Hinsdale Township High School District 86 hears five law-firm presentations; board sets Nov. 13 evaluation deadline and aims to appoint counsel Nov. 21

The Hinsdale Township High School District 86 Board of Education on Nov. 12 held a special meeting at the Hinsdale Central Library to hear presentations from five finalist law firms selected through RFQ 25-005 for district legal services. Board members asked the same seven questions of each firm about the role of the board attorney, scope of services, billing, client communications, staffing and whether firms give specific recommendations or only options.

Firms repeatedly described school-law work as multidisciplinary and emphasized being ‘‘part of the team’’ for the district. Bert Odelson, president and founder of Odelson, Murphy, Fraser & McGrath, outlined the firm’s municipal and school experience, including bond and referendum work and special-education projects. Felicia Frazier, a managing partner with that firm, said the firm views itself as a protector of the district and highlighted training and proactive advice as routine, adding that the firm provides monthly litigation status reports when litigation is active.

On billing, firms described different but comparable approaches. One presenter said the firm uses a blended hourly rate reported in the presentation as $215 and bills monthly with invoices that list the staff initials, date, subject matter and time; another firm described tenth-of-an-hour billing and the availability of sample invoices and e-billing. Several firms said they do not prepare a single, firm-wide budget for general services because legal needs vary month to month, but can provide budgets or retainers for defined projects or litigation.

Firms emphasized team staffing and coverage: most said at least two attorneys would be assigned to matters to maintain continuity if the primary attorney is unavailable and that routine internal coordination among attorneys is typically not billed separately. Firms also described options for monthly summaries or tailored updates to the superintendent or full board, depending on the district’s preference.

On advice vs. direction, presenters said they will present legal options and pros and cons and may give recommendations when one path presents clear legal risk; they stressed, however, that policy decisions rest with the elected board. Several firms cited their experience with FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and OMA (Open Meetings Act) matters, special-education disputes, labor negotiations and school-district litigation.

Next steps: board members will receive a Google-form evaluation scorecard and must submit responses by the end of the day on Nov. 13. Administration will tabulate the scores and present the results to the board, which plans to discuss the evaluations (including possibly in closed session) at the Nov. 21 regular meeting with a goal of appointing legal counsel that day. The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.

The board did not take a vote at the special meeting; formal action is expected at the Nov. 21 meeting once evaluation results and any required follow-up are complete.