2006-11-18LSRC2.rpt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Bedford’s use of the same model with a different firm and another lead attorney. As far as the information available to us suggested, and with the one exception of the Permanent Building Committee (discussed further below), all of the major users of legal services in the Town appear highly satisfied with the services they are currently receiving. We believe that Anderson & Kreiger provides the Town with an impressive combination of individualized attention and sophistication in the specialized fields relevant to municipal affairs. The model provides a lead attorney of very high caliber and with a deep knowledge of, and interest in, the Town’s affairs; the fact that he is a resident and a former member of a town committee is an added bonus. And the firm includes unusually knowledgeable and creative attorneys in the primary fields of concern to the Town. Over the years, this combination has resulted in a level of legal representation that would be hard to duplicate and that has produced many exceptionally favorable outcomes for the Town. While the Town’s relationship with Palmer & Dodge served the Town very well (as the report of the Legal Services Review Committee I four years ago detailed), the Committee believes that the transition to Anderson & Kreiger marks a distinct improvement. Anderson & Kreiger devotes roughly half of its energies to municipal representation, which means that Lexington will be a far more significant client than we ever could be for a firm of Palmer & Dodge’s scale, while also ensuring that the firm will maintain cutting-edge expertise and specialization in municipal law. Moreover, the switch has reduced the hourly rates at which the Town is billed, as has been evidenced in the monthly billings since the transition. Beyond these findings relating to the various models, several other points should be noted: a. In his meeting with the Committee on behalf of the Permanent Building Committee, Phil Poinelli made clear that he felt strongly that the PBC’s needs for expertise in public construction law would be best served by the use of specialty counsel for this function. He indicated that in his professional life, he has become familiar with several Boston firms with specialization in this area, and he recommends that it would be both more cost effective and more protective of the Town’s interests to rely on such a firm for future major construction projects. The Committee is not at this time in a position to independently analyze this contention, and notes that Bill Lahey feels that Anderson & Kreiger possesses a high-level of sophistication in this area. This is a topic that deserves further exploration, although the most productive next step may well be further discussion between the PBC and Anderson & Kreiger to assess needs and available resources. By contrast, the Board of Appeals reported that it was highly satisfied with the services provided formerly by Palmer & Dodge and more recently by Anderson & Kreiger, which reflected a high level of responsiveness and relevant expertise. b. Aside from the question of how to handle public construction law, the Committee finds satisfactory the present use of outside counsel for certain specialized functions, such as Cable TV, collective bargaining, and bond issuance. We note that 4