Opinion ID: 1709729
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Can private counsel give advice concerning school district matters?

Text: Even if a superintendent has the authority to decide when to consult with legal counsel, Rathmann contends that Iowa Code section 331.756(7) mandates that only the county attorney may provide legal advice to the Board concerning school district matters. Conversely, Rathmann claims that private legal counsel is limited to representing the school district in litigation proceedings. Iowa Code section 331.756(7) states that the county attorney shall: Give advice or a written opinion, without compensation, to the board and other county officers and to school and township officers, when requested by an officer, upon any matters in which the state, county, school, or township is interested, or relating to the duty of the officer in any matters in which the state, county, school, or township may have an interest, but the county attorney shall not appear before the board at a hearing in which the state or county is not interested. (Emphasis added.) Rathmann thus draws a distinction between the concept of legal advice and legal representation. Under her interpretation, legal advice relates to advising the school district or providing a legal opinion on a particular matter whereas legal representation relates to the school district's involvement in litigation. Rathmann asserts that Iowa Code section 279.37 is further indication that private counsel cannot give a school district legal advice as to a particular situation, but is limited to representing the school district in litigation. Iowa Code section 279.37 provides: A school corporation may employ an attorney to represent the school corporation as necessary for the proper conduct of the legal affairs of the school corporation. (Emphasis added.) Under Rathmann's interpretation of section 279.37, the superintendent was authorized to seek advice concerning adoption of policy 306.5 only from the county attorney. She says that because the superintendent sought advice from private attorneys, the superintendent's actions were illegal and policy 306.5 is likewise invalid. As a matter of policy, Rathmann asserts that the county attorney is the only appropriate legal authority to give advice to a school district because private counsel hired by the school district will only give legal opinions which support the school district's predetermined course of action and will not provide impartial advice. Iowa Code section 279.37 as it now reads was enacted in 1980. Prior to the 1980 amendment, section 279.37 read as follows: In all cases where actions may be instituted by or against any school officer to enforce any provision of law, the board may employ counsel, for which the school corporation shall be liable. Iowa Code § 279.37 (1979). The explanation by the Iowa Senate judiciary committee given for enactment of the bill to amend section 279.37 into its present form was as follows: This bill allows a school corporation to employ an attorney as necessary to handle the legal affairs of the school corporation. Currently a school board may retain an attorney only when an action arises. S.F. 426, 68th G.A., 2d Sess. (Iowa 1980). After careful reading of the above-cited statutes, we conclude as the district court did, that Rathmann's contentions on this issue have no merit. First, we believe that the legislature's decision to amend section 279.37 is indicative of the legislature's intent to eliminate any distinction between the terms legal advice and legal representation. Additionally, we believe that the term legal affairs was intended to apply to all situations for which a school district might seek the services of an attorney, whether it be in response to a pending lawsuit, or for assistance in making a personnel or policy decision. While there may have been historical differences between the two terms, we see no reason to maintain that distinction in today's legal environment. Second, we find nothing in Iowa Code section 331.756(7) that precludes a school district from hiring private counsel concerning school district affairs or makes the county attorney the exclusive legal authority for advice concerning school district matters. That section simply defines the duties of a county attorney and only requires a county attorney to provide legal representation to a school district when requested by an officer. The district court properly concluded that a school district may hire private counsel to provide legal representation concerning school district matters, whether it be in response to pending litigation or simply providing a legal opinion. We affirm the ruling of the district court on this issue.