Board debates attorney’s social‑media posts and votes to extend local law‑firm contract
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After heated public comment and lengthy board debate over social‑media posts by outside counsel, the board voted to extend the district’s current law‑firm contract through the 2026‑27 school year; earlier motions to issue an RFQ were discussed but superseded by the substitute extension motion.
A contentious discussion over the district’s legal representation consumed a large portion of the New Hanover County Board of Education’s February meeting after public commenters and board members raised concerns about social‑media statements made by an attorney associated with the district’s current law firm.
Board members and the district’s attorney (Mr. Blanchard) described the options available to the client—here, the board—including asking that a particular attorney sit out or directing the firm to assign different counsel. Several public commenters urged transparency and accountability, and one advisory group (ACES) had earlier submitted a letter urging careful public language on special‑education topics.
Board debate covered multiple topics: whether the chair could direct counsel in the moment, whether prior media statements by the chair implied a board vote had already occurred, the law firm’s track record in saving the district money in litigation and travel costs, and whether partner conduct (including a highly criticized social‑media post using an offensive slur and other remarks) merited issuing a request for qualifications (RFQ) to solicit other firms.
A motion to put an RFQ out for new legal representation was introduced and seconded; extensive discussion followed. Ultimately a substitute motion to extend the current law‑firm contract through the 2026‑27 school year was offered and carried by roll call, 4‑3. Board members who supported extension cited local counsel’s courtroom performance and cost savings; opponents said the controversy and questions about firm expertise warranted an open solicitation.
The board did not immediately terminate the existing contract or name a replacement counsel; the extension preserves the district’s current engagement through the 2026‑27 school year. Board counsel advised that clients have discretion over which firm attorneys serve them, but board members emphasized that any future changes would be subject to board process.
The public comments and board members’ statements during this portion of the meeting indicated a split among stakeholders about how to balance legal capacity, cost, local representation and ethical standards.