Destroying Lives Funded by the Taxpayers: Chapter 2
Chapter 2: The Perfect Storm
Thank you to everyone who voted for our anthem! The winning anthem secured an overwhelming 68% of the votes. If you haven’t had a chance to listen yet, you can find it here.
Disclaimer: The information provided by The SCCCD Insiders is offered solely for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established by accessing or using this content. You should refrain from acting based on any information provided here without consulting a qualified attorney who is licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction and who can consider your specific circumstances. If you need assistance finding an attorney, we’re here to help.
Note: If you are reading this via email, please be aware that the full article exceeds the maximum length permitted in emails. Click this link to access the complete article.
Following the publication of our February 5, 2025, article, Destroying Lives Funded by the Taxpayers: Chapter 1, GV Wire senior reporter David Taub published a follow-up piece detailing Mr. Edward Madec’s ongoing battle against the State Center Community College District (SCCCD or District) before an Office of Administrative Hearings judge in an effort to reclaim his job. This marked the second time Mr. Madec has been terminated—a decision that has already cost taxpayers a substantial sum and led to four humiliating legal defeats for the District. Mr. Taub also appeared on FOX26’s Wired Wednesday, where he highlighted the staggering financial burden these legal battles have imposed on taxpayers.
In the wake of Mr. Taub’s article, we received numerous inquiries from readers. While many recognize Chancellor Goldsmith’s pattern of reckless and retaliatory behavior, some have questioned why legal professionals—who should know better—continue to aggressively pursue weak or baseless cases against employees, despite the overwhelming financial and reputational damage inflicted on the District and taxpayers. This critical question prompted us to dig deeper, leading to the publication of this exposé.
We contend that four key factors have coalesced to create a perfect storm, driving prolonged and exorbitantly costly legal battles that ultimately burden taxpayers. These factors are:
A rogue leader who allegedly thrives on conflict, weaponizes vendettas, and retaliates against employees through terminations and legal harassment;
A virtually unlimited supply of taxpayer funds at Chancellor Goldsmith’s disposal, enabling reckless and unchecked legal expenditures;
A financial system that incentivizes law firms to maximize billable hours by prolonging litigation, profiting at the District’s expense;
A Board of Trustees that has abandoned its fiduciary duty, failing to protect taxpayer dollars while enabling and endorsing Chancellor Goldsmith’s disastrous leadership.
This combination has plunged SCCCD into an unsustainable cycle of litigation, demanding immediate scrutiny and accountability.
Understanding the Economics of Law Firms
The exorbitant cost of SCCCD’s legal battles—and the guidance provided by Chancellor Goldsmith’s legal advisors to pursue them—only became clear when we examined the financial incentives driving law firms. Simply put, attorneys profit by billing for their time, creating a system where prolonged litigation benefits the firm at the expense of the District and taxpayers.
In a civil lawsuit, the party initiating legal action is called the “plaintiff”, while the party being sued is the “defendant”. Many plaintiff attorneys often work on a “contingency fee” basis, where payment depends on winning or settling. This structure incentivizes attorneys to take cases with a high probability of success. On the other hand, defense firms typically operate on an “hourly fee” basis, ensuring they are compensated regardless of the case outcome. The SCCCD’s 14 contracted law firms predominantly bill the District using this hourly fee structure.
Hourly Fee
Despite employing in-house counsel, the SCCCD frequently outsources cases to external firms. As we previously reported, the SCCCD, under Chancellor Goldsmith leadership, spends well over $1 million annually on legal fees and employs a staggering 14 law firms. Most firms hired by the District bill by the hour. For example, an attorney charging $400 per hour who works 10 hours on a case generates a $4,000 fee. A key component of this model is the billable hour.
Billable Hours
The cornerstone of the hourly fee structure is billable hours, which represents the time an attorney spends on tasks chargeable to a client. Billable hours are typically measured in minimum increments of six minutes. These hours are meticulously logged and billed according to an agreed-upon hourly rate. Even brief tasks are billed based on a minimum increment policy. For example, a short 3-minute phone call is rounded up to 6 minutes, resulting in a $40 charge ($400 per hour divided into 10 segments of 6 minutes each).
Billable hours are so crucial to law firms that a well-known adage has emerged: “Lawyers live and die by billable hours”[1][2][3][4][5][6]. The Yale Law School Career Development Office, underscores this concept to its students—future attorneys—this way:
One important aspect of law firm life that is nearly impossible to avoid is the “billable hour.” Most law firms generate revenue by billing clients by the hour. To be profitable, you must bill enough hours to cover not only your salary and overhead but also to contribute to the firm's overall revenue. It’s a straightforward equation—the more hours you bill, the more revenue the firm generates.
This relentless emphasis on billable hours not only shapes the economics of law firms but also dictates how legal services are rendered, influencing case strategy and client interactions. Attorneys are often evaluated, promoted, and rewarded with bonuses based on their ability to meet or exceed stringent billable hour targets each year. According to Michael Moradzadeh, a founding partner at Rimon, an international law firm with 50 offices in 11 countries and five continents:
These standards … are enforced with financial incentives or penalties. Associate bonuses are routinely tied to billing a specific number of hours.
This system creates significant pressure on attorneys to maximize billable hours, sometimes at the expense of efficiency or client’s interest.
The Pressure
The National Association for Law Placement reports that most firms require associates to bill between 1,700 to 2,300 hours per year, with the average exceeding 2,000 hours. This expectation is corroborated by Mr. Moradzadeh:
Firms raised their hours billed requirements to maximize the profits of partners. By 2001, large law firms typically asked associates to bill between 1,950 and 2,000 billable hours a year.
The Yale Law School Career Development Office breaks it down further showing that an attorney aiming to log 2,201 billable hours must dedicate a staggering 3,058 total hours to work-related activities annually. Their estimates illustrate the grueling schedule required:
with a half hour commute you are ‘working’ from 7:30 am to 8:30 pm Monday - Friday And 9:30 am - 5:30 pm three Saturdays a month.
It is notable that their calculation doesn’t account for personal calls, training/observing, talking with coworkers, pro bono work (if not treated as billable hours), serving on a Bar committee, writing journal articles, or family obligations.
The relentless pressure to meet the ever-increasing billable hour quotas is so overwhelming that Steven J. Harper, a former partner at the law firm Kirland & Ellis, and an adjunct professor at Northwestern University, reports most associate attorneys describe it as a “living hell”:
The billable-hour… serves no one. Well, almost no one. It brings most equity partners in those firms great wealth. Law firm leaders call it a leveraged pyramid. Most associates call it a living hell.
Mr. Moradzadeh elaborates on this pressure:
These standards exert serious pressure, whether they are openly described as “quotas” or euphemistically referred to as “targets.” … when a bonus kicks in at 2,000 billable hours, few associates will end the year with less. Partners are also often required to bill a set number of hours, usually slightly lower than those expected of associates.
It is evident that the pursuit of billable hours, deeply ingrained in the culture of defense law firms, drives profitability. However, it also shapes the way attorneys advise clients and handle cases.
The Inherent Conflict of Interest
Legal scholars and practitioners widely recognize that the pressure of meeting billable hours creates a fundamental conflict of interest between the attorney and client, incentivizing attorneys to prioritize revenue generation over client outcomes. It often compels law firms to maximize billable hours rather than pursue the most efficient resolution to a case.
In 2009, Chief Justice James Allsop of the Federal Court of Australia highlighted the conflict between a law firm’s economic drive to maximize profit and a lawyer’s ethical duty to act in the best interest of their client this way:
Only a very slight change of focus needs to be made by a lawyer to change from (a) expecting a profitable return from running as well and efficiently as possible a large case in court, to (b) planning how to make as much money as possible from running the same large case in court.
Mr. Moradzadeh explains:
Treating legal services as a commodity that can be measured in units of time diminishes the importance of both the quality of the work produced and the results achieved… . Few other industries would thrive if they measured productivity by the time their workers spent without regard to what those workers created. The standard invites inefficiency and perhaps even in some instances fraud. The potential for conflicts of interest is obvious—it’s in the firm’s financial interest for lawyers to spend as many hours as possible, while the client’s interest is best served by limiting the time spent.
Georgetown Law Professor Jonathan T. Molot concurs:
Clients disfavor hourly billing in part because it gives lawyers the wrong financial incentives. Whereas clients view a “successful” outcome as one that is achieved quickly and with minimal expense, law firm partners are more “successful” in the eyes of their partners (and in their annual share of firm profits) if they bill more hours.
In his 2008 book, The End of Lawyers?, Richard Susskind, an emeritus professor of law at Gresham College states:
So long as the focal point of law firms’ profitability is premised on the number of hours spent advising clients, their motivation will always tend to be to spend more rather than less time on the work, where the clients will prefer precisely the contrary… . At worst, hourly billing can tempt lawyers to dishonesty. At best, it is an institutional disincentive to efficiency.
William G. Ross, a law professor at Samford University who specializes in billing ethics, puts it plainly:
Lawyers sometimes conflate their own financial interests with the interests of the client who pays the bills… . Of course, most lawyers are ethical, but the billable hour creates perverse incentives.
The real-world consequences of a model that inherently incentivizes attorneys to prioritize financial gain over their clients' best interest warrant serious examination.
The Consequences
The inherent conflict of interest outlined above carries serious ethical implications. Attorneys advising the District on decisions that could lead to litigation often have a financial incentive to recommend aggressive legal action over resolution. For example, when an attorney from an external law firm that handles litigation for the District advises on whether to appeal a ruling, deny tenure to a faculty member advocating for their peers, or terminate an employee, their financial interests align with escalating disputes rather than seeking amicable resolutions. These choices increase the likelihood of prolonged litigation—driving up billable hours for the attorneys and maximizing profits for their firm at the expense of the District and taxpayers.
Richard E. Shevits, a partner at CohenMalad, clearly outlines the problem:
most firms who live and die by the hourly rate have an inherent conflict with their client. The longer a case drags out, the more time invested and the higher the fees. Indeed, it is common for lawyers in such firms to have minimum annual hour requirements; some even give bonuses for exceeding those minimums. Thus, the financial interest of the client – to resolve each dispute as efficiently as possible – flies in the face of the financial interest of the law firm.
Erin J. Cox, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson offers a solution in her UCLA Law Review article:
When fees are detached from aggregate hours worked, incentives to prolong litigation simply to rack up fees are nullified.
Although all of our sources are industry insiders, including partners and judges, we believe it is essential to highlight the perspective of a particularly notable insider.
The Revelations of an Industry Insider
Ralph Baxter is a distinguished attorney who served as Chairman and CEO of Orrick from 1990 to 2013. Under his leadership, the firm evolved from a California-based practice into a premier global powerhouse, expanding to 25 offices across the United States, Europe, and Asia, with a team of 1,100 lawyers. Mr. Baxter recalls when he first noticed the problem:
I first noticed the issue years ago when a lawyer friend of mine quipped, after meeting with a client about a new lawsuit, that he had to feign empathy for how upset the client was, given his own personal glee with the prospect of the revenue the new case would generate. Knowing my friend, I knew he wouldn’t deliberately do something contrary to the client’s interest, but it was, nonetheless, a disturbing exchange. What was bad for the client, was good for the lawyer.
Furthermore, Mr. Baxter notes:
the hours-based billing model can put them at odds with their clients in ways they do not intend, and in ways they may not recognize. It is a structural issue, not a moral issue.
However, Mr. Baxter also delivers perhaps the most poignant insight about this issue:
It is not just that what is bad for the client is good for the lawyer. The model incentivizes the lawyer to make it worse for the client.
But what does this all have to do with the SCCCD?
The Perfect Storm
Our sources and District records confirm that SCCCD relies heavily on the law firm of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) for legal representation. According to our sources, LCW is not only frequently consulted but also advises on matters that inevitably escalate into litigation—litigation that LCW subsequently handles.
To put it in the context of the SCCCD, let’s adapt Mr. Baxter’s statement:
It is not just that what is bad for the SCCCD is good for LCW. The model incentivizes LCW to make it worse for the SCCCD.
This glaring conflict of interest demands urgent scrutiny and accountability. The evidence in the following section substantiates our assessment that LCW has significantly profited from the SCCCD’s legal entanglements. The critical question remains: did their legal counsel contribute to the very litigation from which they have financially benefited? Multiple sources allege that LCW played a pivotal role in shaping decisions that led to these costly legal battles.
Disclaimer: We want to emphasize that we have no knowledge of any unethical or fraudulent dealings between the SCCCD and LCW. As Mr. Baxter aptly stated, “It is a structural issue, not a moral issue”.
As a public institution, the SCCCD should prioritize fiscal responsibility and avoid costly legal battles. Instead, the District remains ensnared in a perpetual cycle of litigation, driven by Chancellor Goldsmith’s leadership style.
Pair an authoritarian leader like Chancellor Goldsmith—who, according to multiple sources, boasts about the number of employees she has terminated—with a law firm financially incentivized to prolong litigation, and the result is clear and highlighted in our article, Chancellor Goldsmith’s Cost for the District: Part 1 of 2:
The SCCCD’s legal costs double, then triple.
LCW has developed a controversial reputation in certain circles. Notably, one of their attorneys, Ms. Yesenia Carrillo, was caught contacting multiple witnesses in Mr. Madec’s criminal case before the hearing. Furthermore, there is also this:
A reckless, vendetta-driven leader, working in tandem with a law firm profiting from endless litigation, backed by taxpayer funding, and enabled by a Board that has abdicated its fiduciary duty—this is the perfect storm of runaway legal costs and institutional failure.
The Cost of LCW’s Legal Services
The District’s contract with LCW is notably absent from the SCCCD’s publicly available records on BoardDocs. However, we located LCW’s 2024 fee schedule for the City of Parlier.
Page 5 of the document includes LCW’s rates for the City of Parlier. They are as follows:
Partners: $450/hr
Senior Counsel: $375/hr
Associates: $270–$355/hr
Labor Relations/HR Consultants: $290/hr
Paralegals: $150/hr
Law Clerks: $150–$185/hr
We also located LCW’s contract with the City of Mendota (page 89) and the City of Arcadia (page 59), both of which reflect similar prices. Given this consistency, it is reasonable to assume that the SCCCD is paying a comparable, if not identical, rate for LCW’s services.
The $80,000 Hearing
To illustrate how Chancellor Goldsmith’s vendettas cost the district, let’s break down the financial toll of just one hearing.
According to our sources, Mr. Madec’s most recent administrative hearing—a direct consequence of Chancellor Goldsmith’s relentless vendetta against him—spanned eight days, from February 3 to February 12, 2025. The following individuals represented the District at the hearing:
Eileen O’Hare-Anderson (Partner in LCW)
Yesenia Z. Carrillo (Associate in LCW)
Two Law Clerks/Paralegals
Vice Chancellor Mosier
The hearing lasted eight days, running from 9 AM to 5 PM each day, totaling 64 billable hours for each participant. Assuming the SCCCD has a similar fee structure with LCW as the City of Parlier, the cost of the hearing for the District is as follows:
Ms. O’Hare-Anderson: 64 hours × $450/hr = $28,800
Ms. Carrillo: 64 hours × $312/hr (average of $270–$355/hr) = $19,968
Two Law Clerks/Paralegals: 2 × 64 hours × $150/hr = $19,200
Vice Chancellor Mosier: 8 days × $1,508/day (total pay and benefits of VC Mosier per duty-day in 2023. 2024 data is not available.) = $12,064
The total cost of a single hearing driven by Chancellor Goldsmith’s vendetta exceeds $80,000 in taxpayer funds. This staggering figure does not even account for additional expenses, including the salaries and benefits of testifying District employees, printing costs, or any extra charges that LCW may have billed the District.
$80,000 of taxpayer funds squandered on an eight-day hearing—all to satisfy Chancellor Goldsmith’s bruised ego and personal vendetta against Mr. Madec. Meanwhile, classified professionals remain overworked, critical positions go unfilled, and the District’s financial priorities continue to be grossly mismanaged. A prime example of fiscal irresponsibility at the expense of those who truly serve the District.
District’s Payments to LCW
We conducted a thorough analysis of all District warrants available on BoardDocs and meticulously tracked the SCCCD’s payments to LCW from January 2022, when Chancellor Goldsmith assumed office, through the end of 2024. Our findings reveal a troubling financial pattern that raises serious questions about the District’s legal expenditures and fiscal management.
2022: $319,055.90 (Chancellor Goldsmith’s first year as Chancellor)
2023: $671,938.42 (more than doubled from 2022)
2024: $902,418.43 (nearly tripled from 2022)
It bears repeating: Payments to LCW doubled from 2022 to 2023 and tripled from 2022 to 2024, under Chancellor Goldsmith’s tenure!
We eagerly anticipate the next round of payments to LCW, given their extensive representation of the District in all legal proceedings against Mr. Madec this year. Our prediction? 2025’s payments to LCW will skyrocket—driven by Chancellor Goldsmith’s relentless retaliation tactics and reckless litigation strategies, all at the taxpayers’ expense. As the saying goes, the chickens have come home to roost—her vindictive actions, aimed at just about destroying anyone she perceives as opposing her through disciplinary measures and terminations, are now backfiring, leaving the District to bear the consequences.
A Word for the Board
At this point, ignorance is no longer a plausible excuse. We believe one of two things must be true:
You support Chancellor Goldsmith’s decisions and actions, enabling her reckless and vindictive behavior; or
You are the ones who made those decisions and the driving force behind them, as she has claimed on multiple occasions.
Regardless of which is true, your failure is undeniable. You have abandoned your fiduciary duty to the SCCCD, its financial resources, the taxpayers who fund it, students, and employees. The lawsuits will keep mounting. Legal fees will continue to skyrocket. And the taxpayers will remain burdened by Chancellor Goldsmith’s gross mismanagement—all under your watch.
Even Chancellor Goldsmith believes this is all your fault. When confronted under oath in both Mr. Madec’s criminal and administrative hearings, Chancellor Goldsmith, reportedly deflected all responsibility, blaming YOU for everything. She claimed YOU—not her—were responsible for the terminations and the costly legal appeals. She pointed the finger at YOU. On this rare occasion, we find ourselves in agreement with her.
Do you remember how we previously exposed Chancellor Goldsmith’s pattern of making decisions and then shifting the blame onto others to evade accountability? Well, it seems it’s now your turn to take the fall for her actions.
State Center Community College District (SCCCD) - Fresno City College (FCC) - Madera Community College (MCC)- Clovis Community College (CCC) - Reedley College (RC) - Dr. Carole Goldsmith - Chancellor Goldsmith - Magdalena Gomez - Danielle Parra - Robert A. Fuentes - Austin Ewell - Deborah J. Ikeda - Nasreen Johnson - Destiny Rodriguez - Haiden del Fierro