June 16, 2025

Via electronic mail

Mr. Daniel Levinthal
[email protected]

Via electronic mail

Ms. Deborah Kedrowski
FOIA Officer
Hinsdale Township High School District 86
5500 South Grant Street
Hinsdale, Illinois 60521
[email protected]

RE: FOIA Request for Review – 2025 PAC 85339; 2025 PAC 85341;
2025 PAC 85781; 2025 PAC 86246;
2025 PAC 86615

Dear Mr. Levinthal and Ms. Kedrowski:

This determination is issued pursuant to section 9.5(f) of the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/9.5(f) (West 2024)). This office has consolidated the
above-referenced matters because they involve the same types of records and same asserted
exemptions.

On December 9, 2024, Mr. Daniel Levinthal submitted a FOIA request to the

Hinsdale Township High School District 86 (District) seeking copies of the legal billing invoices
referenced in Agenda Item 10.7 of the 11/21/24 school board meeting agenda. On December 23,
2024, the District provided the requested invoices but redacted some information pursuant to
sections 7(1)(a), 7(1)(c), 7(1)(f), 7(1)(m) and 7.5(r) of FOIA.1

1
5 ILCS 140/7(1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(f), (1)(m) (West 2024); 5 ILCS 140/7.5(r) (West 2024).
Mr. Daniel Levinthal
Ms. Deborah Kedrowski
June 16, 2025
Page 2

On January 21, 2025, and February 25, 2025, Mr. Levinthal submitted additional
FOIA requests to the District seeking copies of the legal billing invoices referenced in the school
board's meeting agendas for other months. On January 29, 2025, and March 12, 2025, the
District provided responsive invoices but again redacted some information pursuant to the same
FOIA exemptions.

On February 26, 2025, and March 14, 2025, this office received complete
Requests for Review from Mr. Levinthal challenging the redactions in the invoices. On March 7,
2025, and March 21, 2025, this office forwarded copies of the Requests for Review to the
District and asked it provide unredacted copies of the records for this office's confidential
review, together with a detailed explanation for the applicability of the asserted exemptions. On
April 8, 2025, this office received the requested materials. On April 10, 2025, this office
forwarded a copy of the response to Mr. Levinthal; he replied on April 20, 2025.

Mr. Levinthal subsequently submitted two additional Requests for Review

challenging the responses by the District to two other similar FOIA requests.2 This office
forwarded copies of those Requests for Review to the District, and the District incorporated its
arguments from its April 8, 2025, written response to them. Mr. Levinthal likewise incorporated
his previous reply.

DETERMINATION

"All records in the custody or possession of a public body are presumed to be

open to inspection or copying." 5 ILCS 140/1.2 (West 2024); see also Southern Illinoisan v.
Illinois Department of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390, 415 (2006). A public body that redacts
records "has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence" that the redacted
information is exempt from disclosure. 5 ILCS 140/1.2 (West 2024). The exemptions from
disclosure are to be narrowly construed. Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois
University, 176 Ill. 2d 401, 407 (1997).

Section 7.5(r) of FOIA

Section 7.5(r) of FOIA exempts from inspection and copying "[i]nformation

prohibited from being disclosed by the Illinois School Student Records Act [(ISSRA)]." Section
6(a) of ISSRA3 provides that "[n]o school student records or information contained therein may
be released, transferred, disclosed or otherwise disseminated, except" as listed. Pursuant to

2
Those FOIA requests were submitted on March 25, 2025, and April 22, 2025.
3
105 ILCS 10/6(a) (West 2024).
Mr. Daniel Levinthal
Ms. Deborah Kedrowski
June 16, 2025
Page 3

section 2(d) of ISSRA,4 a "school student record" is broadly defined as "any writing or other
recorded information concerning a student and by which a student may be individually
identified, maintained by a school or at its direction or by an employee of a school, regardless of
how or where the information is stored."

In its response to this office, the District asserted that it redacted information in
the invoices that would identify students, including any information related to the assessment or
placement of students with disabilities. Specifically, the District stated:

The special education records, which include any reference

to 504 meetings (meetings regarding accommodations for a
student), due process proceedings (quasi-judicial proceedings
regarding student’s evaluation, identification, or educational
placement), individual evaluation plans (commonly referred to as
"IEPs"), and special education complaints sent to the Illinois State
Board of Education, were redacted as these records and any
records related to special education placement, hearings, and
appeals, are unable to be produced without specific parent consent
or a court order.[5]

In reply to that answer, Mr. Levinthal contended that the District failed to
demonstrate that any descriptions related to IEP or Section 504 matters could be linked to
specific students. He argued that the District "already discloses information about special
education, * * * to the ISBE who compiles and distributes this information in aggregate without
student names, so as not identify individual students."6 This office notes that the confidentiality
provisions of ISSRA contain an exception for disclosures to employees or officials of the "State
Board with current demonstrable educational or administrative interest in the student, in
furtherance of such interest[.]" 105 ILCS 10/6(a)(2) (West 2024). There is no corresponding
exception for members of the public.

Based on this office's review of the unredacted invoices, many of the entries
pertained to legal work performed for specific student cases involving IEP and Section 504
matters. These entries contain identifying information and, in most instances, detailed
descriptions of the issues that were the subject of the students' individual cases. Disclosure of
the students' names or initials, as well as detailed descriptions of the IEP and 504 matters in their
4
105 ILCS 10/2(d) (West 2024).
5
Letter from Lauren M. DaValle, Odelson, Murphey, Frazier & McGrath, Ltd., to Teresa Lim,
Deputy Bureau Chief, Office of the Illinois Attorney General (March 27, 2025), at 4.
6
Letter from Daniel Levinthal to Theresa Lim, Public Access Bureau, Office of the Attorney
General (April 20, 2025).
Mr. Daniel Levinthal
Ms. Deborah Kedrowski
June 16, 2025
Page 4

cases, would identify those students. However, some of the entries provide a generic topic rather
than a detailed description of the particular issues in individual cases.7 The District did
demonstrate how disclosure of those generic topics would reveal the identities of any students.
Accordingly, this office concludes that the District did not improperly redact the students'
identities and portions of the entries describing the student matters pursuant to section 7.5(r),
except for some limited portions.

Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA

Section 7(1)(m) of FOIA exempts from disclosure:

Communications between a public body and an attorney or

auditor representing the public body that would not be subject to
discovery in litigation, and materials prepared or compiled by or
for a public body in anticipation of a criminal, civil or
administrative proceeding upon the request of an attorney advising
the public body, and materials prepared or compiled with respect
to internal audits of public bodies.

Section 7(1)(m) exempts from disclosure communications protected by attorney-client privilege.

People ex rel. Ulrich v. Stukel, 294 Ill. App. 3d 193, 201 (1997). A party asserting that the
attorney-client privilege applies must show that: "(1) a statement originated in confidence that it
would not be disclosed; (2) it was made to an attorney acting in his legal capacity for the purpose
of securing legal advice or services; and (3) it remained confidential." Cangelossi v. Capasso,
366 Ill. App. 3d 255, 228 (2006); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Garvey, 109 F.R.D. 323, 327
(N.D. Cal. 1985) ("The proponent of the privilege carries the burden of establishing all elements
of the privilege, including confidentiality, which is not presumed"); In re General Instrument
Corp. Securities Litigation, 190 F.R.D. 527, 531 (N.D. Ill. 2000) ("To be privileged, the
documents must not only exhibit attorney involvement, but must involve 'a legal adviser acting
in his capacity as such.'" (quoting U.S. v. Evans, 113 F.3d 1457, 1461 (7th Cir. 1997))).

In Stukel, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 203-04, the Illinois Supreme Court held that
"information regarding a client's fees generally is not a 'confidential communication' between an
attorney and client, and thus is not protected by the attorney client privilege. [Citations.] The
payment of fees is merely incidental to the attorney-client relationship and typically does not
involve the disclosure of confidential communications arising from the relationship." The
Court, however, acknowledged that "[c]ertain types of billing records may contain explanations
of legal fees and may indicate the type of work done or matters discussed between the attorney
and client. As such, they could reveal the substance of confidential attorney-client discussions,
and be subject to valid claims of attorney-client privilege or exemption under [FOIA]."
7
E.g., topics described in third, fifth, and seventh entries dated 11/07/25 in Invoice No. 34456.
Mr. Daniel Levinthal
Ms. Deborah Kedrowski
June 16, 2025
Page 5

(Emphasis added). Stukel, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 201. Because the records at issue "made no
reference to the pending litigation other than to name the payee law firm, and designate the
amount and the date of each payment," (Stukel, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 201), the Court did not
further elaborate on the type of information that could be properly redacted from legal billing
invoices based on the attorney-client privilege. Construing Stukel and other legal precedents on
the subject of legal billing invoices, the Attorney General has issued two binding opinions
concluding that while detailed descriptions of work performed may be redacted pursuant to
section 7(1)(m), generic descriptions (such as "held telephone conference" or "drafted e-mail")
are not exempt from disclosure. See Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 12-005, issued March 12,
2012; Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 14-002, issued April 15, 2014.

In Clarke v. American Commerce National Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 130 (9th Cir.
1992), a federal appeals court held that legal billing statements containing the "identity of the
client, the case name for which payment was made, the amount of the fee, and the general nature
of the services performed" were not privileged attorney-client communications because they did
not reveal "specific research or litigation strategy which would be entitled to protection from
disclosure." The court's ruling distinguished privileged material from general information
concerning legal services:

Not all communications between attorney and client are

privileged. Our decisions have recognized that the identity of the
client, the amount of the fee, the identification of payment by case
file name, and the general purpose of the work performed are
usually not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege. [Citations.] However, correspondence, bills, ledgers,
statements, and time records which also reveal the motive of the
client in seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the specific
nature of the services provided, such as researching particular
areas of law, fall within the privilege. (Emphasis added.) Clarke,
974 F.2d at 129.

In its response to this office, the District argued that its redactions were also
proper and consistent with case law and this office's binding opinions involving legal bills. The
District stated that it disclosed "the dates task[s] were performed, a description of the matter (ie
file name), the initials of the attorney performing the work, the hours expended and the total fees
charged[,]"8 as well as references to communications with individuals outside of the attorney-
client relationship. The District asserted it redacted more specific details about the tasks
performed but kept generic descriptions unredacted:

8
Letter from Lauren M. DaValle, Odelson, Murphey, Frazier & McGrath, Ltd., to Teresa Lim,
Deputy Bureau Chief, Office of the Illinois Attorney General (March 27, 2025), at 3.
Mr. Daniel Levinthal
Ms. Deborah Kedrowski
June 16, 2025
Page 6

Detailed descriptions of work performed are redacted to

protect the identity of the specific individuals seeking legal advice,
the topics of those conversations and the subjects of research
conducted. Generic descriptions of conversations such as "current
matters", "case status", "strategy", "case issues and pending
procedures" etc. are not redacted. Likewise, generic descriptions of
subjects of research such as "additional exemptions" and "potential
privacy concerns" are not redacted.[9]

Mr. Levinthal replied by maintaining that the District overly redacted the
invoices. He contended that the District improperly withheld the names of individuals with
whom the attorneys communicated:

Contrary to the facts of the circumstances cited, here a detailed

description of the work performed and/or the topics of discussion
at a meeting was redacted, so the District must show how revealing
the names of the person with whom the attorney met is still
covered by attorney client privilege. To do otherwise is both an
over redaction of nonprivileged information and a misstatement of
the binding opinion cited.[10]

As the District noted, the redacted invoices disclose some information concerning
the legal services provided. In particular, the invoices disclose general descriptions of tasks
performed, such as "review e-mail" and "telephone conferences," and descriptions of
communications with parties who are not clients. The subject matter or topic of the task
performed is withheld in most entries.

Most of the redacted information describes the subject matter or topic in specific
terms and contains details about the advice sought or given. Disclosure of this information
would reveal the substance of confidential attorney-client communications. In some instances,
however, the narratives provide a general topic or action but do not reveal specifics about the
particular issues or strategies that were considered with regard to those matters. References, for
instance, to preparations for closed session meetings, student IEP disputes or discipline, and
labor negotiations generally do not reveal the substance of confidential communications absent
further descriptions of the particular issues that were the subject of those matters. The District

9
Letter from Lauren M. DaValle, Odelson, Murphey, Frazier & McGrath, Ltd., to Teresa Lim,
Deputy Bureau Chief, Office of the Illinois Attorney General (March 27, 2025), at 3.
10
Letter from Daniel Levinthal to Theresa Lim, Public Access Bureau, Office of the Attorney
General (April 20, 2025).
Mr. Daniel Levinthal
Ms. Deborah Kedrowski
June 16, 2025
Page 7

did not demonstrate that disclosure of these generic topics or actions would reveal the substance
of attorney-client communications. Accordingly, the District did not demonstrate that all of the
redacted information concerning tasks performed falls within the attorney-client privilege.

The District also redacted the identities (names or initials) of specific individuals
who are not District employees. These individuals are mostly identified after the term "re:" in
the invoices. The identities of any students, as discussed above, fall within the scope of section
7.5(r). As to the remaining individuals, the redacted entries include the identity of the individual
and other details concerning the specific nature of the legal advice sought or given related to the
individual. Disclosure of the identities of these individuals would reveal the substance of
attorney-client communications under the circumstances. Accordingly, the District did not
improperly redact the identities of the non-District employees pursuant to section 7(1)(m).

Additionally, the District redacted the specific names or position titles of its
clients. In its response, the District asserted that it properly redacted the identities of all
individuals, regardless of whether they were District employees, and cited Binding Opinion 14-
002. The District argued that it "followed the PAC's analysis and redacted the identities of
specific individuals with whom attorneys met or corresponded with, as such information reveals
privileged information."11

In Binding Opinion 14-002, the Attorney General concluded that a city

improperly denied in whole a request for legal invoices pursuant to section 7(1)(m). Ill. Att'y
Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 14-002, issued April 15, 2014. The Attorney General explained that
"the dates on which legal services were performed, the initials of the attorney performing the
work, the numbers of hours billed, and the corresponding amount filled for each entry" did not
did not reveal any privileged attorney-client communications. Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No.
14-002, at 5. The Attorney General recognized, however, that legal invoices may contain other
information that would reveal the substance of attorney-client communications and noted about
the invoices at issue:

Some entries identify subjects of research or details of other tasks

performed, the identities of specific individuals with whom
attorneys met, and topics of discussion during those meetings. In
contrast, other billing entries contain only general descriptions of
services performed, such as holding a telephone conference,
exchanging emails, or drafting and revising a memo. Ill. Att'y
Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 14-002, at 5.

11
Letter from Lauren M. DaValle, Odelson, Murphey, Frazier & McGrath, Ltd., to Teresa Lim,
Deputy Bureau Chief, Office of the Illinois Attorney General (March 27, 2025), at 3.
Mr. Daniel Levinthal
Ms. Deborah Kedrowski
June 16, 2025
Page 8

Because the entries in the invoices at issue varied in terms of their level of detail, the Attorney
General concluded that "[t]o the extent that individual billing entries include detailed
descriptions of legal services that reveal privileged information, those descriptions may be
redacted from the invoices." Ill. Att'y Gen. Pub. Acc. Op. No. 14-002, at 5. The binding opinion
did not, however, conclude that section 7(1)(m) exempts from disclosure the identities of all
clients referenced in legal billing invoices regardless of the context.

The Public Access Bureau has previously determined that the identities of specific
clients generally do not fall within the scope of section 7(1)(m) because such information is
ordinarily not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. See, for example, Ill.
Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 66131, issued April 30, 2021, at 4 (concluding that city
improperly redacted the names of clients and attorneys with whom the attorney had
communicated from legal invoices); Ill. Att'y Gen. PAC Req. Rev. Ltr. 56112, issued April 8,
2019, at 8 (concluding that village improperly redacted client's name and title from legal
invoices). Therefore, a public body that redacts the names of clients pursuant to section 7(1)(m)
"can meet its burden only by providing some objective indicia that the exemption is applicable
under the circumstances." (Emphasis in original) Illinois Education Ass'n v. Illinois State Board
of Education, 204 Ill. 2d 456, 470 (2003).

In this matter, the District did not illustrate how disclosure of the identities of its
specific clients would reveal the substance of any litigation strategies or the contents of any
substantive communications between the District and its attorneys. This office is also unable to
find from a review of the invoices that the names of its clients are privileged attorney-client
information under the circumstances. Because only the discrete portions of legal billing invoices
describing the particular topics of confidential discussions or that would reveal the specific
nature of the services performed may be properly redacted, this office concludes that the District
has not sustained its burden of demonstrating that all of the redactions in the invoice entries fall
within the scope of section 7(1)(m) of FOIA.

This office requests that the District provide Mr. Levinthal with copies of the
redacted legal invoices that disclose the names and position titles of its clients. This office also
requests that the District disclose some of the entries that discuss the nature of the work
performed in only broad, general terms. Examples of those instances are highlighted below:

• 2025 PAC 85339

o Invoice No. 34456 – 11/05/24 entry
o Invoice No. 34456 – third, fifth, and seventh entries dated 11/07/25,
excluding identities of non-District employees
o Invoice No. 34456 – second 11/21/24 entry
• 2025 PAC 85341
Mr. Daniel Levinthal
Ms. Deborah Kedrowski
June 16, 2025
Page 9

o Invoice No. 34601 – second 12/03/24 entry, excluding identity of non-

District employee
o Invoice No. 34601 – 12/08/24 and 12/09/24 entries
• 2025 PAC 85781
o Invoice No. 34706 – second 01/07/25 entry and third 01/23/25 entry
o Invoice No. 34707 – 01/06/2025 entry
o Client Statement No. 113 – 12/12/2024 entry under "24-896 - 2024-2025
Student Miscellaneous"
o Client Statement No. 113 – first 12/03/24 entry, first and third entries
dated 12/09/24, and first 12/19/2024 entry under "24-894 - 2024-2025
General Miscellaneous"
o Client Statement No. 15 – second 11/27/24 entry and last 11/27/24 entry
under "24-894 - 2024-2025 General Miscellaneous"
• 2025 PAC 86246
o Client Statement No. 147 – entries dated 1/13/2025 and 01/14/2025 under
"25-0117 – Residency Issues"
o Client Statement No. 147 – 01/06/25 entry under "24-894 - 2024-2025
General Miscellaneous"
o Invoice No. 945 – 12/23/24 and 01/21/2025 entries
• 2025 PAC 86615
o Invoice No. 34958 – second 03/04/25 entry
o Invoice No. 34959 – 03/03/25 entry
o Client Statement No. 206 – 02/06/25 entry and second 02/7/25 entry under
"24-894 - 2024-2025 General Miscellaneous"
o Client Statement No. 206 – 01/20/25 entry and first 02/14/25 entry under
"25-0118 – Central/South Pool Tile Remediation"
o Invoice No. 34815 – 02/4/25 entries, excluding identities of non-District
employees
o Invoice No. 34816 – 02/12/25 entry
o Client Statement No. 299 – 03/04/25 entry under "24-894- 2024-2025
General Miscellaneous"
o Client Statement No. 299 – 03/04/25 entry under "24-897- 2024-2025
Labor Matters – CBAs, Negotiations, Grievances"
Mr. Daniel Levinthal
Ms. Deborah Kedrowski
June 16, 2025
Page 10

The Public Access Counselor has determined that resolution of these matters do
not require the issuance of a binding opinion. This letter shall serve to close these matters. If
you have any questions, please contact me at the Chicago address listed on the first page of this
letter.

Very truly yours,

TERESA LIM
Deputy Bureau Chief
Public Access Bureau

85339 85341 85781 86246 86615 f consol 71m proper improper 71r proper improper sd

cc: Via electronic mail

Ms. Lauren M. DaValle
Attorney for Hinsdale Township High School District 86
Odelson, Murphey, Frazier & McGrath
3318 West 95th Street
Evergreen Park, Illinois 60805
[email protected]