Murrieta Valley board declines to enter engagement with Advocates for Faith & Freedom after debate over costs and strategy

The Murrieta Valley Unified School District board considered and ultimately did not approve a draft engagement agreement with Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a law firm that has represented other districts on parental‑notification policy matters.

The contested agenda item (G1) prompted prolonged public comment from parents and community members both supporting and opposing retained counsel. Supporters urged the board to secure legal representation to defend a parental‑notification policy approved earlier; opponents raised concerns about fiscal exposure, whether the district’s Joint Powers Authority would cover litigation, and transparency of the firm’s rate schedule.

Julianne Fer, an attorney with Advocates for Faith & Freedom, addressed the board and described the firm as providing attorney services pro bono (no attorney fees charged to clients) while clarifying that litigation costs — filing fees, depositions, expert witness fees and other out‑of‑pocket expenses — could fall to the district. She said fees incurred so far in a parallel Tula Valley matter were under $3,000, and that the engagement letter could be amended to provide detail on costs and exit terms.

Multiple commenters asked whether the draft engagement letter included an explicit fee schedule and whether the district’s insurance (JPA) would cover the expenses of defending the district in the event of litigation. Emily Brooks asked specifically whether other law firms had declined the case and whether independent counsel had reviewed the proposed agreement.

Trustees debated the draft’s language, fiscal risk and the firm’s pro bono assurances. Trustee Parue and Trustee Vandergriff voted to approve the engagement; three trustees voted against the motion. The roll call recorded two votes in favor and three opposed, so the engagement agreement was not approved.

“Pro bono does mean pro bono,” the firm’s representative said in response to a question about attorney fees, while acknowledging the district could be responsible for certain litigation costs if a suit were filed and the engagement moved beyond advisory counsel. Board members asked for a fee schedule and a clearer description of what costs would be the district’s responsibility before reconsidering such a contract.

Next steps: The board did not enter into the agreement. Members and staff discussed the option of scheduling a more detailed, non‑public briefing or returning a clarified draft to a future meeting with stated fee schedules and exit terms. The district also will consider whether independent counsel or its JPA counsel should review any future engagement.

Provenance: The discussion, presentation and vote occur in public testimony and the board record starting with public comment about G1 (SEG 1659) and the attorney's presentation (SEG 3226–SEG 3512); the roll-call vote and outcome are recorded (SEG 3830–SEG 3964).