Summary

To my knowledge, this represents the first financial comparison between in-house and outside counsel within Keller ISD. The data makes one thing clear: in-house counsel is only cost-effective if they are able to offset their salary by significantly reducing the need for outside legal services. In this case, that did not occur.

It becomes particularly difficult to justify the financial support for a full-time in-house counsel when the district faces external legal pressures—such as lawsuits, whistleblower complaints, or other complex matters—that cannot be managed by a single individual. These issues typically still require the involvement of outside counsel, meaning the district would incur both the salary of in-house counsel and the additional costs of external legal services. A single staff attorney, carrying a high fixed salary, is generally not equipped to handle such demands alone.

In contrast, the decision to rely on outside counsel proved financially advantageous, especially during the first two years of implementation. Looking ahead beyond 2025, legal expenses related to the ongoing Mucker/Moon lawsuit will likely increase. However, it's important to note that even if in-house counsel were in place, the costs associated with such a lawsuit would still require outside legal support—making it an added expense rather than a replacement.  Make no mistake, the current lawsuit will mean that Jackson Walker will make more money but even with in-house counsel that additional cost would still exist.

In short, Tim Davis remains the more cost-effective option.