Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Legal Fees topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

District solicitor outlines five‑year fee comparisons, acknowledges retainer overcharge

Southmoreland School District Board of Directors · October 15, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The district’s solicitor presented a five‑year comparison of legal fees, said current-year solicitor fees were lower than several prior years and acknowledged an inadvertent retainer change that was credited on the September bill.

At the Southmoreland School District board meeting, the district’s solicitor presented a five‑year comparison of solicitor fees and defended the firm’s billing practices, saying the firm’s total fees for the 2023–24 school year were $66,630 and that, when compared with prior years, those fees were lower than several predecessors.

The solicitor told trustees the firm had previously served as special education counsel and that those services are now billed as part of general services rather than as a separate line item. When a trustee asked why special‑education fees were not shown separately on the comparative handout, counsel responded that special‑education work is now included within general services and would appear on invoices but not as a distinct "plus" line.

The solicitor acknowledged an inadvertent change in the monthly retainer that had increased a retainer line from $7.50 to $1,000 over a five‑month span; the firm credited the overcharge on the district’s September bill and said it would provide invoice backup to the business office. Counsel said he provides a cover sheet with a breakdown by matter and timekeeping backup to the business office and was willing to provide full bills if the board desired, while noting confidentiality concerns for some matters.

The exchange included follow‑up questions from trustees about how prior firms billed special‑education work and whether prior totals combined solicitor and special‑education charges. The board did not vote on solicitor retention at this meeting.