Middlesex Courthouse in Cambridge, MA

[Guest guest]

I hope in my lifetime we get to the point where employees don't have to beg

to be safe in their places of work. The Middlesex Courthouse story just

points out how much we need real laws that protect employees and the general

public from unsafe conditions in public buildings. What is so outrageous is

the

fact that if an employee in this courthouse suffers an injury related to

asbestos exposure or any other contaminants in the building, he or she will

have

to fight tooth and nail to receive workers comp or disability retirement.

Where is the equity and justice in that? I applaud Representative

Koutoujian for filing House # 4766 " An Act Relative to Healthy Schools and

Public

Buildings " which was reported out favorably by the House Committee on Public

Health the end of April. We all need to work to make certain that his bill

becomes law. What is happening in Middlesex Courthouse and other public

buildings around our state is just wrong. I can't believe human beings do this

to each other. A paycheck cannot be a fair exchange for your health.

Mulvey son

State broke the law on private lawyers

Competitive bidding ignored, officials say

By Saltzman, Globe Staff | May 2, 2006

The Romney administration acknowledged yesterday that it violated its own

2003 law to curb the hiring of outside law firms when it retained one of the

biggest firms in Massachusetts without competitive bidding in a bitter dispute

over asbestos at a courthouse.

Mark Nielsen, legal counsel to Governor Mitt Romney, said the Division of

Capital Asset Management committed an oversight when it hired Goulston & Storrs

in December 2004 to represent the division in a feud with employees at the

J. Sullivan Courthouse in Cambridge who have demanded that they be

relocated. The firm charged the division $325,191 in legal fees, according to

state records.

Under a law passed at the urging of Romney, the executive branch is

prohibited from hiring private lawyers unless the governor's legal counsel

certifies

in writing that no government lawyer can do the work and unless the state

seeks the lowest bid. Romney predicted the measure would save taxpayers

millions

of dollars in legal fees.

But B. Perini, commissioner of capital asset management, ignored the

law, Nielsen said.

''I don't think there was any absence of good faith on his part, but there

was an oversight, " Nielsen said. ''I've instructed him in going forward that we

need to take steps to ensure compliance with the statute. "

Nielsen said the hiring of Goulston & Storrs is the only time he is aware of

the executive branch breaking the law.

A spokesman for Perini had no comment, but said the division will issue a

statement today.

Nielsen issued his acknowledgement after the Globe reported the $325,191 bill

yesterday by Goulston & Storrs, an expensive firm that represented the

division at six hearings on the asbestos situation before a Massachusetts Bar

Association committee in 2005.

The state's top trial court judge, A. Mulligan, approved the hiring of

the firm, even though the Romney administration was the client, said a

spokeswoman for the judiciary.

Mulligan retained Goulston & Storrs last month to defend him in a lawsuit

filed April 7 by angry courthouse employees who fear that exposure to asbestos

fireproofing could harm them. Those legal fees are not yet available from the

state. The law that Perini violated applies only to the executive branch of

government, so Mulligan did not have to seek bids.

A. Milne, a Dover lawyer representing courthouse employees at no cost

in the suit, said the state could have resolved the dispute amicably, but

instead ''hired a high-priced firm and basically fought people tooth and nail.

And they are continuing to do that. "

Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley, one of the plaintiffs in the

suit, said, ''We've always believed that we can work this out without an

adversarial process or expensive lawyers. "

The courthouse on Thorndike Street is one of the busiest in the state. It

houses Middlesex Superior Court, Cambridge District Court, the Middlesex Jail,

and the district attorney's office. Employees have complained for years about

unreliable elevators, winter drafts, rainwater leaks, and sweltering summer

conditions.

In late 2004, the complaints grew more urgent after an occupational health

specialist identified what she called potentially hazardous asbestos in

numerous locations. Milne hired the specialist after the state prepared to

remove

asbestos from the elevator shafts, a project then expected to cost about $14.3

million.

After the bar association hearings, Mulligan and Perini agreed last May to

relocate all occupants before removing asbestos from the building. They also

promised to provide detailed information about any renovations that might

dislodge flaking asbestos.

Last month, however, courthouse employees said they learned that state

officials had done nine projects that could have spread asbestos particles since

the May deal. That prompted the suit.

The courthouse is scheduled to close Friday at 1 p.m. because more work on

the elevators is scheduled, said employees.

Saltzman can be reached at _jsaltzman@..._

(mailto:jsaltzman@...) .

State use of outside lawyers queried

Courthouse case spawns high bills

By Saltzman, Globe Staff | May 1, 2006

A bitter dispute over cancer-causing asbestos at the J. Sullivan

Courthouse in Cambridge has cost taxpayers more than $325,000 in legal fees

because the state hired an outside law firm to fight courthouse employees who

have

demanded they be relocated.

Since the feud erupted in late 2004, the Romney administration has paid

Goulston and Storrs, one of the biggest firms in Massachusetts, $325,191 to

represent it in hearings before a bar association committee investigating the

problem, according to state records.

In addition, the state's top trial court judge, A. Mulligan, had the

firm hired last month to defend him in a lawsuit filed by angry courthouse

workers who fear that exposure to asbestos fireproofing could cause health

problems. Those legal fees were not available yet from the state.

A. Milne, a Dover lawyer representing courthouse employees at no cost,

predicted the state will end up paying the firm $1 million before the dispute

is resolved, and he questioned whether it was legal to hire Goulston and

Storrs in the first place.

A 2003 law that the Romney administration trumpeted as a way to save the

state millions of dollars requires the executive branch to hire outside counsel

through competitive bidding and to prove no other government lawyer can do the

work. The state never did that, Milne said.

''Under what authority can they go out and hire private counsel? " he asked,

referring to B. Perini, commissioner of the Division of Capital Asset

Management, and Mulligan, chief justice for administration and management.

Although the 2003 law exempts the judiciary, Milne asked, ''What statute allows

a judicial agency to spend taxpayers' dollars on a private lawyer when one is

available in the attorney general's office? "

Attorney General F. Reilly, whose office typically defends state

agencies in lawsuits, did provide a legal team to Mulligan when Milne filed a

lawsuit April 7, prompting a court hearing that day. The suit accused Mulligan

of breaking a promise not to do repairs that could dislodge asbestos in the

1969 building until occupants were moved.

But at two subsequent hearings before Justice M. Greaney of the Supreme

Judicial Court, which is handling the pending lawsuit, Mulligan has been

primarily defended by high-priced Goulston and Storrs lawyers. Reilly's office

remains co-counsel. Reilly named the private lawyers special assistant

attorneys general, a practice typically used when the attorney general has a

conflict

of interest.

Flanigan, a spokesman for the capital asset management division, which

reports to the governor, declined to comment Friday on the decision to hire

Goulston and Storrs in 2004 instead of using lawyers from the division or

another state department. He said the division will review the hiring to make

sure it followed the law and will release its findings shortly.

The attorney general's office would not have represented the state in six

fact-finding bar association hearings, which generated the $325,191 bill,

according to First Assistant Attorney General S. Lovell. Her office,

she

said, represents state agencies only when suits are filed. After Mulligan

was sued, she said, he told her office that Goulston and Storrs was familiar

with the dispute and should stay on the job.

Joan Kenney, a spokeswoman for Mulligan, said in an e-mail message that ''all

the appropriate steps were followed " when Mulligan hired Goulston and Storrs

to handle his lawsuit, filed last month. She declined to say why Mulligan

needed private counsel in addition to the attorney general's office.

M. Zielinski, one of the private lawyers representing Mulligan, did

not return phone calls. The fees paid to the outside counsel -- which include

$274,353 for Goulston and Storrs lawyers and $50,838 for expert witnesses who

testified at the hearings -- angered Middlesex courthouse occupants, who are

already fuming over conditions at the 22-story courthouse.

Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley, a candidate for attorney general

and one of the plaintiffs in the suit, said she was ''surprised and

disappointed that tax dollars are being paid in a matter that we've always

thought

didn't need to be adversarial. " About 85 of the 300 courthouse employees work

for her.

''Instead of putting energy into developing a plan that would allow for the

removal of occupants in a safe way. . . efforts have been made to deny that

there's a problem or to spend money in ways that aren't productive, " she said.

The courthouse on Thorndike Street houses Middlesex Superior Court, Cambridge

District Court, and the jail, in addition to the district attorney's office.

Employees have long complained about the building's balky elevators, winter

drafts, leaks, and summer swelters.

The complaints gained urgency in late 2004 after an occupational health

specialist toured the building and identified what she called potentially

hazardous asbestos in numerous locations. Milne hired the specialist after the

state

prepared to remove asbestos from the elevator shafts, a project then

expected to cost about $14.3 million.

In January 2005, the Massachusetts trial attorneys' association voted to sue

the state, if necessary, to force the evacuation of the building before

renovations. But no suit was filed.

After the Massachusetts Bar Association hearings, Mulligan and Perini agreed

last May to relocate all occupants before removing asbestos and renovating

the courthouse.

Earlier this month, however, courthouse workers learned that state officials

had done nine projects that could dislodge flaking asbestos since the May

agreement and were planning more.

Saltzman can be reached at jsaltzman@globe .com.

M.L.W., May 1, 2006

News Brief

Lawyer for CJAM declines mediation

Concerned over the precedent that could be set, the lawyer for the chief

justice for administration and management has declined to mediate the Middlesex

Court asbestos-removal dispute.

M. Zielinski of Boston, who is representing CJAM A. Mulligan,

said if the matter went to mediation, it could result in disgruntled

courthouse employees airing their grievances anytime they disagree with the

decisions of judicial administrators.

A group of plaintiffs, including Middlesex County District Attorney Martha

Coakley, is seeking, among other things, that the court replace Mulligan as

manager of the asbestos project.

A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court began a hearing on April 21

by asking the lawyers involved in the lawsuit whether they would agree to sit

down with a mediator.

A. Milne of Dover, who represents the interests of some 200 of

the nearly 300 courthouse employees, immediately accepted the request by

Justice M. Greaney and even volunteered to pay the bill. " Compared to the

scope of the problem, we'd certainly be in favor of it, " he said.

But Zielinski quickly countered that his client would not be amenable to

mediation.

" Think of the precedent it would set anytime an occupant had a grievance, "

he told the judge. " You can imagine the number of people who would come

forward and air their grievances if they knew that they could just file suit or

seek mediation whenever they wanted to challenge work being done. "

After the hearing, Zielinski told Lawyers Weekly that the consequences of

agreeing to mediation could prove overwhelming.

" If a precedent is set that whenever someone has one of those concerns, or

if they don't think things are being done right, they can file for mediation

and have a court review the decisions of the CJAM, then you'll have a threat

to the administration of justice, " he said.

Zielinski said a statewide survey conducted in 2000 found there are courts

in worst shape than the Middlesex County courthouse.

" There are a good 70 or 80 courthouses that on the objective assessment of

the master plan are in more need of repair, improvement and maintenance, " he

said. " So with all respect for the employees who work in the Middlesex

courthouse, what do you say to the people who work in Taunton or Salem or Fall

River

or the Plymouth Juvenile Court? "

But Milne noted that the issues in this case are unique and there would be

no precedential effect.

He said that the lack of communication between the parties has been a major

factor in the dispute and that mediation would set up a protocol for how

information would be shared effectively.

© 2006 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.