City attorney Pete Holmes sees a way to save more than $150 an hour on legal fees by not letting cops hire private lawyers. But the police guild promises legal action against the city if he goes through with it.
How is it fair to spend tax payer money hiring private lawyers for police, while paying less money to hire often times less skilled and/or experienced lawyers to defend any of those taxpayers who lack the money to pay for their own?
It'd be interesting to read the relevant bits of the contract, Elenchos, but Holmes thinks it means something, SPOG thinks it means something else. Dominic is a reporter, not a lawyer. Unless Holmes or SPOG is obviously making BS claims I can't say that I'd want to have Dominic spend words on his own interpretation.
It'd be interesting to read the relevant bits of the contract, Elenchos, but Holmes thinks it means something, SPOG thinks it means something else. Dominic is a reporter, not a lawyer. Unless Holmes or SPOG is obviously making BS claims I can't say that I'd want to have Dominic spend words on his own interpretation.
It's a bit frightening to have our police collectively threatening the rest of us using SPOG's monopoly status. Too bad we don't require competition among labor unions.
I agree!