Victor L. George

George finally won a seemingly endless hostile work environment case for client Danielle Baez, a former administrative secretary in the Burbank Unified School District. But the win came only after three trials, two trips to the Court of Appeal and seven years of scorched-earth litigation by defense lawyers.

It turned out that even George underestimated the scope and duration of the ordeal when, after a negative trial court ruling exposed his client to evidence of sexual conduct unrelated to the allegations in the complaint, he told a colleague, "Unfortunately, we're going to have to lose the trial, then we're going to have to win the appeal, and then we're going to have to win the next trial." He failed to foresee that there would be another round of courtroom and appellate work to come.

The second trial ended in a mistrial when the defense insisted in again bringing up Baez's unrelated extramarital affair, despite the judge's orders to keep it from jurors.

George won the third trial for his client, and the appellate court affirmed a $200,000 damages award and a whopping $3.5 million attorney fee. Baez v. Burbank Unified School District, BC372092 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed June 1, 2007)

"To get a 16-to-1 ratio attorney fee is unusual," George said. "But we don't encounter these tactics very often. The behavior of that public entity and its defense attorney is something we do not often see. It was entirely different from the way corporate defendants operate. They too often have outside counsel, but they make pragmatic decisions. The difference is between public entities spending tax dollars and corporations eating up profits."

George said it was gratifying at the fee hearing to hear the judge explain that the behavior of the defendant was relevant to the total sum. "That was pretty amazing," George said. "He told the defense that the reason we had to work so hard was the deceit of defense counsel. And the judge was right. We constantly had to counterpunch."

Will the outcome make a difference? "I'd hope other public entities would take this to heart, but we plaintiff attorneys understand that this is a different animal from corporate work. Your client is going to have to wait a lot longer. I'm not so naive as to believe that a big fee award will change the way public entities ? with unlimited tax dollars to spend ? do business."

Still, following the second affirmance in January by the Court of Appeal and another round of fee litigation for the plaintiff's appellate work, the check arrived, George said. With interest, "They paid $4.52 million," he said. "The whole enchilada. It was a long fight."

— John Roemer