2006-11-18LSRC2.rpt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Committee – the Permanent Building Committee and the Board of Appeals – to meet with us to discuss their legal needs, and we held productive meetings with each of their chairs (Phil Poinelli and Judith Uhrig). After conducting the four site visits, we also met with Bill Lahey to discuss the Town’s present model for the delivery of services and to review the changes resultant from the switch from Palmer & Dodge to Anderson & Kreiger. Findings: Our site visits and discussions revealed that each of the four models has some considerable virtues, in some cases more so than many committee members initially anticipated. We were struck by the fact that each of the four communities we visited was very satisfied with the quality of services that it was receiving, and each was convinced that its model served it well and better than the alternatives. On closer examination, it was evident that, in every case, the key to the communities’ satisfaction lay less in the model for delivery of legal services than in the person who played the lead counsel role and in the nature of the Towns’ leaders’ relationships with that person. In three of the communities we visited, the same person had been serving in the role of town counsel for between 15 and 25 years, whereas in Brookline the person who had served as town counsel for two decades had recently retired and been replaced by his long-time deputy. After reviewing the merits and disadvantages of each of the models, the Committee has concluded that the Town is very well served by its current model, especially in light of the move from a very large downtown firm to a smaller scaled, more specialized firm. Although the other models offer their own strengths, we believe that, on balance, the present model best serves the Town’s needs and goals. In assessing the various models, the Committee recognized several key considerations, among them: a strong relationship with a senior attorney who serves as the primary legal counsel; clear and comfortable communications between the attorneys and senior town officials; reasonable costs; adequate specialization to cover the range of municipal issues and adequate sophistication and creativity to provide quality representation; availability of adequate back-up when the lead attorney is unavailable. Of the other models, the sole practitioner model is probably least well suited to Lexington’s situation. Each of the visited communities employing models other than the sole practitioner model had migrated to its present approach from the use of a sole practitioner, and each underscored the benefits of the migration and averred that they would not consider going back. This model places tremendous weight on the multiple skills of the particular individual playing the role, and renders the town highly dependent on his/her continued availability. Only rarely will an individual bring the range of skills and knowledge needed to satisfactorily play such a role, and the Committee has grave doubts about whether or how Lexington would be able to identify and secure a person capable of taking on such a role. 2