|
In my Opinion, As an Elected Supervisor of Exeter Township: It would almost be laughable if it weren't so outrageous that this is happening at the taxpayer's expense. Schnee seems to have forgotten that his role is exclusively to execute tasks assigned by the Board of Supervisors—nothing more, nothing less. Yet he continues to shamelessly bill taxpayers for actions not sanctioned by the board, actions that, incidentally, amount to very little of substance. Isn't it simply marvelous when our inept solicitor decides to produce an unsolicited piece, trumpeting his marketing prowess? A piece so riddled with glaring falsehoods and dripping with hypocrisy, it lacks even a shred of self-awareness or humility. It's an affront that demands the full attention of our citizenry. Before we dissect this travesty in detail, let's first expose Mr. Schnee's pompous communication sent to the Board of Supervisors just a few weeks ago. From Chadwick Schnee, Of Schnee Legal Services: Good morning, Supervisors. In addition to providing you with a list of legal activities in which I am currently engaged, I also wanted to keep the Board apprised as to Solicitor legal costs. As the Board knows, I am currently providing services to the Township on a flat fee basis amounting to $15,000 per month, and the payment for the 4th quarter will be due by the end of September, to the extent that the Board wishes to continue with the flat fee arrangement. To the extent that the Board wishes to switch to hourly billing starting in October, I’m certainly always willing to have a discussion. In the interest of providing some factual information to inform the Board, I’ve provided the information below. In 2019, the Township paid over $1,300,000 in legal costs. In 2020, the Township paid about $650,000 in legal costs. In both 2021 and 2022, the Township paid approximately $250,000 in legal costs. Under the current flat fee arrangement, the Township would pay $180,000 for its solicitor. For illustration purposes, please see the below chart. SEE: Image labeled IMAGE 1. I also wanted to compare the difference between using the flat rate versus billing on an hourly basis. For illustration purposes, I’ve maintained my $215/hour rate for the number of hours I’ve expended on the Township’s behalf since April. In April, I spent 77.2 hours performing work for the Township. Hourly, I would have billed the Township $16,598; however, I instead billed a flat fee of $15,000, which saved the Township $1,598. In May, I spent 78.6 hours performing work for the Township. Hourly, I would have billed the Township $16,899; however, I instead billed a flat fee of $15,000, which saved the Township $1,899. In June, I performed 80.9 hours of work for the Township. Hourly, I would have charged $17,393.50; however, I instead billed a flat fee of $15,000, which saved the Township $2,393.50. In July, I performed 69.9 hours of work for the Township (I took a vacation this month). Hourly, I would have billed $15,106.50; however, I instead billed a flat fee of $15,000, which saved the Township $106.50. My billing is not yet complete for August, but I believe we’ll be in the $16,000 to $18,000 range. For purposes of illustration, please see below. SEE: Image labeled IMAGE 2. I also think it make sense to compare the amount of work I’ve performed in April-July in comparison to two other rates from local firms. When proposals were sought in 2022, the next closest bidder proposed charging $265/hour, and that amount times the number of hours of work performed during those months is reflected as “Local Firm - next closest bidder” below. Additionally, Supervisor Hughes proposed using Cornerstone Law at one point, with a rate of $325/hour – that amount times the numer of hours is reflected as “Cornerstone” below. For the 306.3 hours of work performed, I billed $60,000. Compared to Local Firm – next closest bidder, that resulted in a savings of $21,169.50. Compared to the Cornerstone rate, that resulted in a savings of $39,547.50, as illustrated below. SEE: Image labeled IMAGE 3. IMAGE 1: Schnee is blatantly distorting the true extent of our township's legal expenses. Legal costs can indeed be unpredictable, but it's generally the case that for a township of our size, legal representation and associated costs are minimal under normal circumstances, typically involving the review of bids and contracts. Yet Schnee is not only distorting the legal costs but also audaciously claiming that he is saving us money. This is a gross deception. To clarify, in 2019, the township was embroiled in an exceptionally unusual and incredibly expensive litigation with Viva, resulting in a million dollars in legal fees. This was a one-off situation, not anticipated to recur. Schnee, however, persists in his attempts to deceive us by ignoring that the subsequent year also involved additional, non-recurring legal fees. In 2021 and 2022, we made a concerted effort to rein in legal fees, even though it necessitated a change of solicitors. Schnee then expects us to buy into his fiction that he is currently billing us for only 17 hours a week. This is patently untrue, and it is exceedingly difficult for me to ascertain the extent to which the township is incurring costs above his $15,000 monthly salary. Schnee is going to great lengths to obstruct my access (and by extension, the access of the people of Exeter) to his itemized time sheets. Despite our best efforts, we have only managed to secure the sheets for April and May. Schnee is vehemently resisting the release of the June records and beyond. What, one must wonder, is he so desperate to conceal? Overbilling? Undertaking unauthorized work? Both? IMAGE 2: Schnee is deliberately obfuscating the truth about fixed retainer fees as opposed to hourly charges For clarification, Schnee's existing contract—crafted by himself and approved by the supermajority of Gardella, Bell, and Vollmer—claims a flat monthly salary of $15,000, while deceptively implying unlimited billable hours. Let's dispel that illusion right now. Numbers can be twisted to serve deceptive narratives, and Schnee is doing precisely that. His self-constructed graph is an outright fabrication. I managed to secure time sheets for his work in April and May (he's stonewalling the release of June and July records), and these documents strongly suggest the likelihood of overbilling—echoing his previous tenure working alongside Tucker Hull. Consider this glaring example: in April, Schnee billed for nine emails sent to an individual who filed an ADA complaint, at a minimum charge of $21.50 per email. Yet there were zero responses. Why persist in a futile endeavor? The answer is that the individual couldn't respond—something Schnee was fully aware of. That's because when an ADA complaint is in mediation and a confidentiality agreement hasn't been finalized, the defendant's attorney—Schnee, in this case—is prohibited from directly contacting the complainant. He should be communicating with the mediator. This is just one of several instances of unwarranted charges incurred, thanks to a slipshod contract that doesn't even include page numbers. So what's the supermajority of Bell, Vollmer, and Kirscher doing about this egregious situation? Absolutely nothing. In their eyes, Schnee can do no wrong—we even have this absurd sentiment documented. But let's not forget: the quality of work should matter, Chadwick! Fantasy-Based Comparisons, Brought to You by Schnee Legal Services. More fabrications from Schnee—it seems deception is second nature to him. Contrary to his public claims and communications, I never put forth Cornerstone as a prospective township solicitor. What I did say was that Cornerstone would represent me personally should the township, under Schnee's guidance, decide to take legal action against me. And let's be clear: Schnee would never dare do that; he's fully aware he'd face yet another humiliating loss, akin to when he recklessly sued a journalist and was forced to withdraw his lawsuit in shame within a fortnight. To set the record straight, Cornerstone was never in the running when we were searching for a solicitor firm and chose Tucker Hull. Schnee's comparison is utterly baseless; we never even negotiated rates with the firms he's contrasting with his own. Moreover, Schnee conveniently overlooks that he runs a one-man operation—without support staff, with a mere three months' existence, and led by an inexperienced, self-employed attorney. He has no paralegals; he works from home; his limited experience lies in Right-to-Know (RTK) law as a clerk. Approximately 30% of his billings stem from RTK because he routinely rejects requests and obscures his correspondence under the guise of attorney-client privilege—a blatant ruse enabling him to rack up thousands of dollars in additional billings. Rest assured, Schnee's tactics will be progressively exposed, both to the public and, eventually, to disciplinary authorities. When it comes to RTK requests—often straightforward to process—other, more reputable firms utilize paralegals at significantly reduced rates, around $80 an hour. And let's not forget that Exeter Township already employs an RTK officer. So, what is Schnee actually doing? The answer is clear: inflating his billings! With a fully staffed law firm, not only would we benefit from greater service availability, but we'd also undoubtedly enjoy a markedly higher standard of quality, AT A FRACTION OF SCHNEE LEGAL SERVICES COST! In closing, here's yet another glaring testament to Schnee's relentless deceit and staggering incompetence. How much longer will we, the taxpayers, put up with this costly charade? Wake up, Exeter Township—enough is enough!
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
Categories
All
Archives
July 2024
|