517.484.8000 | East Lansing
248.533.0740 | Novi
616.588.7700 | West Michigan

Thrun Law Firm, P.C., provides a full range of legal services to the public sector. We also represent the vast majority of school districts in Michigan.

Our history of representing the majority of Michigan's school districts for over 50 years benefits our school clients through effective and efficient legal representation, comprehensive and knowledgeable legal analysis of issues facing school boards and administrators, and fair and cost-effective billing practices.

Founded by the Thrun family in the 1950's (see our firm history page), Thrun Law Firm has set the standard for legal representation of school districts and other municipalities in the State of Michigan. Because of this legal expertise and the number of school districts and other municipalities it represents, our attorneys generally have knowledge of, and prior experience in, addressing similar legal issues and problems that occur among several of our school district and other public sector clients.

About Thrun Law Firm

Thrun Law Firm, P.C. is Michigan’s premier public sector law firm, specializing in education and municipal law. In contrast to other law firms, public sector law is not just a “sideline” business or one of many practice areas for our firm. Instead, our attorneys focus almost exclusively on public sector law and representing the firm’s school district, public school academy, local government and other public sector clients across Michigan. We have a deep bench of experienced attorneys and other resources necessary to provide our public sector clients with quality and effective legal representation, and our concentration on public sector law results in substantial cost savings for our clients.

Boards planning to nonrenew an administrator’s employment contract in the last year of the contract must take steps to comply with the timelines and procedural requirements contained in Section 1229 of the Revised School Code. Failure to follow the statutory nonrenewal process (or provisions in an employment contract) may result in automatic contract renewal for an additional year.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the potential disruptiveness of an employee’s speech is sufficient to outweigh its First Amendment value. Gillis v Miller, Case Nos. 16-1245/1249 (CA 6, January 6, 2017). Public employers do not need to wait until an employee’s speech causes an actual disruption in the workplace before taking action. If an employer can reasonably predict that an employee’s speech will cause disruption, then the First Amendment will not protect the employee from discipline.

The Legislature recently passed a package of seven bills that will require school officials to consider various factors before suspending or expelling a student and to consider the use of restorative practices, regardless of whether a student is suspended or expelled. The new laws take effect August 1, 2017.

Factors to Consider Before Discipline