Board authorizes multiple law firms for discrete work; one member objects to scope
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Stow-Munroe Falls board voted 3–1 to authorize several outside law firms for specific legal needs. One board member said the list was excessive and raised conflict-of-interest concerns; administration said the firms provide distinct expertise and are not on retainer.
The Stow-Munroe Falls City School District Board of Education voted on Jan. 6, 2025, to authorize the district to use multiple outside law firms for particular legal matters, including bond counsel, special-education/discipline hearings, and litigation. The motion passed 3–1.
Board member Sheehan said listing five firms ‘‘seems excessive’’ and questioned whether naming firms in advance could hinder later litigation or create conflicts. "It just seems like it's excessive," Sheehan said during the discussion, adding concern that having litigation firms on the district’s list could be perceived as shielding the district from accountability.
Superintendent Dr. Gould and other administrators explained that the authorization does not create retainers but simply allows the district to call on firms with specialized expertise when time-sensitive matters arise. Dr. Gould noted that some potential firms do not perform bond work, so separate bond counsel expertise is required; the district's practice is to seek insurance approval for litigators when applicable.
Why it matters: Naming several firms in advance streamlines the district’s ability to secure specialized counsel for urgent or technical legal matters (bond work, special-education hearings, litigation). The dissenting view centered on perceived excess and potential conflicts; administration said the practice is common and is intended to preserve response time and technical fit when legal needs arise.
Speakers relevant to this discussion included Sheehan (board member), Dr. Gould (superintendent), East Jenkins (board member), and Patrick (treasurer). Direct quotes are from the meeting transcript.
Ending
The authorization passed with a single dissenting vote. The board asked for a public summary of each listed firm’s areas of specialty so community members can better understand why multiple firms were listed for approval.