Hinsdale D86 Poorly Advised On Prentiss Ouster: Lawsuit

HINSDALE, IL – Hinsdale High School District 86 claims that its former law firm gave it bad advice when ousting a superintendent three years ago.

Earlier this month, the district's lawyer, Gary Grasso, countersued the Chicago-based Robbins Schwartz law firm, accusing the firm of legal malpractice.

Subscribe

This is in response to the law firm's lawsuit that alleges the district failed to pay $228,000 in bills.

In a statement to Patch on Tuesday, Joseph Perkoski, Robbins' managing partner, said the district's lawsuit is baseless.

"It is merely a tactic designed to avoid payment for legal services that the Board itself directed," he said. "The counterclaim is also designed to disparage our firm. We intend to address it accordingly in the appropriate forum."

In May 2023, shortly after an election, the board decided behind closed doors to suspend then-Superintendent Tammy Prentiss.

A month later, the board struck a severance deal with Prentiss. She agreed to leave in exchange for the district granting her another year of salary and benefits.

The district now claims that Robbins' advice weakened its position in dealing with Prentiss.

Shortly after the April election, Perkoski had met socially with one or two newly elected board members before they took office, according to the lawsuit.

Days after taking office, the board met in a closed session to discuss Prentiss. The majority wanted Prentiss out.

During the meeting, the board asked its newly elected president, Catherine Greenspon, to retain Perkoski.

On May 11, 2023, Prentiss called Greenspon and volunteered details that then-board member Debbie Levinthal and two other board members each had students with special needs, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit only identified Levinthal, who later resigned and became a critic of the board.

A few days after the call, Greenspon told the board about it, alleging that Prentiss disclosed private student information, the lawsuit said.

The board directed Perkoski to investigate whether Prentiss violated student and parental privacy laws. Prentiss' contract stated she could be fired "for cause."

Because of the inquiry, Prentiss was put on leave, according to the lawsuit.

Perkoski found that Prentiss complied with state and federal privacy laws because she did not disclose a diagnosis or specific student needs, the lawsuit said.

Rather, Perkoski said Prentiss' behavior amounted to a violation of policy and unprofessionalism.

"Perkoski was emphatic to the Board that the Call did not constitute a legal basis to terminate Prentiss' contract for cause," the lawsuit said.

Levinthal and at least one other board member strongly disagreed with Perkoski's conclusion, according to court documents. But they followed his advice to go ahead with a severance agreement.

However, the district now asserts that Perkoski was wrong on the law and his analysis was negligent. As a result, the board bought out Prentiss' contract and hired a succession of interim superintendents, the lawsuit said.

The district said Perkoski concentrates his practice on labor and employment law and is not a special education attorney.

After Prentiss left, the assistant superintendent of student services, who is in charge of special education, was reluctant to provide specific information to the board.

As a result, the board asked Robbins about student privacy laws. This time, Robbins asked its special education attorney, Caroline Roselli, to advise the board.

Roselli advised that board members generally lack a legitimate interest in student records and information, except for the rare situation in which an issue reaches the board, according to the lawsuit.

The district asserted that this advice contradicted Perkoski's.

"Had Perkoski correctly advised the Board that Prentiss had violated student and parental privacy rights by making the Call to Greenspon, the Board would have terminated Prentiss, even if advised Prentiss might litigate her termination or dispute it publicly," the lawsuit said.

Because of the bad advice, the district will be out $600,000 for Prentiss' contract and benefits.

The district said it also paid out $80,000 in a settlement. That was for an agreement with Levinthal because of the privacy claim.

The district also contended it spent $30,000 with Robbins for dealing with public records requests and the attorney general's office, which handles records disputes.

The district did not identify the disputes.

In one case, Patch alleged in a complaint that the board violated the state's open meetings law by deciding to suspend Prentiss behind closed doors. (Perkoski was present.)

In 2024, the attorney general sided with Patch. To this day, the board has not revealed the secret vote tally.

Levinthal declined to comment on the district's lawsuit. Grasso, who is Burr Ridge's mayor, and Greenspon did not return a message for comment Tuesday.

In an email to school officials this week, longtime board critic Yvonne Mayer said the district itself violated student privacy by identifying Levinthal in its filing.

She said it was "quite troubling" that the lawsuit only named Levinthal in the part about members with special-needs children.

In September 2024, Robbins Schwartz terminated its relationship with the school board, saying the district was "unreasonably difficult" to serve.

The firm did so while it was on track to make $1 million in a year, an unusually large amount from one district.