HINSDALE, IL – Hinsdale High School District 86 "egregiously misrepresented" its former law firm's billing practices in a "performative" discussion about legal costs, the firm said in a letter last fall.
On Tuesday, Patch obtained the Oct. 30 letter through a public records request. The district has previously kept such messages secret in response to requests, but the attorney general's office said in July the district had no legal right to do so.
The letter was from Joseph Perkoski, managing partner for the Chicago-based Robbins Schwartz law firm. He sent it six days after school board members blasted the firm during a meeting and voted against paying the firm's August 2024 bill. In June, the firm sued the district over nearly $230,000 in unpaid bills.
"During this performative discussion by the Board, statements were made that egregiously misrepresented our billing practices and the services we provided," Perkoski said. "For instance, at no time was the District billed for 4 or 5 attorneys on a call or in a meeting."
At the board meeting, the board's president, Catherine Greenspon, said Robbins sometimes involved three, four or five attorneys on calls, driving up costs.
"The previous firm did not bill this way," Greenspon said.
In the letter, Perkoski said his firm was first made aware of the board's concerns about the August bill when Patch contacted it for comment after the meeting.
"Prior to this, no one from the Board or the District's administration had reached out to us for clarification on the invoice or otherwise expressed concerns with our billing," he said.
Last September, the firm terminated its relationship, saying the district was "unreasonably difficult" to serve. The firm said it would continue to work on ongoing matters during the transition. At that point, the firm was on track to make $1 million a year, an unusually large amount.
In the letter, Perkoski said district officials insinuated that the firm changed its billing practices after the termination notice. That allegation, he said, was without merit.
"In fact, the invoice discussed by the Board pertains to services provided in August, prior to any termination notice," he said. "Furthermore, all services were rendered in response to Board or administration directives, in accordance with the District's needs and instructions. We do not determine the level of services and billing, you do."
He continued, "We believe a direct dialogue will prevent further misrepresentations or disparagement and allow us to clarify any outstanding questions, so the pending invoice can be paid."
Since the October meeting, the board has remained publicly quiet about its feud with Robbins. It did not vote on two later invoices.
In an email, Greenspon, the board's president, said the district could not comment on pending legal matters. Perkoski did not return a message for comment.
Months ago, the district denied Patch's request for a December letter from Perkoski about the billing dispute.
Patch complained to the attorney general's office. In response, the agency last month issued a rare binding opinion, ordering the district to release the letter. The district complied.
In the letter, the firm warned it would take the district to collections.