SDSU Athletic Director Dismisses Her Attorney

San Diego State athletic director Mary Alice Hill dismissed her attorney, William Woods, Tuesday morning.

The firm of William F. Woods, P.C. Lawyers, had been retained to represent Hill during (what Woods termed) an SDSU investigation that resulted after she fired three employees and severed ties with Regions West marketing company July 24. Hours later, the three employees were reinstated by SDSU president Thomas Day and the contract with Regions West was reported not to be severed.

It was Woods’ comments to the press about a meeting Saturday that seemed to upset Hill. Woods, Hill, Day, William Knight (representing the California State University system) and Sally Roush (director of personnel services at SDSU) were at Saturday’s meeting at an undisclosed location.

“I didn’t feel that he was representing my best interest. I had that feeling at the meeting Saturday,” Hill said Tuesday, the first time she spoke on the record since July 26, when she was ordered by Day to take a two-week vacation beginning that day.

“When I saw some of his comments in the paper, that confirmed my feelings. I could not believe that he would make that statement.”

Hill was alluding to Woods’ statement denying she had been asked to resign at the meeting Saturday.

“That’s not true,” Woods said late Monday afternoon, about a published report that Hill was asked to resign Saturday. “No decision has been made. Mr. Day is standing firm and waiting for all the reports to come in.”

Woods also issued a press release Tuesday, stating: “Mr. Woods characterized the Saturday meeting as amicable and productive and further indicated that at no time did either Mr. Day or Mr. Knight indicate that Ms. Hill should step down as athletic director.”

Added Woods: “She was not fired at that Saturday meeting.”

What happened to cause the rift between Hill and Woods? No one would say. Here’s what they were saying:

Woods: “I received a letter from Mary Hill this morning (Tuesday) saying she no longer wanted me to represent her. It’s unusual and unfortunate. I’m personally disappointed, because I thought a lot had been accomplished.

“Anytime you release an attorney, there are presumptions. Unfortunately, I can’t discuss the real reasons why (I was released).”

Hill expressed displeasure that Woods’ release stated: “. . . the rules of professional responsibility require withdrawal from any further representation of Ms. Hill.”

The statement appears to present a question whether Woods received Hill’s letter firing him before he had intended to not represent her.

Woods said he wouldn’t get into a battle over who fired whom first.

“I don’t wish to make any comment,” Woods said. “I cannot disclose any information I have acquired in the role of being her attorney, based on the attorney-client privilege. Nor can I comment to affirm that statements she now makes are accurate or inaccurate. I can only comment if she permits me.”

Woods said he could comment on the situation at SDSU because he no longer represented Hill.

“Under other circumstances,” Woods said, “this (type of case) might have been routine. But because of the personalities involved, the positions of the persons involved, the role of the press, and the coincidence of the admission of basketball players, what might have been routine was blown into a huge fishbowl.”

Hill said she is in the process of seeking another attorney. She thinks the follow-up meeting to last Saturday’s meeting will be this week.

“I need a little security in numbers,” said Hill, when asked if she would represent herself. “Me against them, I don’t like.”