Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Counsel Retention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Keller ISD trustees face heated public opposition over continued use of Jackson Walker and Tim Davis as litigation counsel
Summary
Trustees debated retaining Jackson Walker LLP and counsel Tim Davis for ongoing litigation during a session marked by extensive public comment demanding invoice transparency and questioning prior hiring procedures. The board recorded a split vote; no clear approval was recorded in the meeting minutes.
Trustees at a Sept. 24 Keller ISD board meeting considered a motion to approve Jackson Walker LLP and attorney Tim Davis to represent defendants in a pending removal petition and related matters. The question drew lengthy public comment alleging undisclosed invoices and poor legal advice and produced an inconclusive board vote.
Supporters and opponents alike urged clarity and transparency. Multiple members of the public asked for unredacted invoices and said the district has spent substantial sums on legal fees. One speaker said, “I strongly oppose the approval of legal counsel for Tim Davis and Jackson Walker in the case referenced on the agenda item 10 h,” while another told the board, “We have given Tim Davis blank check after blank check.” Those comments were part of a sustained public-comment series about the district’s legal spending and the handling of prior retention agreements.
The administration and several trustees, citing records drawn from the district’s check registers, said the district’s prior move from an in-house counsel model reduced legal costs and that Jackson Walker’s hourly rates are within or below local market ranges. Trustee remarks noted that specialized education-law attorneys in the region often bill $500–$1,000 per hour and that the firm’s billed hourly rate is about $450.
Trustee Nandi Campbell raised a procedural objection, saying the district lacked a board-approved, written terms-of-engagement agreement for Jackson Walker and that the existing 03/02/2023 engagement letter was signed by a single trustee rather than the board acting as a body corporate. Campbell said such an agreement should specify scope, fees and client designation and be placed on the public agenda for formal approval before incurring open-ended liability.
When trustees voted on the motion as it appeared on the agenda the meeting transcript records a split tally: recorded as 4 yes, 2 no and 1 present/not voting. No further approval language appears in the meeting record; the board did not record a clear, affirmative adoption of a new, board-signed terms-of-engagement in the minutes of the meeting.
The public comments and trustee discussion repeatedly asked for a public, board-approved retention agreement or an RFQ process for district legal services to ensure transparency. Several speakers said they would press for public release of invoices and for the board to put any long-term legal-retention arrangement on a future, full-agenda item with supporting documentation.
The board moved on to other business after the vote; the meeting record does not show additional action on a replacement or ratification of the Jackson Walker engagement during that session.
