Areas of Practice

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

Law Books

Young, Minney & Corr, LLP is a leader in charter school law, with experience representing over 500 charter schools throughout the state.

Our expertise encompasses every facet of California charter school law, from planning to ongoing operation. We offer value by developing customized strategies to address each client's specific situation — now, and into the future.

Charter School Services

Employment law
Collective bargaining and labor relations
Charter petition drafting
Non-profit corporations
Business service agreements
Memoranda of understanding
Legal opinions
Charter renewals
Audit defense
Litigation and appellate work
Representation before agencies and courts
Board governance
Special education
Student suspension & expulsion
Facilities development
School policy development
In-service training and workshops
Charter revocation defense
Compliance audits

Charter School Development

YM&C attorneys have assisted in the development of over two hundred charter school petitions over the last ten years in the State of California. YM&C attorneys are experts in the areas of drafting charter school petitions and supporting documentation to meet the high standards of local school district, county boards of education, and the State Board of Education.

Our representation in the area of charter school development can be behind the scenes to assist in the drafting, development, and review of documentation (our office has hundreds of sample charters, policies, contracts, etc.) that may be utilized by clients for the development of charter petitions. Or, if desired, our office can be the point person in quarterbacking and strategizing the best way to proceed to achieve the ultimate goal of a successful charter petition approval.

Comprehensive charter drafting
Extensive database of charter school petitions throughout the state of California
Comprehensive drafting of Memorandum of Understanding, Facilities Use Agreements, and other documents required by granting agencies
Representation before location school districts, county boards of education, State Board Advisory Commission on Charter Schools, and State Board of Education for charter petitions
Corporation assistance in all aspects of incorporating the charter school and any supporting foundations
Drafting of sample policies to be submitted with the charter petition
Drafting of all employment agreements and policies to be submitted along with charter school applications
Strategizing and network services in order to promote approval of charter petition
Litigation services
MATES Charter School v. Conejo Valley Unified School District (2009) Writ of Mandate issued to the District declaring MATES to be a conversion school and directing the District to allocate the converted school site to MATES under Proposition 39.

Litigation, Appeals and Administrative Hearings

YM&C's litigation practice group offers its clients a long history of dedicated and successful representation.

The litigation group is highly regarded in the legal community and has successfully represented charter schools at all levels of State and Federal jurisdiction — on such diverse matters as personnel disputes, civil rights, personal injury, and student issues. In addition, the firm has earned favorable decisions for clients in numerous administrative hearings involving grievances, unfair practice charges, layoffs and dismissals, arbitration's, expulsions, and special education.

The firm's approach is to work in partnership with clients, regularly communicating the status of the case, with an eye toward cost containment, and keeping clients informed of the progress of their case.

Examples of the firm's successful school-related litigation includes:

  • Ridgecrest Charter School v.Sierra Sands Unified School District:
    (130 Cal.App.4th 986, 30 Cal.Rptr. 3d. 648, June 29, 2005) This California Court of Appeal decision establishes a charter school's right to a contiguous school facility under Proposition 39. The case also addresses other issues under Prop 39 in the allocation of facilities to charter schools, including, the proper allocation of a proportionate share of specialized and non-teaching station space, grade level configuration issues, and the school district's obligation to provide a factual basis for their allocation of facilities under Prop. 39 that can be reviewed by a court of law.
  • Alianza Charter School v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District: (CV149133 June 2004) Establishing a conversion charter school’s right to separate legal representation to challenge violations of the charter by the granting agency.
  • Aurora Charter School v. Sequoia School District (2002) (Case No. CIV 422653) Establishing a charter school's right to a Proposition 39 facility base and upon its reasonable projection of enrollment and establishing the legality of out of grade level granting of a charter school.
  • Bay Area School for Independent Study v. Sunol Glen Unified School District (2002) (Case No. 2002070992) Establishing a charter school's right to continuous funding from the granting agency notwithstanding a dispute with the granting agency regarding ADA.
  • Evenson v. El Dorado County Office of Education (1994) (Case No. 94-0465) Establishing a charter school's right to be free from collective bargaining. (Case overturned by subsequent legislation [AB 631]).
  • Prosser Creek Charter School v. Placer County Office of Education (2002) Defending the right of a charter school to receive continued funding while facing a FCMAT audit.
  • CCSA, PUC, Green Dot Public Schools v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2007) (This matter was resolved through settlement establishing charter school's rights to facilities under Proposition 39).
  • CSBA, CTA v. SBE and Aspire Public Schools (2008) (The trial court recently found in favor of the State Board of Education and Aspire Public Schools, that the State Board of Education did not abuse its discretion in approving a statewide charter, was not required to revoke the charter for its failure to comply with the conditions in the MOU, and that SBE's use of the ACCS in the statewide charter approval process need not go through the regulatory review of the Administrative Procedure Act).
  • CSBA, CTA et. al v. CDE, SBE (CCSA intervener) (2008) (Defending the SBE's recently amended Proposition 39 implementing regulations which clarified the rights for charter schools to receive reasonably equivalent contiguous school facilities).
YM&C encourages clients to consider alternative dispute resolution when appropriate. The firm is well versed in various forms of alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration, mediation and informal settlement conferences