Title
title
A Resolution Approving the Engagement of a Law Firm to Serve as the Municipal Traffic Prosecutor on Behalf of the Village of Oak Park
..end
Introduction
overview
Since 2012, it has been standard protocol for the Village Manager to bring engagements for contractual legal services to the Village Board for authorization from time to time.
end
body
Recommended Action
Adopt the Resolution.
Prior Board Action
The Village has authorized specific firms to represent the Village each fiscal year since 2015.
The Board has previously approved similar items for FY 2025 (RES-24-349 & RES 25-216), FY 2024 (RES 24-106), FY 2023 (RES 22-297), FY 2022 (RES 21-322), FY 2021 (RES 21-52); FY 2020 (RES 20-017), FY 2019 (RES 19-53), FY 2018 (RES 18-756), FY 2017 (RES 17-463), FY 2016 (RES 16-100), FY 2015 (RES 15-215 & RES 15-125).
Background
Pursuant to Section 2-5-1 of the Oak Park Village Code, the Village Manager is authorized to employ legal counsel for the various needs of the Village. The Village Board is further authorized to approve the engagement of independent contractors for the purpose of handling specific legal matters per Section 2-6-1 of the Code.
The Village has utilized outside counsel for Municipal Traffic Prosecution since 2011. Among the strategies for reducing spend on external support by the Law Department was to put its Municipal Traffic Prosecution out to bid. The Law Department posted a Request for Proposals for Legal Services - Municipal Traffic Prosecution on the Village website, with the Illinois Municipal League and the Illinois Local Government Lawyers Association.
The Village gave a preference to flat-rate fee proposals rather than typical hourly rate engagements in an effort to reduce overall cost and administrative burden regarding bill review.
The Village has received five (5) proposals from Tressler, LLP; Vasselli Law; Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, Ltd.; Moore Norton Law Group, Ltd.; and DelGaldo Law Group, LLC.
Village staff, including two Assistant Village Attorneys and a Deputy Police Chief, reviewed the proposals and selected Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, Ltd. to forward for the Board’s consideration.
Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd. has provided municipal traffic prosecution for the Village since 2013.
Timing Considerations
The proposed engagement agreement would begin January 1, 2026, and last until December 31, 2028.
Budget Impact
$5,000 per month ($60,000 annually) will be paid out of 1001.41070.101.530667.000 - External Support.
Staffing Impact
Utilizing outside counsel for municipal traffic prosecution frees up internal legal staff to focus on the day-to-day legal needs of Village officials and staff. Preparation and attendance of municipal traffic calls multiple times per month would reduce the availability of in-house legal staff for the various matters that require legal advice and attention within the Village.
DEI Impact
There is no DEI impact associated with this item.
Community Input
There has been no community input given in relation to this item.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the Resolution.
Advantages:
• This action will result in a reduction in the administrative processing of outside counsel billing and provide greater certainty in the amounts charged each month, rather than a variable hourly rate
• Engagement of attorneys with subject-matter expertise
• Continuity of Service - KTJ has been the Village’s traffic prosecutor for over a decade
Disadvantages:
• This proposal is more expensive than the runner-up, Moore Norton Law Group
• This proposal is slightly more expensive than the average per-month cost of the current engagement (approx. $4,400 monthly) where the Village pays Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd.’s hourly billable rates.
Alternatives
Alternative 1:
The Board could elect not to approve the engagement and choose the runner-up from the proposals received.
Advantages:
- Moore Norton Law Group was well-qualified, scoring only slightly lower than KTJ. Moore Norton Law Group proposed $400 weekly, or $1,600 in most months, and $2,000 where there are five Wednesdays (traffic call date) in a given month.
- Moore Norton Law Group’s proposal represents an approximately $39,200 annual savings over Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, Ltd.’s proposal.
- Moore Norton Law Group’s proposal represents approximately $32,000 in savings over the current spend.
Disadvantages:
• Staff determined that Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd.’s proposal had the best chance of delivering exceptional service.
• Client files will need to be transferred from one firm to another.
Alternative 2:
The Board could choose not to adopt the Resolution and continue using Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd on an hourly basis.
Advantages:
• The current hourly rate of Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd. averages approximately $4,400 per month, a $600 average monthly savings.
Disadvantages:
• Greater administrative burden on in-house Law and Finance staff to scrutinize hourly billing
• Hourly rates charged by law firms may not be consistent or fixed over time
• Hours worked in a given month may change depending on volume
• The current hourly rate structure is not reduced to an engagement agreement
Anticipated Future Actions
The Board would authorize Klein, Thorpe, and Jenkins, Ltd. as among its approved list of legal counsel for 2026, 2027, and 2028.
Prepared By: Tony S. Fioretti, Assistant Village Attorney
Reviewed By: Jack Malec, Assistant to the Village Manager
Approved By: Kevin J. Jackson, Village Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution
2. KTJ Proposal
3. Score Summary