Lower Merion vs. Central Bucks vs. Radnor – Legal Spending 2021–2025

Omer Dekel
Oct 17
13 min read

LMSD annual Wisler Pearlstine LLP expenses

(AI assistance was used in this research; please review for any mistakes.)

LMSD 2024 (redacted) Wisler Pearlstine LLP expenses

LMSD 2023 (redacted) Wisler Pearlstine LLP expenses

LMSD 2022 (redacted) Wisler Pearlstine LLP expenses

Central Bucks School District 2022-2024 Wisler Pearlstine LLP expenses

Radnor School District 2022-2024 Wisler Pearlstine LLP expenses

Overview & Data Sources

This analysis compares legal expenditures of Lower Merion School District (LMSD) against Central Bucks and Radnor Township School Districts from 2021 through 2025, using Right-to-Know (RTK) records and public sources. Costs are broken down by category (special education, open records, etc.), normalized per student and per IEP, and special education due process cases were reviewed and included. We also examine whether LMSD’s counsel (Wisler Pearlstine LLP) might be billing more aggressively, and flag any indications of waste or mismanagement in legal governance.

Total Legal Spending (2021–2025) Comparison

LMSD’s legal spending far exceeds that of Central Bucks and Radnor. In calendar year 2022, LMSD was billed over $809,000 in legal fees and expenses[1] – an order of magnitude higher than Radnor’s ~$80,500 and several times Central Bucks’ typical annual legal costs (Central Bucks’ routine solicitor bills were roughly in the low–six figures). Figure 1 illustrates the yearly totals. Notably, Central Bucks had a one-time spike in 2022–23 due to hiring Duane Morris for an external investigation (discussed later), which cost $1.75 million[2]. Excluding that exceptional event, Central Bucks’ recurring legal spend was much lower than LMSD’s. Radnor’s legal expenditures, by contrast, remained modest each year (under $130k).

Table 1 below summarizes total legal spending and normalized metrics. LMSD spent $600k–$800k per year on legal matters in 2021–2025 (with a slight dip by 2024), whereas Radnor spent about $80k–$125k and Central Bucks (excluding the Duane Morris investigation) roughly $100k annually (estimated). Per student, LMSD’s legal costs were around $65–$90 per student each year, 10× higher than Radnor’s (~$20–$35) and significantly above Central Bucks’ (~$5–$7 in normal years). The disparity is similarly stark for special-education students (IEP): LMSD spent in the order of $500–$700 per IEP, versus a few hundred in Radnor and Central Bucks. This suggests LMSD’s legal outlays are disproportionate even after accounting for district size and the special-ed populations

District	Enrollment (≈2024)	IEPs (est.)	2022 Legal Spend	2023 Legal Spend	2024 Legal Spend	Avg. $/Student	Avg. $/IEP
Lower Merion (LMSD)	~8,800 students	~1,300	$809k[1]	~$600k (est.)	$606k[3]	~$75–90	~$600
Central Bucks	~17,000 students	~2,500	~$100k (solicitor)	$1.85M*[2]	~$120k (solicitor)	~$5–7**	~$40–50**
Radnor Township	~3,600 students	~550	$80.5k[4]	$102.1k[5]	$124.96k[6]	~$25–35	~$180–230

Table 1: Total legal expenditures by district, with per-capita normalization. Central Bucks 2023 includes ~$1.75 M for Duane Morris’s investigation[2]. Excluding the one-time Duane Morris costs, CB’s recurring legal spend equates to roughly ~$6 per student (~$100k/year).*

LMSD’s outsized spending is consistent across the 2021–2025 period. For example, in 2024 LMSD paid about $606,537 in legal fees and expenses[3], whereas Radnor paid ~$125k and Central Bucks (solicitor only) ~$120k. Even in 2022, LMSD’s legal bills (≈$793k paid) dwarfed Radnor’s ($80k)[4][1]. Central Bucks’ solicitor bill in 2022 was comparatively low (in the order of tens of thousands). Only when Central Bucks undertook a controversial ACLU-related inquiry in 2022–23 did its legal costs temporarily exceed LMSD’s, reaching a total of $1.75 million billed by Duane Morris[2] (of which insurance covered $250k). Once that investigation concluded, CB’s legal fees returned to modest levels.

Key finding: Lower Merion consistently spent far more on legal services than either Radnor or Central Bucks, both in absolute dollars and on a per-student (or per-IEP) basis. This gap suggests a difference in legal strategies and/or the volume of legal disputes.

Breakdown by Legal Category

All three districts use outside counsel for a range of matters – special education hearings, student services, contracts, policy review, personnel, real estate, and Right-to-Know (open records) requests, etc. However, LMSD’s costs were heavily driven by special education and litigation-related matters, whereas Radnor and Central Bucks incurred relatively more routine advisory costs.

Special Education Due Process & Student Matters: LMSD faces numerous special education legal cases, which drive substantial fees. In 2022, Wisler Pearlstine’s billing report for LMSD shows dozens of special ed matter entries (e.g., “SPECIAL EDUCATION MISCELLANEOUS” cases) amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees[7][8]. By contrast, Radnor’s legal summary for 2022 recorded no separate special ed legal fees line item[9] (implying either no significant hearings or those costs fell under retainer). Even in 2023, Radnor’s “Special Education” legal costs were minimal ($70 in Q1; $1,977 in Q2)[10]. Central Bucks’ solicitor bills likely included some special ed work, but not at LMSD’s scale. (Central Bucks did contend with at least one multi-year private placement dispute, discussed below, but overall their special-ed legal approach appears less combative than LMSD’s.)
Right-to-Know (Open Records) Requests: LMSD spent a significant sum handling RTK requests. In 2022, LMSD was billed $42,537 in fees (plus $298 in expenses) specifically for “Right to Know” requests[11] – a notable expenditure on what are essentially public records requests. Radnor, in the same year, spent only about $3,115 total on RTK matters ($2,852 in Q1 and $262 in Q4)[12]. This suggests LMSD’s administration and counsel devote far more effort (and money) to resisting or managing RTK filings than Radnor. Central Bucks in 2023 had some turbulence with RTK and media requests due to its controversial policies, but data on their RTK legal costs from the FOIA response aren’t clearly available; they are likely modest compared to LMSD’s $40k+.
Personnel, Discipline, Contracts: Routine personnel or student discipline legal costs were relatively small in all districts. For 2022, LMSD’s “Miscellaneous Personnel” and “Miscellaneous Discipline” matters cost ~$4.3k and $623, respectively[13] – comparable to Radnor’s personnel/discipline legal costs (e.g. Radnor spent ~$4.7k on personnel and ~$1.1k on discipline for all of 2022[14]). These are minor contributors to the overall gap.
Policy and Title IX: LMSD did incur expenses related to Title IX compliance and investigations – about $8.1k on one Title IX matter in 2022[15] plus another ~$1.9k on “Title IX compliance” advice[16]. Radnor’s records show only a small amount ($735) in late 2022 for Title IX compliance[17], and around $2.8k in Q3 2024[18]. Central Bucks, meanwhile, had outsized legal engagement on policy issues in 2022–23 – notably the drafting of a contentious classroom “advocacy” ban (Policy 321). However, that work was done by Duane Morris as part of the broader investigation; an internal review flagged that Duane Morris billed dozens of hours and involved five attorneys to craft a 1.5-page policy, which was deemed excessive[19][20]. In short, outside the unique CB policy episode, LMSD appears somewhat higher in Title IX/policy legal spending as well, though not nearly as dramatically as in special ed.
Real Estate and Tax Matters: LMSD and Radnor both engage in land use and tax assessment legal actions (often to increase the tax base via assessment appeals). Radnor’s legal bills in 2024 show unusually high spending on assessment appeals – over $55,000 across that year[21], which made it the single largest category of Radnor’s legal fees in 2024. LMSD likewise has pursued reverse tax appeals; while detailed 2024 data for LMSD by category isn’t neatly summarized in the RTK report, the 2022 report shows numerous line-items referencing property addresses (e.g. “1134 Youngs Ford Rd”, “622 Carisbrooke Rd”, etc.) which are likely tax or land-use cases[22][23]. One can infer that LMSD spent tens of thousands on tax/land legal matters as well. That said, even including those, LMSD’s special education litigation costs remained the dominant factor in its overall higher spending.

Bottom line: LMSD’s legal expenses are heavily weighted toward dispute-oriented categories (special education hearings, litigation, contested records requests, etc.), whereas districts like Radnor have relatively low spending in those areas and primarily pay for general counsel services (policy review, routine personnel guidance, etc.). This difference in the nature of legal activity explains much of the spending gap.

Per-Student and Per-IEP Cost Proportionality

When adjusting for district size and special-needs population, LMSD’s legal spending still appears disproportionate:

Per Student: LMSD spent roughly $70–$90 per student on legal services in recent years, compared to about $25–$35 per student in Radnor. For example, using 2022 figures, LMSD ($809k, ~8,600 students) equated to ~$94 per student, while Radnor ($80.5k, ~3,616 students) was ~$22 per student. Central Bucks (excluding the one-off investigation) is around $5–$7 per student (e.g. ~$100k for ~17k students). Even including the Duane Morris episode, CB’s five-year average per student is still in the ballpark of LMSD’s. This indicates LMSD dedicates a significantly larger share of its budget to legal matters on a per-capita basis.
Per IEP: LMSD also outspends proportionally for special education. Assuming LMSD has ~1,300 students with IEPs, its $600k–$800k annual legal tab equates to roughly $500–$620 per special-ed student each year. Radnor (≈550 IEPs) spent on the order of $150–$225 per IEP, and Central Bucks (~2,500 IEPs) perhaps ~$40 per IEP in a normal year (not counting the LGBTQ investigation, which was not a special-ed case). This suggests that LMSD’s legal approach to special education conflicts is much more resource-intensive. In effect, LMSD spends hundreds of dollars per disabled student on attorneys, whereas peer districts spend a fraction of that and may instead devote resources to services or settlements.

It’s worth noting that high legal spend per IEP could reflect more due process hearings filed against LMSD (i.e., more conflict with parents of students with disabilities), which in turn might indicate a more adversarial relationship. Indeed, as shown next, LMSD has faced multiple formal hearings in recent years.

Special Education Hearings (2021–2025): Frequency & Outcomes

An analysis of Pennsylvania Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR) records shows differing patterns in due process hearings among the three districts:

Lower Merion (LMSD): Numerous hearings. In just the 2024–25 school year, at least two ODR decisions involve LMSD. For example, ODR No. 30205-24-25 (J.R. vs LMSD) was decided in January 2025: the hearing officer denied and dismissed the parents’ claims entirely, ruling in favor of the district[24]. Another case (Le Pape v. LMSD, 3d Cir. 2024) reached the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which clarified legal standards and reversed and remanded the judgment of the lower court.[25]. The volume of special ed litigation is high – LMSD is frequently a defendant in due process and appeals (often prevailing, but only after costly proceedings). Historically, LMSD has even gone to federal court to contest hearing decisions or legal points (as in L.B. v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., where LMSD intervened on an issue of law[26]). The aggressive stance is reflected in the legal bills.
Central Bucks: A mix of routine and some protracted cases. One notable case is Q.M. v. Central Bucks SD, a multi-year dispute over private placement. Initially, a hearing officer ruled partly for the district (May 2023 decision), but on federal court remand, the hearing officer in June 2024 found the district’s 2022–23 program inappropriate and ordered Central Bucks to reimburse the student’s private school tuition and related expenses[27][28]. In other words, parents prevailed in securing reimbursement for at least one year. This outcome likely added to CB’s legal costs (both in fees and settlement). However, aside from such cases, Central Bucks did not face as many hearings as LMSD. The high-profile ACLU complaint in 2022 was handled outside the ODR system (through the Office for Civil Rights), so it doesn’t reflect special-ed hearing frequency. Thus, CB’s due process frequency seems moderate – not as low as Radnor’s, but not on LMSD’s level.
Radnor Township: Few hearings, but not zero. A significant case in 2021–22 was H.D. v. Radnor TSD (ODR No. 25872-21-22), where parents unilaterally placed a student in private school and sought reimbursement for 2020–21 and 2021–22. The hearing officer’s April 2022 decision granted the parents’ claims in full, finding Radnor failed to offer FAPE for those years and ordering tuition and transport reimbursement[29]. This was a loss for the district. It is notable, though, that Radnor’s legal bills in 2022 did not spike drastically despite losing this case – suggesting the matter may have been settled or not heavily litigated beyond the hearing. Overall, Radnor’s hearing frequency is low; there are relatively few published ODR decisions involving Radnor in 2021–2025, indicating the district may resolve most issues before they escalate.

In summary, LMSD had more special-ed due process activity, incurring high costs to ultimately often win cases, whereas Radnor had infrequent cases and sometimes conceded or lost (incurring costs in remedies more than attorney fees). Central Bucks fell in between, with a couple of drawn-out cases (one resulting in reimbursement to parents), but not the volume of LMSD.

Legal Governance, Billing Practices, and Oversight

The data and public record hint at systemic issues in LMSD’s legal governance that may explain why its costs are so high:

Aggressive Defense and External Counsel Usage: LMSD’s philosophy has been to vigorously contest lawsuits and complaints, hiring top-notch attorneys to do so. For example, in a prior lawsuit over tax increases, LMSD engaged Wisler Pearlstine to defend the district and even hired a second firm (Drinker Biddle) to separately represent individual board members[30]. This resulted in substantial legal bills. A 2017 lawsuit by taxpayer Arthur Wolk alleged that the LMSD board “misrepresented the amount it paid [Wisler Pearlstine]” in that case and wrongfully spent $300,000 on separate counsel for board members who weren’t even named in the suit[30]. Wolk characterized the board’s handling of legal matters as “out of control” spending[31]. Although the board defended its actions, this episode indicates a possible lack of cost discipline – LMSD was willing to pay two law firms and fight appeals up to the state Supreme Court rather than seek a quicker resolution.
Billing Oversight (or Lack Thereof): In Central Bucks, the Duane Morris controversy revealed the importance of scrutinizing outside counsel bills. A Wisler Pearlstine attorney (Edward Diasio) reviewed Duane Morris’s invoices and flagged them as “seriously inflated”, citing excessive hours and too many attorneys assigned[32][33]. He noted hundreds of hours billed for repetitive tasks and large charges for internal communications[32][34]. CB’s new board was shocked, with the president stating “It’s truly staggering… They’re basically stealing money from kids.” and pledging to challenge those bills[35]. This shows one district taking action when legal billing seemed unreasonable. By contrast, there’s no public indication that LMSD has conducted a similar audit of Wisler Pearlstine’s own billing. Given LMSD’s high expenditures, one might ask if Wisler’s staffing of LMSD case work is lean or laden with multiple attorneys and charges. The pattern of LMSD’s spending – many smaller matters accumulating large totals – suggests heavy billable hours that perhaps could be managed down through early settlement of disputes or stricter oversight.
Settlement vs. Litigation Mindset: Radnor’s approach of settling or not fiercely litigating every issue may actually save money (even though Radnor had to reimburse private school tuition, the legal fees were minimal compared to LMSD’s protracted fights that incur large fees). LMSD’s mindset appears more litigious. For example, LMSD might choose to fight a due process case through multiple sessions and even appeal a decision, whereas Radnor might settle after one year of reimbursement. Over time, LMSD’s approach generates higher cumulative legal fees. The cost-benefit is questionable – spending $50k in legal fees to avoid a $20k service is fiscally dubious, yet such scenarios can occur if a district prioritizes “winning” a dispute. LMSD’s outsized legal budget raises the possibility that some portion of those fees could be avoidable with a less confrontational stance.
Public Scrutiny and Transparency: Both LMSD and Central Bucks have drawn public scrutiny for legal spending. In LMSD’s case, it was tied to budget mismanagement allegations and the sense that legal defense of the board’s decisions wasted taxpayer funds[30]. In Central Bucks, the community backlash came when legal fees were expended on culture-war issues (policy and investigations) rather than education. Radnor, on the other hand, has largely avoided controversy in this realm by keeping legal matters low-key and costs low. The LMSD community might not be fully aware of how unusual their district’s legal spending is. Now that data is emerging (through RTK requests like these), there may be calls for the school board to justify or curb these expenses.

In conclusion, Lower Merion’s significantly higher legal expenditures from 2021–2025 stem from the district’s propensity to engage in extensive legal battles – especially in special education – and the resultant attorney billing by its longtime firm, Wisler Pearlstine. On a per-student basis, LMSD spends many times more than Central Bucks or Radnor on lawyers. Much of LMSD’s cost is driven by numerous special ed due process hearings and vigorously defending against lawsuits or requests, rather than seeking early resolution. By comparison, Radnor Township shows that a more conciliatory approach corresponds with far lower legal costs (even factoring in occasional payments to families). Central Bucks’ experience highlights how exceptional legal projects can blow up a budget, but also underscores the need for oversight – their own solicitor identified wasteful billing by outside counsel[32][33].

Unless LMSD examines its legal strategies and demands greater efficiency from counsel, its legal expenses will likely remain disproportionately high. In prior litigation, LMSD’s board was even accused of misrepresenting legal costs and was criticized for extravagant spending on lawyers[30]. While LMSD’s affluent tax base has borne these costs so far, stakeholders may question whether educational funds are being optimally used. A school board’s duty is to perform its “statutory duties” effectively[36] – which arguably includes providing mandated services without resorting to costly legal contention. The evidence suggests that LMSD has room to improve in its legal governance, either by pursuing alternative dispute resolution, tightening oversight of law firm billing, or re-evaluating how aggressively it confronts complaints. As one Central Bucks board member aptly put it regarding excessive legal fees: “They’re basically stealing money from kids.”[35]

Redirecting even a fraction of LMSD’s legal spend back to student programs could be a big win for taxpayers and families alike.

Sources

· Lower Merion SD legal invoices (Wisler Pearlstine LLP) for 2022–2024[1][3][11][37] (obtained via RTK).

· Radnor TSD 3-year legal summary (Q1 2022 – Q4 2024)[4][38][21] (RTK response).

· Central Bucks SD RTK response (legal bills 2021–2024) – selected data from Wisler Pearlstine invoices for 2022–24 (provided via RTK; text OCR).

· Special Education Due Process Decisions: ODR hearing decisions and court cases: J.R. v. LMSD (ODR #30205-24-25)[24]; Q.M. v. CBSD (ODR #29347-23-24, remanded)[27][28]; H.D. v. Radnor TSD (ODR #25872-21-22)[29]; Third Circuit in Le Pape v. LMSD (103 F.4th 966 (3d Cir. 2024))[25].

· Media reports and audits: Philadelphia Inquirer coverage of CBSD’s Duane Morris investigation bills[2][32]; review email citing “way too many attorneys” and “extremely excessive” hours[39][33]; Board president quote on overcharging[35]. Philly Inquirer coverage of Arthur Wolk’s suit vs. LMSD board (alleging budget and legal fee abuse)[30].