In Our Opinion:
Exeter Township is set to make a catastrophic mistake by blindly adopting Schnee Legal Services’ contract, in complete disregard for proper procedure. Despite Schnee’s dismissal from Tucker Hall, it’s clear that Tucker Hall LLC still holds the position of Exeter Township’s legal firm, leaving no vacancy for Schnee to fill. Not only is this a violation of proper protocol, but it’s also a blatant disregard for transparency and accountability. The board of supervisors should have advertised the position and reviewed candidate firms in public before making a decision at a board meeting. This reckless decision is a clear sign that Exeter Township’s leadership is incompetent and unfit to make decisions on behalf of the community.
Source: https://cms3.revize.com/revize/exetertwp/Attachment%2009,%20Proposal%20for%20Schnee%20Legal%20Services.pdf
Analysis of Schnee Legal Services Contract Proposal
| Scope of Representation: This firm has been retained to serve as the Solicitor for Exeter Township. If you wish to expand the scope of the legal services we are providing and/or new matters for which you wish to retain our services arise, a separate engagement agreement for provision of services and payment for those services will be required. | It is intriguing to note that Tucker Hall has not yet relinquished their role as the solicitor firm for Exeter Township. There are certain protocols that must be adhered to when a vacancy for a township solicitor arises in a second-class township in Pennsylvania. The Board of Supervisors is tasked with appointing a solicitor, who will serve as the township’s legal counsel and provide guidance and representation on various local government matters and regulations. This appointment typically takes place during the Board’s annual reorganization meeting or when a vacancy arises. Consequently, it is both inaccurate and unprofessional to state in the contract that Schnee Legal Services has been retained as the solicitor for Exeter Township. Tucker Hall should take appropriate action by either resigning or appointing another attorney from their firm to replace Mr. Schnee following his dismissal. |
| Limited Scope of Representation: The scope of our representation does not include advice or services regarding accounting, tax, personal financial matters, business management, and related non-legal matters and advice. If you wish for us to consult with other professionals retained by you regarding this matter, we will communicate with you in writing to confirm the scope of such consultations prior to initiating same. | Interestingly, Schnee’s contract highlights what his firm won’t provide, similar to his actions at Tucker Hall, where he unethically intervened in numerous aspects of Exeter Township’s government, management, and communications. Curiously, he doesn’t mention the solicitor’s role, which involves delivering comprehensive legal services to ensure the township operates lawfully and safeguards its interests in various legal matters. These services cover a range of responsibilities, including legal advice, document drafting and review, representation in litigation, enforcement of township codes, land use and zoning advice, labor and employment law assistance, public finance guidance, compliance with laws, intergovernmental cooperation, and risk management. Schnee’s motives for this omission will be discussed later, as it relates to the “severability clause” that seemingly remedies any issues arising from the broadly written sections by stating that if any part of the agreement is deemed invalid, only that part will be inoperative, while the rest of the agreement remains in effect. This raises further concerns about Schnee’s ethical conduct. |
| Fees and Billing Statements: In the interest of providing consistency and predictability to legal billing, we have agreed that I will provide representation on a flat fee basis, paid in quarterly installments of $45,000.00 due on 3/31, 6/30, 9/30 and 12/31 for each upcoming quarter. (For example, the fee for representation in the second quarter of 2023 would be due on 3/31/2023.) This fee (1) is a flat, non-refundable fee that is earned upon receipt and covers all services within the Scope of Representation, (2) will not be deposited into an attorney IOLTA or other Trust account to be billed against, and (3) will be deposited in the lawyer’s operating account. You agree that this fee is not excessive in light of prior legal invoices and proposed hourly rates from other law firms. We evaluate our rates annually, and any rate changes take effect December 1st. | It’s quite intriguing to note that while at Tucker Hall, Schnee billed the township at an exorbitant rate of $215 per hour, with a minimum charge of $21.5 for any matter requiring his attention. This unethical practice led to him charging the township $21.5 per email, accumulating a staggering minimum of $3750 per week for email correspondence alone with township management and officials. In this new arrangement, there’s no mention of hourly costs or minimum charges, just a retainer fee for an entire year to be paid upfront. Take note: this means Exeter taxpayers are essentially funding Schnee’s new business venture with their money, paid upfront, and agreeing to cover any additional hourly fees he may bill the township. This arrangement is excessively broad, imprecise, and strikingly unethical. Why should Exeter Township taxpayers bear the burden of financing the startup costs for a subpar attorney? |
| Expenses will be separately stated on the bill, including, but not limited to tolls, and parking. No travel time or mileage will be billed for up to four (4) roundtrips to Berks County per month. A surcharge of $250.00 and mileage at the then-current IRS mileage reimursement rate will be charged for travel to Berks County over five (5) times per month. Our billing statements are due and payable upon presentation and are overdue if not paid by the due date set forth on the statements. You are responsible for payment of all legal fees, expenses, and disbursements, regardless of the outcome of the engagement. Late Payment and Failure to Pay: If you fail to pay our statements in full on or before the due date set forth on the statements, we reserve the right to assess a monthly service charge equal to 1% of all fees, expenses and disbursements that are past due. This monthly service charge will be billed to you at the end of each month in which a late payment occurs — in no event will the service charge be greater than that permitted by any applicable law. In the event that we are required to file an action or proceeding to collect any late payment or assessed monthly service charge, you will be required to pay for all costs of collection, including without limitation all filing fees, third-party expenses and attorney’s fees incurred for our efforts in collecting such amounts. If we use our own attorneys or legal assistants to pursue such an action or proceeding, the fees charged shall be calculated on an hourly basis using the applicable hourly rates for the attorneys and legal assistants who perform such work. We will maintain a lien on all files in our possession and their content until we have received payment in full on all amounts due. In litigation matters in which a money judgment or settlement is rendered in your favor, we will maintain a lien on all proceeds thereof to the extent of any unpaid fees, expenses or disbursements. | In light of the preceding clauses, it is crucial to revisit this section, as it appears Schnee expects taxpayers to finance his nascent venture, even though the contract lacks clarity regarding the services provided and the corresponding hourly rates. Moreover, Schnee demands compensation for all additional expenses, and should the taxpayers default on payment, he reserves the right to impose liens wherever legally possible. Is it not evident that Schnee’s primary objective is exploiting taxpayer funds, rather than genuinely serving and safeguarding the township’s residents? Does this not raise serious concerns about ethical misconduct? |
| Responsibilities of Law Firm and Client: We will provide only legal services, as previously described in the “Scope of Representation” and “Limited Scope of Representation” sections of this engagement agreement. We will keep you apprised of developments and will consult with you as necessary to ensure the timely, effective, and efficient completion of our work. You acknowledge that we cannot guarantee either the outcome or the timing to complete legal services on your behalf. | The following sections of this contract take a concerning turn, appearing to target Supervisor Hughes with unnerving intensity. These clauses seem to be more focused on limiting Hughes’s freedom of speech and hindering his ability to perform his duties as a supervisor, rather than outlining terms for legal services. Not only do these provisions appear unenforceable due to their excessive breadth, but they also encroach upon Hughes’s First Amendment rights and privileges as an elected township official. |
| You agree to be truthful and cooperative with us, to respond to our inquiries and communications promptly and to provide promptly all information known or available that may be relevant to our engagement. Additionally, you agree, on behalf of the Township, its officials and employees, to kept all privileged communications (as determined by the Solicitor or other legal counsel) with this firm confidential and to refrain from disclosing such communications through social media or any other means, except where authorized by a quorum of the Board of Supervisors. | This clause appears to be unethically targeted at Supervisor Hughes, as Schnee tries to exploit attorney-client privilege to control communications and documents between himself and Hughes, regardless of whether they are legal in nature. This essentially gives Schnee sole power to decide what Hughes can discuss publicly, which grossly violates the fundamental values of this country. This behavior smacks of authoritarianism and is likely unenforceable. In past events, Schnee has harassed Hughes, a finance executive who retired more than a decade ago, by inappropriately challenging right-to-know requests. When documents are not available, RTK requires immediate denial of the request. However, Schnee has taken it upon himself to call and email Hughes, demanding his resume even when the document was nonexistent. This appeared to be a thinly disguised political scheme initiated by Hughes’s opponents, such as Gardella, Bell, and Vollmer, who consistently and obsessively try to discredit Hughes. Hughes’s exceptional resume, which showcases a successful career in Silicon Valley technology firms, only serves to strengthen his credibility. Schnee has involved himself in the politics of Exeter Township’s government and chosen a side, further demonstrating his corrupt mindset and unethical conduct. |
| You will provide us with factual information and materials as we require in order to perform the foregoing services. You acknowledge and agree that you remain responsible for making all business or technical decisions and that you are not relying on us for accounting, tax, personal financial matters or business management, and related non-legal matters and advice. You also acknowledge that we are not responsible for investigating the character or credit of persons with whom you may be dealing. We may provide to you newsletters or similar materials regarding general legal developments or matters of current interest. Similarly, we may invite you to attend seminars or symposia where legal topics are discussed. In our experience, such information or events are educational, because a well-informed client will be better able to make decisions about the need for future legal representation. However, it is understood that such communications do not constitute legal advice, and do not create an attorney-client relationship beyond the scope of the representation described herein. | This section is an overly broad and irrelevant boilerplate that has no place in this solicitor contract and must be removed. Clearly, it’s a poorly disguised effort to permit Schnee’s firm to self-promote in various ways, such as sending electronic marketing materials to township employees and exploiting their role as township solicitors to solicit business from township resources and taxpayers. This is not only blatantly unethical but also utterly predictable coming from Schnee! |
| Non-disparagement: You, on behalf of the Township, its public officials and employees, agree to not disparage or make any defamatory or slanderous statements about this firm and/or Attorney J. Chadwick Schnee, Esq. through any means, including but not limited to social media postings, conversations or written materials. Any violation of the non-disparagement provision of this Agreement shall entitle the other party to bring a legal action for appropriate equitable relief as well as damages. In addition to any other rights or remedies available at law, in equity, or by statute, the parties consent to the specific enforcement of the non-disparagement provision of this Agreement through an injunction or restraining order issued by an appropriate court, without the requirement of posting a bond. Further, we agree that this firm may assess an additional fee up to $1,000.00 per violation, up to an annual maximum of $10,000.00, of the non-disparagement provision of this Agreement. | This section is astonishingly revealing of Schnee’s personal animosity towards Hughes. The aggressive and domineering language necessitates that we pause and scrutinize it thoroughly. While it is common for legal contracts to include a non-disparagement clause to establish a mutual agreement of refraining from derogatory conduct or communication that may harm the other party’s reputation, goodwill, or business interests, Schnee takes it to another level. He unilaterally dictates that any behavior or communication he deems as disparaging will be met with litigation and fines. This is a blatant attack on Hughes, who has been vocal about Schnee’s incompetence as a solicitor and his unethical actions concerning right-to-know laws, confidentiality, billing, and more. Schnee’s vendetta against Hughes is glaringly apparent, as he attempts to embed this in his contract in a highly one-sided and unenforceable manner. Furthermore, Hughes is an elected township supervisor, and as such, he possesses protection against actions that might impede his ability to govern. This protection comes in the form of “qualified immunity,” which safeguards government officials from personal liability as long as their actions do not infringe upon clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. In conclusion, this clause is not only unenforceable but also serves as a striking illustration of Schnee’s vendetta against Hughes. It exposes Schnee’s deep-rooted involvement in the township’s politics, his severe corruption, and the unethical conduct that renders him unsuitable for the solicitor position he seeks. |
| Termination: You may terminate this representation at any time with or without cause by notifying us in writing of your desire to do so. Upon receipt of the notice to terminate representation, we will cease all legal work on your behalf immediately. You will be responsible for paying all legal fees, expenses and disbursements incurred on your behalf in this matter until written notice of termination is received by our firm. You further agree that any fees designated as non-refundable flat fees are not refundable. To the extent permitted by rules of professional responsibility and the court, we may terminate our representation at any time if you breach any material term of this agreement, fail to cooperate or follow our advice on a material matter, if a conflict of interest develops or is discovered, or if there exists, at any time, any fact or circumstance that would, in our opinion, render our continuing representation unlawful, unethical, or otherwise inappropriate. If we elect to terminate our representation, you will timely take all steps reasonably necessary and will cooperate as reasonably required to relieve us of any further obligation to perform legal services, including the execution of any documents necessary to complete our withdrawal from representation. In such case, you agree to pay for all legal services performed and any legal fees, expenses or disbursements incurred on your behalf before the termination of our representation in accordance with the provision of this agreement. In the event that this Agreement is terminated by the Township or this firm, the terminating party shall provide a positive reference upon request. | This termination clause is strikingly unconventional in the realm of legal contracting due to its flagrantly one-sided nature. It’s fascinating to observe how Schnee embeds his resentment towards Hughes within this section, as it serves as an extension of the preceding clause. Upon closer examination, Schnee essentially asserts that he retains the unilateral authority to terminate the contract if, in his opinion, township employees or officials fail to comply with his directives or if any situations arise that he deems inappropriate. In simpler terms, if Hughes takes any action that Schnee disapproves of, Schnee can not only terminate the contract with the township, but also effectively abscond with the advance payment for an entire year’s worth of fees, funded by taxpayer money. And as if that isn’t enough, this clause also mandates that the township provide Schnee with a positive reference. Are you kidding? To reiterate, when Schnee deems that Hughes has said or done something objectionable, he can walk away with a year’s worth of advance payments and force the township to furnish him with a glowing reference for future employers. What do you believe the outcome will be? Frankly, this contract appears to be the work of a delusional, vindictive, and immature individual who is entirely out of touch with reality! |
| Severability: In the event that any provision or part of this agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, only that particular provision or part so found, and not the entire agreement, will be inoperative. | Schnee’s cunning maneuver in this instance is undeniably driven by a desire to protect his finances. He’s acutely aware that this is the only part of the contract that can’t be effortlessly invalidated, with the rest being highly susceptible to being struck down. Essentially, Schnee is shielding the agreement from becoming void because of a single problematic provision, guaranteeing the preservation of the contract’s overall purpose. In layman’s terms, this clause is a blatant attempt to secure his monetary gains, exposing his utterly corrupt and unethical nature. |