Board demands access to law‑firm billing, delays payments after trustees debate privilege and cost

After public comment and months of requests from trustees for detailed invoices, the San Diego Union High School District board voted Dec. 11 to require the district’s outside law firm (referred to in the record as FFF/F3) to make detailed billing records available to trustees for confidential review and analysis, and to delay payment under the proposed flat‑fee arrangement pending that trustee review.

Trustee Mike Alman said he had repeatedly asked for machine‑readable billing details — dates, timekeepers, hours, rates, matter codes and brief descriptions — so trustees could determine whether the flat fee represented good value for the district. "I move that the board direct the superintendent and the district council to provide to all of us ... the detailed F3 billing records ... in an electronic format that permits analysis," Trustee Alman said on the record.

District counsel and staff resisted public distribution of unredacted records, arguing portions of attorney billing contain privileged material and personnel or student‑sensitive information. Counsel advised that privileged pages should not be released to the public and recommended trustee review take place in counsel’s office. Trustees debated the proper balance between preserving attorney‑client privilege and enabling trustee oversight.

Trustee Williams advanced a substitute motion — and the board approved that substitute — directing counsel and the law firm to make billing records available for trustees to review at counsel’s offices, with counsel and staff available to answer questions and perform calculations. The vote also postponed payment actions associated with the flat‑fee proposal until trustees had an opportunity to review the records and return the item to the board in January.

Superintendent Dr. Stfy defended the flat‑fee model as a cost‑control strategy, saying the district had saved money compared with billable‑hour invoices in prior periods. "The $99,500 is a savings of what actual billable hours would be for services provided," she said. Still, trustees said they needed line‑by‑line access to determine whether partner time was being used where less‑expensive associate time would sufficed and to quantify how much was being spent on public‑records processing versus substantive legal work.

The dispute touched on procedure and privilege. Counsel advised trustees that attorney‑client privilege is held by the board/district and that privileged pages should be redacted from public records; trustees argued that the board collectively (not staff) should ensure access to the information necessary to discharge fiduciary duties. After the vote, staff said the district would not make privileged pages public but would provide confidential, close‑session access for trustees and bring the contract back to the board for action after trustee review.

Trustees also asked that counsel provide the requested billing data in an analyzable format (spreadsheet/CSV) where possible, and that staff quantify how much legal work is related to public‑records responses versus other matters. The board’s action halted payments tied to the contested contract pending trustee review and reaffirmed trustees’ role in fiscal oversight of large legal retainers.