Lawsuit-Proofing Your City with Scott Grossberg

Yes, you read the title correctly. After 16 episodes, I'm putting Lawsuit-Proofing Your City on hiatus for a short while. We'll be visiting with each other, again.As you know, one of the main reasons I started this podcast was to show you behind the curtain of the world of predatory lawyers - the ones who are trying to take money from taxpayers and make themselves (not necessarily their clients) richer. Frankly, the podcast has been great in serving that purpose.But . . . there are some changes in my own career taking place and I want to make certain that I remain focused on priorities. Each one of these episodes takes a lot of time to write, produce, and publish.My primary focus at the moment is on consulting and providing seminars at live events. I've been doing quite a bit of traveling which has impacted my ability to prepare podcast episdoes as completely as I desire.Additionally, I want to make certain - now that we have so many episodes under our belt - that we're reaching the right audience.While we take a little break, if you have any questions or comments, you can send me an email to sgrossberg@hotmail.com. Or, you can visit scottgrossberglaw.com if you'd like to consider some live events.

Obviously, we prize the safety and security of our children, elders, and dependent adults. Indeed, there are overriding public policies addressing the safety and well-being of children, elders and dependent adults. While we don't want to turn everyone into investigators, we do want those who we deem to be mandated reporters to be our eyes and ears.This means that mandated reporters, if they have reasonable suspicion, become the voice for children, elders, and dependent adults who might be being abused or neglected.The challenge is for employees to understand:Whether they are a mandated reporter in the first placeWhat their legal obligations are as a mandated reporterWhat reasonable suspicion meansIn this episode:What is a mandated reporterWhat is a minorWhat is an elderWhat is a dependent adultReasonable suspicionWhat to reportHow to reportTHE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

Being sued is bad enough. When an elected official, however, chooses to use pending or resolved litigation as a political tool . . . or worse, use it to target an employee or weaponize it for a private agenda, there can be serious consequences.I have seen and heard politicians insert themselves into litigation scenarios when they don’t have the full facts.I have seen and heard politicians promise results that aren’t practical nor supported by legal precedent.I have seen and heard politicians get into confrontations that could otherwise have been avoided.There’s are simple solutions to all this . . . and I’m going to share those with you.In this episode: Why elected officials need to be careful what they comment uponThe litigation exposure for an elected officialSome workarounds so that elected officials feel safeTHE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

Welcome to the confusing world of additional insured status. While this discussion is very general (there’s a deeper dive that can take place later), for your own protection, you need to know what additional insured status is in the first place. You also need to know the concepts of the duties to defend and indemnify.While dealing with predatory lawyers is bad enough, you will likely have to deal with negative polarity responding insurance adjusters, as well.This podcast episode is designed to give you some potential ammunition for handling insurance situations that might otherwise prove unmanageable.In this episode: • Additional insured status• The duty to defend• The duty to indemnify• Accord certificates• Tendering early and oftenTHE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

In a world that loves to point blame at public agencies, it’s no wonder that, anytime someone is hurt on public property, they accuse the agency of maintaining a dangerous condition. However, not every incident actually involves a dangerous condition. Sometimes - I know it’s hard to believe - the public just isn’t using reasonable care for their own safety.Worse, predatory lawyers are going to argue that you have needlessly endangered their client.But . . . that’s not the correct standard. So, in this episode we’re going to explore what is and isn’t an actual dangerous condition of public property. That way you’ll know what standards to apply and when we might be able to apply a Design Immunity defense. You’ll get an idea of what you might want to protect your agency against.In this episode: The standard of care for public propertyThe definition of a “dangerous condition”When Design Immunity appliesThe jury instruction that the judge will use at trialTHE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

There is very little training that prepares a public employee to start, conduct, and finish an investigation. Likewise, once an investigation is started and repairs are undertaken, what is being done to preserve the scene? The problem then is that many employees assigned to conduct an investigation don't know what they're looking for, don't know why they're looking for it, don't know what outcomes they're attempting to find, and don't know the tools to use to get from the beginning of an investigation to the end.While there are checklists that I make available to attendees of my live events, this episode will at least provide you with some investigation education until you, too, can attend. To put it another way, today we’re going to be talking about knowing when an investigation is necessary, knowing what to investigate, and even reporting writing suggestions.Further, we’re going to discuss the importance of coordinating an investigation with your agency’s document retention policy.In this episode: Types of incidents to investigateThe importance of checklistsHow to educate employees assigned to investigationsCoordinating investigations with risk management and management personnelTHE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

The California Public Records Act gives people the right to inspect and obtain copies of government records that are non-privileged and non-exempt. It was enacted in 1968 to: (1) safeguard the accountability of government to the public, (2) promote maximum disclosure of the conduct of governmental operations, and (3) explicitly acknowledge the principle that secrecy is antithetical to a democratic system of “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”To put it another way, it’s a commitment to Open Government. But, it’s also being abused by a savvy few who don’t seek to hold a public agency accountable for anything expect monetary damages. It’s also being weaponized by predatory lawyers as a way to obtain discovery outside the parameters of the California Code of Civil Procedure.It always challenging to represent a public agency in civil litigation only to find out that the agency has already responded to a CPRA request. You can imagine how frustrating it is to also find out that records have been produced earlier and you haven’t made a consistent response to written discovery.Transparency in government is an important concept. But, public agencies have to be careful that they are being consistent in their responses and mindful of the privacy rights of third parties. They also have to be mindful that some unscrupulous individuals use the CPRA just to see if an agency will respond in the first place without any real intent to obtain the actual records.In this episode: The background of the CPRAImproperly withholding recordsWho can request recordsBeing protective of certain recordsTHE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

Our laws were originally designed to equalize the bargaining power of employees. But, those laws are now at risk of being abused and weaponized in ways that were never imagined. We are now seeing votes of no confidence, claims, and lawsuits filed against public agencies and individual management personnel in order to help employees and labor unions gain the upper edge during contract negotiations. This isn’t a new ploy. But it is becoming more widespread and certainly now being used by labor union factions that previously would never have considered the litigation route. The results can be devastating for an agency’s morale, finances, and future planning.The most harmful consequence of all this is the damage done to the personal integrity and, in some cases, careers of targets of these types of actions; victims of this litigation ploy that deserve better and who haven’t done anything wrong.No one condones wrongful employment practices by an employer. The employees who hire the aggressive labor lawyers who handle these types of action really don’t seem to care about either fairness or a “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” playing field. Indeed, it’s distressful to see how greed, short-term goals, and egos drive such tactics.In today's episode, we'll talk about escalating use of litigation by employees and labor unions to gain the upper edge in contract negotiations and obtain promotions.In this episode: The promotion through litigation trendThe types of tactics being used by employees and labor unionsVotes of No Confidence, Claims, and LitigationHow transparency helps youTHE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

Predatory lawyers are now using trial supboenas to attempt to have you appear in court with documents. This wouldn't normally be an issue except these questionable attorneys are now using legal process to bring you into a trial in which your agency is not even remotely involved.The concept behind this new shock-and-awe scheme is to take one agency's policies and procedures and use those against another agency that has something different in place. The other side is literally pitting one agency against another.One of the more clever ways of attempting to accomplish this is the use of trial subpoenas for both personal appearances and document production.Certainly, anyone is entitled to use a California Public Records Act request to obtain information about the non-privileged activities and files of a public agency. But it is quite another thing to force a City Manager or Assistant City Manager or Risk Manager to appear in court and essentially become an expert for a lazy plaintiff’s counsel. It should also be concerning that your agency’s records are being used out of context and in a less than proper manner.In today's episode, we'll talk about an expanding trend in litigation, and some responses to these situations that you can explore. We'll also talk about the option of using defense counsel to assist you.In this episode: The disturbing trend of shock-and-awe subpoenasThe types of documents that are being requestedWhy you’re not an expert for themThe Motion to Quash optionTHE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

Most public agencies have an automatic document deletion policy. This means that information and data that might pertain to a future incident, claim, or lawsuit runs the risk of being deleted in a short period of days - sometimes as little as 30 days.While there are certainly arguments to be made for the deletion of data in order to save money, there is also a balancing test that needs to take place. Have you ever really balanced the costs and impact of storage versus the costs and impact of deleting items?Moreover, have you ever wondered if you'd be better served with a deletion policy that requires approval before deletion takes place rather than an automatic policy that does not require any human oversight?In today's episode, we'll talk about automatic deletion policies, the risks that such a policy brings with it, and suggestions for solutions you can explore. We'll also talk about the option of using an outside vendor to assist you.In this episode: Automatic data deletion policies for digital and paper itemsTiming issues for data deletionAnnual reviews of stored dataThe need for consistency in your data deletion policiesTHE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

Part of the business of your agency is generating, receiving, storing, and accessing documents. Those documents can take form of digital information or be paper version.In today's litigation environment, you might as well expect that you will receive a California Public Records Act Request, a subpoena, and a perservation of evidence letter at some point in the process. The challenge is knowing where relevant, responsive, and non-privileged documents reside and having the ability to access them easily.Documents - particularly those that are electronic - can be dynamic and reycylable. What can you do to help ensure you are handling, retaining, and producing critical documents correctly.In today's episode, we'll talk about storing, retrieving, and responding with both digital items and paper versions. We'll also talk about the ways predatory lawyers are using various document discovery techniques to get around normal Code of Civil Proceduere rules. In this episode: The use of CPRA pre-claims and pre-litigation Triggers for preserving documentationThe use of outside electronic discovery vendorsThe importance of staff understanding the types of documents that are being searchedA big secret for locating informationTHE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

We live in a visual world. As such, jurors love to see photographs and videos of an incident or incident location. Further, such visuals can help us to aggressively defend a case from the outset. While it may seem like a simple matter to take photos or videos, the fact remains that many public agencies don't know a proper workflow for creating such items. Moreover, they don't realize the visual story or context that needs to be captured and played back. Even if you have photographs and videos as part of your standard investigation workflow, we still have to deal with predatory lawyers who try to object to the foundation and admissibility of them. In today's episode, we'll talk about the importance of taking post-incident and pre-repair photographs and videos. We'll also talk about some photo and video creation minefields to avoid. In this episode: The importance of post-incident photographs and videos The importance of pre-repair photographs and videos The importance of post-repair photographs and videos The use of flashRetaining your photographs and videos THE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

There's nothing worse than receiving a tort claim or lawsuit and you know, with certainty, that your agency had nothing to do with the alleged incident. Moreover, you look at the list of defendants and you notice that the plaintiff attorney has taken a shotgun approach and simply named every person and entity at, near, or next to the incident location. The first thing that goes through your head is "what a waste of time, energy, and money" this will all be. The second thing that goes through your head is "how do I make this pain stop?"Plaintiff attorneys - particularly the lazy ones - are using the shotgun approach to litigation now more than ever. At best, they want someone else to eliminate defendants so they don't have to make that decision. At worst, they believe they can use the claim or lawsuit to extort nuisance money from you. In today's episode, we'll talk about the shotgun approach to litigation, in general, and specific ways to counter such an attack. We'll also talk about the type of letter that can be sent out immediately upon receipt of a claim or lawsuit that alleges an incident that your entity has nothing at all to do with. In this episode: The shotgun approach to naming defendants The use of declarations of non-ownership Counter-attacks using California Code of Civil Procedure § 1038 Counter-attacks using California Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 THE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

Most of you have facilities and programs that minors use. What are you doing to help insulate yourself from lawsuits when a minor is injured? The reality is that minors can’t sign releases, waivers, or facilities use agreements as they don’t have the ability to enter into a binding contract in California. Most importantly, you need to understand who can and can’t sign a release, waiver, or facilities use agreement on a minor’s behalf. In today's episode, you'll discover the difference between a parent and legal guardian and the others who attempt to exercise rights on behalf of a minor. You'll also learn some suggestions for the specific types of releases you should have in place at your agency. In this episode: Releases, waivers, and facilities use agreements Who can sign on and who can’t (on behalf of a minor) The importance of depiction releases The use of third-party photographs Additional insured provisions THE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

The bad guys are coming for you. Worse, they're teaching others how to do what they do. Imagine the most aggressive plaintiff's counsel you know . . . then imagine him teaching others how to replicate his approach to suing you. In today's episode, you'll discover how CRPA requests are being used as a litigation discovery tool, how DARVO is being turned into a lawsuit weapon, what gaslighting means for your agency. You'll also learn how to start partnering with your attorney for proactive approaches to situations rather than simply reacting to litigation threats. In this episode: A discussion of what the predatory attorneys are teaching others. The new technique of making you “Make the call.”The pre-litigation trap of CPRA requests.Public comments during Open Session and putting them on social media.DARVO and other aggressive strategies and tactics.Using authenticity and truth to counter these attacks.THE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

Remember the last time you were looking forward to being sued? Neither do we. That's why this podcast was created . . . to help public entities take back the courtroom! In our first episode, you and veteran trial lawyer, Scott Grossberg, will get to know each other and you'll explore his thoughts on why this type of podcast is finally needed. 30 years of defending public entities gives Scott the perfect edge for helping you promote, gain control of, and expand your risk management practices. It's no secret . . . we've become a society of finger-pointers and cry-babies. In this podcast, you'll uncover how to be proactive and responsive rather than fearful and reactive to tort claims and lawsuits. PLUS, at the end of this inaugural episode, you'll be given the opportunity to download a FREE 7-Day Challenge PDF that will take your risk management skills to the next level. In this episode: A discussion of finger pointers, crybabies, and the greedy. Predatory, opportunistic, and aggressive lawyers. The legal system - both state and federal - is broken when it comes to public entities. Plaintiffs' counsel are now writing books, running extensive training events, posting online videos, etc., explaining and expanding their attack on cities by teaching others. Elected officials have become part of the challenge. Juries are awarding some outrageous verdicts. How you and Scott will work together to create solutions. Go all the way through to the end of the episode for instructions on how to get your FREE 7-Day Challenge PDF. THE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com

Remember the last time you looked forward to being sued? Neither do we. Unfortunately, public agencies are receiving tort claims and lawsuits at an alarming rate by predatory attorneys. Beginning March 26th and each Tuesday, join Scott Grossberg - veteran trial lawyer, coach for elected officials, and counsel for public agencies across California - as he gives weekly insights on ways to protect your City. Whether you want to prevent a claim or lawsuit, understand defenses for pending litigation, or discover new topics to discuss with employees, this is the podcast for you as Scott shares over three decades of real world, in-the-trenches litigation experiences. In other words, this podcast is going to rock [and PROTECT] your world! Most of you know who Scott is already. For the rest, he's spent more than 30 years privately teaching, training, and transforming public agencies. Now, things are about to CHANGE. We’re growing the way we help Elected Officials, City Managers, Assistant City Managers, Risk Managers, and management team members. Here’s to us taking back the courtroom together! Subscribe now to get the first episode on March 26th.THE FINE PRINT This podcast is for general information only and not intended to be legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. The views, information, and opinions expressed on our podcast are Scott’s and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of any other person, agency, organization or company. Finally, we know that a few dastardly plaintiff's lawyers will get their hands on this. So . . . let's be clear: Don't even think of using the information in this podcast to sue public agencies because this podcast is not intended nor shall it be construed to give any person any legal or equitable rights, remedies or claims. Music: ”Dangerous" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ lawsuitproofyourcity.com