.

Legal Updates for Special Education Law

Legal Update for Special Education Law – Updates from the Ohio Department of Education

Presented by the School Leaders’ Liability Practice Group

April 1, 2024

by Ray C. Freudiger

Ohio Legislature Expands Private School Voucher Program

In August 2023, the Ohio legislature enacted a new law which drastically expanded the private school voucher program in Ohio. This program allows Ohio students to apply for a voucher paid for by the government and can be used to subsidize private school tuition. Under the recently enacted law, Ohio families who earn up to 450% of the federal poverty level ($135,000 for a family of four) can receive the full amount of scholarship available under the program. Prior to this change, only families whose incomes were at or below 250% of the federal poverty level ($75,000 for a family of four) were eligible for the vouchers. 

For many families, private school was once considered “out of reach” due to increasing tuition expenses. Under the expansion, however, K-8 students can receive a $6,165 scholarship and high schoolers can receive a $8,407 scholarship. These scholarships make a private education significantly more accessible for low- and middle-income families. This is evident as applications for Ohio’s private school voucher program have increased significantly since the expansion program was enacted. 

The Ohio Board of Education has reported that there have been more than 120,000 applications for the program so far this school year, though applications continue to be accepted through the end of the fiscal year. For comparison, Ohio received 60,877 applications in 2020 and 45,691 applications in 2017. It must be noted, however, that the most dramatic increase in applications was seen this past year after the law was changed—jumping from 83,000 to 120,000. 

The uptick in applications has led to significantly more funding being allocated to private schools. The Ohio Board of Education and Workforce indicated that $394,015,641 in funding would be allocated to private schools as a result of the applications received so far in 2024. 

It is undeniable that this change to the law will alter the landscape of education in the state of Ohio and lead to many more students electing to pursue a private education. 


Legal Update for Special Education Law – April 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.