LEWES, Del. - Lewes City Council heard recommendations Monday evening for reducing the city's growing outside legal expenses, including limiting attorney attendance at public meetings, centralizing requests for legal advice and shifting routine administrative work away from outside counsel.
The recommendations were presented by Luke Mette of Brockstedt Mandalas Federico LLC, an attorney who conducted a pro bono review of the city's fiscal 2026 external legal spending.
Mette said the city could conservatively save more than $100,000 a year without taking on significant additional legal risk by changing how it uses outside attorneys.
The review covered legal services provided from April 1, 2025, through March 31, 2026. It did not include legal expenses incurred since April 1 of this year.
The review comes as Lewes' legal expenses have increased significantly. The city spent about $321,000 on legal fees in fiscal 2024 and approximately $655,000 in fiscal 2026. The city budgeted $375,000 for legal expenses in fiscal 2027.
Fewer attorneys at routine meetings
Mette said one of the biggest opportunities for savings is reducing the amount of time attorneys spend attending public meetings.
The city spent about $55,000 in fiscal 2026 on outside attorneys attending public meetings, primarily Mayor and City Council meetings, according to Mette. He estimated the city could save about $30,000 a year by having attorneys attend only portions of meetings where legal advice is needed.
Mette said legal advice generally should be provided privately and confidentially rather than during public meetings, in part because of attorney-client privilege concerns.
He said there will still be times when an attorney should attend a meeting, particularly when the agenda includes complicated land-use matters or other significant legal issues.
Centralizing legal requests
Mette also recommended creating a centralized system for requesting legal advice.
He suggested that a non-lawyer, potentially the mayor working with City Solicitor Alex Burns, serve as a central point for legal requests. That person could determine which questions require an attorney, prioritize requests and prevent multiple officials from separately contacting attorneys about the same issue.
According to Mette, the city spent approximately $48,000 in fiscal 2026 on one-on-one phone calls and emails between outside attorneys and individual council, commission and committee members. He estimated that centralizing those requests could save about $36,000.
Shifting routine work away from attorneys
Mette said the city also could reduce costs by having staff, elected officials and volunteers handle routine work that does not require legal expertise.
Examples include preparing meeting notices, agendas and minutes, drafting basic motions and bylaws, and preparing nonbinding recommendations.
He estimated the city spent about $20,000 on attorneys performing such work during fiscal 2026 and said roughly half of that expense could potentially be eliminated.
Mette also encouraged city officials and staff to read and understand clear provisions of the city charter and code rather than routinely asking attorneys to explain language that is straightforward.
He said attorneys should be brought in when a provision is ambiguous, requires legal research or presents a significant compliance issue.
Simplifying the city code
Mette recommended simplifying sections of the city code that are confusing or overly complicated.
He recommended that the city identify particularly difficult sections and address those areas before undertaking a comprehensive code revision.
Areas where legal spending should continue
Mette emphasized that not every category of legal spending should be reduced.
He recommended continued use of attorneys for significant disputed land-use decisions, employment and labor disputes, difficult interpretations of the city charter or code, important real estate documents, certain ordinances and resolutions, and litigation.
Mette said there is one area where the city should consider spending more money on legal services.
He recommended additional legal advice for city staff members who are responsible for making significant administrative decisions under the city code.
Mette said spending more on legal advice before those decisions are made could help reduce the risk of litigation, investigations and larger legal expenses later.
Council debates direct attorney access
Following the legal spending presentation, the council discussed a separate agenda item concerning direct access to attorneys retained by the city.
Councilman Elder said he believes the city charter provides all council members equal access to city resources, including attorneys.
Elder said individual council members sometimes need legal advice when members disagree about an issue or face complicated decisions. He cited previous disagreements involving land-use matters, appointments and other city decisions as examples of situations in which council members may need to seek legal advice.
He also said limiting access to attorneys could discourage people from serving on the council.
Other council members said they wanted additional time to review Mette's recommendations and the information presented about attorney access.
Council members discussed the possibility of establishing consistent procedures while preserving the ability of individual council members to seek legal information when necessary.
The council agreed to defer the issue to an October or November work session. Members said they would use that meeting to identify areas where they can reach agreement on attorney access, meeting attendance and other legal-cost controls.
