The perceived advantages and disadvantages of school districts in Texas utilizing an in-house attorney

This study explored the perceived advantages and/or disadvantages of school districts in Texas utilizing in-house attorneys according to in-house attorneys, administrators, and school boards in public schools.
The purpose of this study was to provide a data base for public school district administrators, school boards, and legal counsel regarding the perceived role, relationships, governance, decision making, and cost of school district in-house attorneys. The study used a multiple case study, qualitative methodology. This study was conducted in the state of Texas using convenience samples and snowballing. Convenience sampling is defined as samples that are chosen on the basis of convenience. It is sometimes referred to as an accidental or available sample (Berg, 2001; Glesne, 1999). Convenience sampling was used in this particular research because the subjects were close at hand, for example, within the state of Texas. The National School Board Association’s (NSBA) council of school attorneys was used as a resource to assist in contacting the sample of in-house attorneys.
A pilot study involving the semi-structured interviews and follow-up interviews was conducted in order to ascertain whether the interviews extracted the information needed to answer the research questions. The pilot case study was used to help refine the data collection plans in regard to the content of the data and the procedures used in the data collection (Yin, 2003). The information from the semi-structured interviews, follow-up interviews, and archival data was coded according to prevalent topics. Among the findings, the following points of interest were discovered. One perceived advantage to the role of the in-house attorney involved the availability of the in-house attorney to the school board and administrators in the district. However, a disadvantage was the closeness the attorney had to matters at hand and the idea that the in-house attorney’s involvement in the district could potentially lead to conflicts of interest. A disadvantage of the role of the in-house attorney was that they were sometimes perceived as a naysayer and did not want district administration to follow through with some of the decisions which would positively impact students. The in-house attorney being housed in the district administration building was perceived to be an advantage because the school board and administrators had greater access to legal information. A perceived disadvantage to access to legal information was that the administrators may not make the on the spot decisions they used to make because they would attempt to contact the in-house attorney first. The in-house attorney was perceived to have a strong knowledge of the legal needs of the district, yet it was perceived that the in-house attorney, if too involved in the day to day operation of the district, could become less of an advisor and more of a decision maker. In decision making, the leadership frames of Bolman and Deal (1993) were used to ascertain advantages and disadvantages of the in-house attorney operating from, or within, those frames. For example, the structural frame was seen to be beneficial because of the linear structure of the organizational frame. The in-house attorney had a clear understanding of who the decision makers were in the district and who to talk directly to, to whom to give advice, and who would be making the ultimate decisions. It was perceived that using the human resources frame helped the in-house attorney to be more effective at their job because people trusted them and the advice that they gave. The legal expenditures towards the salary of the in-house attorney were seen to be worth the benefits the district received from having an in-house attorney. However, some participants felt the school districts did not evaluate the everyday cost of running the in-house attorney office.
The purpose of the study was to provide a data base covering the perceived advantages and disadvantages according to public school district administrators, school boards, and legal counsel in five key areas. These areas included the role of the in-house counsel, the relationship between the in-house counsel and the school board and the administration, the governance of school districts and the in-house counsel, decision making in the district and how in-house attorneys operate within, and use, leadership frames within the district, and finally the cost associated with school districts utilizing in-house counsel. It was important to the purposes of this study for the research to give other public school administrators, school boards, and attorneys, understandings through written articulation of the research phenomenon.