2006-11-18LSRC2.rpt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ADDENDUM COMMENTS OF STEPHEN POLITI While I have concluded that the multi-purpose law firm model that services both municipal and private-sector clients is an acceptable model for Lexington, I have also concluded that the full-service firm that specializes in municipal work is an acceptable model for Lexington. The Committee has been informed that approximately 80% of Lexington's legal work falls into the "routine" category and that Lexington is paying the highest hourly legal billing rate of the municipalities that responded to Mr. Valente's study for the Massachusetts Municipal Management Association. Additionally, the Committee has identified that annual legal expenditures by Lexington (exclusive of PBC representation) is approximately $100,000.00 higher than each of the nearby communities reasonably comparable to Lexington that the Committee visited. When PBC representation is included (although this may not be a fair comparison because Lexington's recent PBC construction activity has been substantial and this does not appear to be the case with all of the other visited communities), Lexington's recent annual legal expenditures are approximately $300,000.00 higher than each of the communities visited. While I have concluded (as previously stated) that the Anderson & Kreiger model is an acceptable model for Lexington, I do not conclude that our work supports a finding that the transition from Palmer & Dodge to Anderson & Kreiger "marks a distinct improvement". For example, Palmer & Dodge made Norm Cohen available to Lexington, in Lexington, on Wednesdays (half days) and I repeatedly hear that Town Counsel was more readily accessible when Palmer & Dodge was Town Counsel. While Bill Lahey did inform the Committee that he personally is billing the Town at a rate which is lower than his Palmer & Dodge billing rate, it was not clear (at least to me) that substantially reduced hourly rates are in place, "across the board", for all attorneys providing services to Lexington or, more generally, that Lexington's legal bills will be significantly reduced because of the transition to Anderson & Kreiger. Finally, although I agree that "Phil Poinelli made clear that he felt that the PBC's needs … would be best served by the use of specialty counsel", Phil's message was broader than this … i.e. my notes indicate that Phil is not satisfied with Anderson & Kreiger's representation (not just that Lexington would be better served with specialty counsel). 6