An analysis and itemized review by MNN of billing records newly obtained by Open Commonwealth indicates the City of Malden and Malden Public Schools combined for payments totaling $448,341.82 to one law firm, mostly for work related to public records (review, redactions, litigation, and related appeals) dating back to 2018.123
This figure reflects itemized invoices made available on July 27, 2026. The records themselves show only one small bill from this firm in 2026 so far -- though its activity on behalf of the City has remained visible through ongoing court proceedings. Seven months of current-year billing detail remains outstanding; Open Commonwealth has filed a records request for that period, and MNN will update this figure once it's produced rather than estimate ahead of the documents.
Open Commonwealth pursued these unredacted billing records for months, eventually asking the Supervisor of Public Records to initiate compliance enforcement against the City after repeated appeals and delays. On July 27 at around 3:20 PM, Malden's City Solicitor turned over unredacted records for these legal billing matters to a Senior Attorney for the Public Records Division and to Open Commonwealth.
“I am responding to your email… Attached you will find the records requested for the above-referenced appeal.”
The newly unredacted records reveal details that were widely unknown to the public throughout the city administration's push for a Proposition 2 1/2 tax increase during Fall 2025 and Spring 2026. In April 2026, after that override failed, Mayor Christenson acknowledged a $1.6 million error in the anticipated budget shortfall -- one city officials had known about before the March 31 special election, but did not disclose until after the polls closed.
Who Knew?
MNN confirmed with three officials, prior to publication, that none of them had been aware of this scale of spending on legal work tied to public records. Each holds a role built around exactly this kind of oversight.
Who knew?
Redacting the Redactions
MNN used Google's AI-powered "Notebook" tool to compare the redacted documents it has had access to since 2024 against the newly obtained, unredacted versions. Read side by side, the pattern the tool helped us characterize is a recursive one: the City billed for the act of redacting documents, then redacted the specific billing entries that would have shown the public it was paying for that redaction.23
Pause. Read that again.
Before this week's release, general administrative billing entries were redacted so heavily and so inconsistently that the public couldn't tell what work was actually being described -- what we're calling the “Swiss cheese” effect.
Who Pushed This?
Purchase Order 189686 shows the escalation of spending. Issued November 13, 2023 for a modest $3,000.00 to cover "Public Records Requests & Appeal FY 2023-24," it was increased six separate times over the following ten months -- primarily to fund legal work on the Friedman Public Records Appeal -- before topping out at $51,500.00.45
| Date | Action | Amount | Running Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/13/2023 | Initial authorization | $3,000.00 | $3,000.00 |
| 12/18/2023 | First increase | $5,000.00 | $8,000.00 |
| 03/14/2024 | Second increase | $20,000.00 | $28,000.00 |
| 06/26/2024 | Third increase | $12,000.00 | $40,000.00 |
| 06/26/2024 | Fourth increase (same day) | $6,500.00 | $46,500.00 |
| 09/03/2024 | Fifth increase | $5,000.00 | $51,500.00 |
Correcting the Record -- and a New Thread
An initial, document-by-document review of these same records had concluded the law firm sat on its invoices for roughly nine months before submitting them. A closer read of the underlying billing dates tells a different story: the firm invoiced by year's end, however, the City itself took roughly six months to actually pay.
One more thread is visible in these records: at least a portion of this legal spending -- work litigating public records requests -- was billed against a Special Education budget line. MNN has not yet confirmed the funding source for that line and is not asserting a violation here.2
-
View PDF →Itemized billing statements, Matter 2024-0442 (redacted)As originally available to MNN.
-
View PDF →Billing/appeal records, May 12, 2026 (unredacted)appeal records, May 12, 2026 (unredacted)
-
View PDF →Billing/appeal records, May 12, 2026 (redacted version)CONFIRM: filename-derived label only -- please verify.
-
View PDF →Billing/appeal records, May 12, 2026 -- second set (unredacted)appeal records, May 12, 2026 -- second set (unredacted)
-
View PDF →Billing/appeal records, May 12, 2026 -- second set (redacted version)appeal records, May 12, 2026 -- second set (redacted version)
-
View PDF →Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane billing summary, 2019-2024Produced April 3, 2024.
-
View PDF →Supervisor of Public Records determination, 2024CONFIRM: filename suggests an SPR ruling -- please verify which matter this covers.
This article posts source records made available by Open Commonwealth, alongside MNN's own review. At this time, no billing records have surfaced for this firm's legal services covering the first seven months of 2026; Open Commonwealth has a pending request for that period, and this story will be updated when that public records request is answered.