If the Law Center hoped to make new law but didn't tell the board that or didn't tell them of their potential personal liability if things went wrong, they were committing malpractice, at least, if not outright fraud.
.
Comments:
<< Home
nike roshe uk, lululemon outlet, nike air max pas cher, new balance, nike air force, coach outlet, ralph lauren pas cher, nike tn pas cher, polo lacoste pas cher, coach outlet store online, hogan sito ufficiale, sac guess pas cher, abercrombie and fitch UK, nike roshe run pas cher, nike free, lunette oakley pas cher, true religion outlet, true religion jeans, polo ralph lauren uk, nike blazer pas cher, abercrombie and fitch, nike air max uk, mulberry uk, replica handbags, michael kors uk, longchamp soldes, vans pas cher, converse, hollister uk, michael kors, louboutin pas cher, michael kors outlet online, timberland pas cher, lunette ray ban pas cher, nike air max uk, north face uk, longchamp pas cher, vanessa bruno pas cher, coach purses, burberry pas cher, true religion outlet, nike free pas cher, true religion outlet, michael kors, hermes pas cher, nike air max, jordan pas cher, north face pas cher, ray ban uk
juicy couture outlet, lancel, canada goose outlet, sac louis vuitton, canada goose jackets, toms shoes, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, ugg uk, replica watches, canada goose jackets, moncler uk, wedding dresses uk, sac louis vuitton, canada goose outlet, coach outlet, karen millen uk, thomas sabo uk, pandora jewelry, gucci, barbour, canada goose uk, canada goose pas cher, links of london uk, hollister, ugg pas cher, pandora jewelry, montre pas cher, moncler, swarovski jewelry, pandora charms, converse shoes outlet, canada goose, louis vuitton, moncler, ray ban, louis vuitton, canada goose, supra shoes, bottes ugg pas cher, moncler jackets, marc jacobs, juicy couture outlet, swarovski uk, moncler, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, moncler pas cher, moncler outlet, barbour jackets uk, louis vuitton uk, pandora uk, moncler
ninest123 16.03
Post a Comment
ninest123 16.03
<< Home
