TOMS RIVER, N.J. – A Toms River Regional school board member has filed a lawsuit accusing the district of illegally approving one of the most expensive legal contracts in New Jersey public education, alleging corruption, conflict of interest, and financial mismanagement by the other board members.
Filed January 30 in Ocean County Superior Court by board member Marisa Matarazzo, the 29-page verified complaint seeks to void the board’s contract with The Toscano Law Firm LLC, which pays $850 per hour for court appearances and $750 per hour for other legal services. The contract also includes a $15,000 retainer fee paid upfront, which Matarazzo argues violates state regulations and board policy that prohibit advance payments for professional services.
The attorney, Patrick P. Toscano Jr., is now one of the highest-paid lawyers representing a school district in New Jersey, according to court filings. Most school boards typically pay between $125 and $175 per hour for legal counsel, and rarely more than $250 per hour, even in complex cases.
Lawsuit claims contract was signed before public vote
Matarazzo’s lawsuit claims that Toscano signed the contract on December 8, 2025—nine days before the Toms River Regional Board of Education publicly voted to approve it on December 17. The document’s “effective date,” also listed as December 8, suggests that the deal took effect before the board’s formal approval.
Under the state’s School Contracts Law, such an arrangement is considered “ultra vires,” or beyond the board’s legal authority, rendering it void. Matarazzo argues that the contract must be vacated because it was retroactively approved and never subjected to a public bidding or competitive process.
In her complaint, she states that “no Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued, no qualifications were reviewed, and no other firms were invited to submit costs or credentials.”
Conflict of interest allegations involving board president, using lawyer before board vote
At the center of the case is board president Ashley Lamb, who Matarazzo accuses of a direct conflict of interest in the hiring process. Toscano, the attorney selected, has previously represented Lamb’s husband, Justin Lamb, a former Toms River councilman, in a private employment matter and during an investigation by the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office.
Despite that existing relationship, Ashley Lamb allegedly participated in private discussions about the contract, voted to approve it, and signed the agreement herself. Matarazzo argues that Lamb’s actions violated New Jersey’s school ethics statute, which prohibits officials from taking part in decisions that directly benefit themselves or family members.
“This was not only a conflict of interest but a serious ethical breach,” Matarazzo said in her filing, noting that Toscano was a personal attorney and friend of Lamb’s husband. “They began using the lawyer before there was even a vote, no advertisement was issued, and the board president participated in and approved a contract benefiting her husband’s attorney.”
Question of possible referral fee
IMatarazzo raised additional concerns about whether Justin Lamb may have benefited financially from the hiring. She now questions whether Toscano’s firm could have offered Lamb a referral fee for the district work, a practice that is legal between attorneys but prohibited when public contracts and family members of officials are involved.
While no evidence of such a payment has yet been presented, Matarazzo’s lawsuit seeks to have the court compel disclosure of any communications or financial arrangements between the Toscano Law Firm and Lamb.
Board’s financial troubles deepen scrutiny
The controversy comes as the Toms River Regional School District continues to struggle with deep financial distress. In recent years, the district has publicly warned of possible insolvency, citing declining state aid and mounting expenses. Board members have discussed the prospect of bankruptcy, even as the district approved an $80,000 raise for Superintendent Michael Citta, increasing his annual salary to $310,000.
Matarazzo said the decision to approve such a high-priced attorney contract amid these warnings is “tone-deaf and fiscally irresponsible.”
The lawsuit draws a comparison to the Lakewood School Board, which faced public outrage for paying inflated legal fees amid its own fiscal crisis. Matarazzo argues that Toms River risks following the same path, placing the district’s credibility and financial survival in jeopardy. That lawyer, Michael Inzelbuch, was paid $475.00 per hour, sending taxpayers into a frenzy over the high pay.
This contract is nearly double what Lakewood had paid Inzelbuch.
No public process, no transparency
According to court documents, the board did not publicly advertise the legal services contract, as required by the School Contracts Law. No resolution explaining the board’s reasoning or justifying the extraordinary hourly rate was read into the record before the vote.
The contract was also not published in an official newspaper, another violation of law cited in the complaint. “The public had no opportunity to observe or comment on the decision,” the filing states.
The lack of transparency, combined with the conflict of interest and the advance retainer, forms the basis of five separate counts in Matarazzo’s lawsuit, including violations of the School Contracts Law, the Open Public Meetings Act, the School Ethics Act, the state administrative code, and the board’s own internal policies.
Open Public Meetings Act violations alleged
Matarazzo contends that the board’s private deliberations and early use of Toscano’s services before the public vote violated the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), which requires all substantive discussions and decisions by public bodies to take place in properly noticed public meetings.
The lawsuit alleges that by the time the December 17 vote occurred, the decision to hire Toscano had already been made, rendering the public vote a “sham.” Any action taken under those circumstances, the complaint argues, is voidable and must be set aside.
Relief sought in court
Matarazzo, represented by attorney Donald F. Burke of Brick Township, is asking the court to issue an immediate injunction halting all payments to Toscano’s firm and to declare the contract invalid. She also asks for any other relief deemed appropriate by the court, including attorney’s fees and costs.
Burke wrote in a supporting memorandum that “retroactive approval cannot cure an illegal contract” and that “school officials must be held to the highest standards of integrity when public money and public confidence are at stake.”
Key allegations in the lawsuit include:
• The contract was executed before public approval, violating the School Contracts Law
• Board President Ashley Lamb failed to recuse herself despite her husband’s relationship with the attorney
• No RFP or competitive process was issued
• The board authorized a prohibited $15,000 advance payment
• The agreement violated the Open Public Meetings Act and internal fiscal policies
A hearing date has not yet been scheduled in the case.