In response to a debt collection lawsuit filed by its former law firm, Hinsdale High School District 86 is taking its own legal action, accusing the firm of malpractice and seeking about $1 million in damages.
DuPage Count Circuit Court judge April 22 granted District 86’s request to file a counterclaim to the lawsuit Robbins Schwartz filed last year over more than $220,000 in legal bills the board had not paid.
The counterclaim arises from “the negligent and wrongful advice Robbins Schwartz managing partner Joseph Perkoski gave his client concerning disclosure of special education, personally identifiable student information to and among plaintiff’s board president and board members in or about mid-May 2023,” the counterclaim states. That advice caused the district to have to defend itself in due process administrative hearings brought by a district family, settle that process, negotiate the separation of and payment to Superintendent Tammy Prentiss, retain and pay three different interim superintendents and “incur extraordinary legal fees and expenses related to all.”
The counterclaim goes on to review how Perkoski and Robbins Schwartz came to be retained as special counsel by the district for advice on the “employment, compensation, performance and potential discipline or dismissal of a current employee (Prentiss).”
As part of that process, Perkoski reviewed whether a phone call between Prentiss and board President Cat Greenspon, in which Prentiss identified students with special needs, 504 disabilities and Individualized Education Plans, constituted termination “for cause,” according to the filing. That conversation is referred to in the document as “the call.”
“On June 26, 2023, after purportedly conducting a thorough investigation about the call, Perkoski advised the board that Prentiss may have violated policy but had not violated student privacy laws nor had she violated parental rights to a level that would trigger the termination ‘for cause’ clause of Prentiss’ contract,” the counterclaim states. “Perkoski’s advice to the board was contrary to the law, his analysis was negligent and it caused the board to pursue negotiations and buy-out of her contract and later retain a succession of interim superintendents pursuant to law.”
Later the board had further questions for Robbins Schwartz about student privacy laws and rights and received advice from another of the firm’s attorneys, Caroline Roselli, in writing. Roselli’s advice materially contradicted the advice of Perkoski, the document states.
Perkoski’s “negligent advice” led the board to spend about $600,000 to buy out Prentiss, more than $80,000 to settle a due process claim, more than $30,000 for Freedom of Information Act and Public Access Counselor legal fees and “extensive staff time” and $332,000 for interim replacement superintendents.
The next court date is set for June 2.
