Jericho’s legal services spending has doubled over the last eight years.
The more consequential issue is what happened next.
The district has budgeted $195,000 for legal services in 2025–26 and has proposed the same $195,000 figure for 2026–27, even though its current legal engagement with Ingerman Smith LLP expires on June 30, 2026.
That sequence matters. The district effectively built a post-contract legal budget before evaluating whether the firm should be retained at all.
A Pattern of Growth, Not an Anomaly
District budget records show the following legal services expenditures:
2017–18: $94,286
2018–19: $111,115
2019–20: $152,035
2020–21: $108,784
2021–22: $162,258
2022–23: $160,847
2023–24: $275,943
2024–25: $115,811
2025–26: $195,000 (budgeted)
2026–27: $195,000 (proposed)
Even setting aside known one-time years, the trend is unmistakable. The baseline has shifted upward.
What was once a sub-$100,000 expense is now treated as a recurring $200,000 annual obligation. That figure appears twice in succession — first as a budgeted amount, then as a proposed amount — before the current legal contract has expired.
This did not happen automatically.
The increase was proposed, carried forward, and normalized.
The Contract Timeline
Ingerman Smith LLP’s current Letter of Engagement runs from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026.
For that period, the firm receives:
$69,790 as an annual retainer for board and labor counsel services
An explicitly stated “no limit on the number of hours” for those services
$270 per hour attorney billing and $160 per hour paralegal billing for work outside the retainer
The engagement ends June 30, 2026.
Despite that, the district has already proposed a 2026–27 legal services budget that assumes $195,000 in spending, with no public indication that alternative firms or fee structures were reviewed first.
What the “Unlimited Hours” Retainer Covers
According to the engagement letter, the retainer includes legal advice and services related to:
Attendance at Board of Education meetings
Labor counsel and collective bargaining under the Taylor Law
Employment matters including tenure, discipline, leaves, layoffs, and seniority
Grievances prior to arbitration
Education Law, Civil Service Law, and General Municipal Law
Open Meetings Law and Freedom of Information Law
School elections and legal notices
Student discipline, residency, attendance, and graduation issues
Policy review and legality of Board actions
Contracts and general governance matters
This is presented as core district legal work, not a narrow or supplemental scope.
What the Budget Assumes Anyway
Despite the retainer, the district’s legal services budget is $195,000.
After subtracting the $69,790 retainer, approximately $125,000 per year is expected to be billed hourly, outside an arrangement described as “unlimited.”
Those hourly charges apply to litigation, hearings, arbitrations, construction matters, real estate, certain special education proceedings, and other matters classified as non-retainer work.
The district has not publicly disclosed:
Which categories of work consistently fall outside the retainer
Why most legal spending occurs outside an arrangement described as “unlimited”
Any historical breakdown of retainer work versus hourly work
How hourly legal exposure is forecast when the budget is built
What is clear is the assumption embedded in the numbers: the same firm, the same structure, the same cost level.
Why the Sequence Matters
Budgets are not neutral documents. They set expectations and narrow future choices.
By proposing a 2026–27 legal services budget before the Ingerman Smith contract expires, the district effectively signals continuation before any review, comparison, or competition has taken place.
Once a $195,000 line item is normalized and carried forward, any later review starts from a foregone conclusion.
That is backward.
A review of legal counsel should precede the budget, not follow it.
The Unanswered Question
With the Ingerman Smith engagement ending June 30, 2026, one question remains unanswered:
Why was another year of $195,000 in legal spending proposed before legal counsel was reviewed or alternatives were publicly vetted?
Until that question is answered, the budget itself provides the clearest explanation of the district’s approach — not scrutiny first, but assumption.