City Dishes Out Big Bucks in Legal Fees

Attleboro has paid nearly $232,000 in legal fees through the end of March this year.

The city of Attleboro has paid more than $231,000 in legal fees to the city solicitor for nearly 1,277 billable hours from January through March 2011, Robert Mangiaratti, the city's attorney, told members of the Attleboro City Council Tuesday. 

The city has faced huge legal expenses because of the several litigation cases brought against the city and the increase in foreclosures the city's collection department has faced, Mangiaratti said.

"I’ve long thought this information should see the fresh air and sunlight," Councilor Richard Conti told members of the council. Conti said the several pages of details will help the members of the City's Committtee on Property & Claims see whether the city is exposing itself to lawsuits and whether the city should be taking legal action against others. 

The bulk of legal expenses paid to the law firm of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane LLP includes $84,249 for nearly 479 billable hours and an additional $5,750 in unbilled fees and expenses.

All of that was related to the Attleboro Redevelopment Authority.  "The mayor has decided with your support to have its city solicitor defend the Attleboro Redevelopment Authority," Mangiaratti told the council. "All of it has involved a great deal of money.  "The alternative," he added, "would be to allow the ARA to go into a receivership and terminate all of the initiatives."

The largest chunk of ARA-related legal expenses — $48, 521 — involves a case brought against the city by former ARA Director Michael Milanoski, who was laid off by the authority. Milanoski has argued that the reason for the layoff was not due to lack of funds but because of political pretext, according to Mangiaratti.

"We tried to dispose of that case saying there is no money," Mangiaratti told the councilors. The hearing officer Janice Silverman upheld the ARA's position of dismissing Milanoski and Meg Ross (the then ARA 's CFO) because of lack of funds.

Silverman's decision, however, was appealed and brought before the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission and is still currently in process until the Commission makes a decision.

"That is all behind us and we are cautiously optimistic that we will prevail."

After the meeting, Mangiaratti said that there was an offer to settle early in the litigation process, but that both parties were too far apart from an agreement.  "If Mr. Milanoski is successful in his appeal, he'll be reinstated and will receive back pay,"Mangiaratti said.

Milanoski and Ross (also named in the case) together would receive back pay of their salaries approximatley ($109,000 and $77,000).

"As I said to the councilors, I'm cautiously optimistic," Mangiaratti said.

A total of $45,305 was paid for miscellaneous legal services including $8,459 in billable hours and expenses for a solar energy request for proposal and a $3,757 price tag for the Tappan House Project.

Councilor Duff White noted the 22 hours that were billed to the city for the Tappan House. "That’s a deal that involves many moving peaces," Mangiaratti said. "You have the owner of the Tappan House, a moving company, owner of the land to which it will be moved, public utilities affected by the move." "That's $4,000 for a free house," White said. "I wanted to make the public aware. The devil is in the details."

Summary of most expensive legal services provided to Attleboro (categorized by city departments).

City Dept. Hours Amount Expenses Total ARA 478 $80,971 $3,277  $84,248  MISC. 219 $36,269 $9,035 $45,304 DPW 65 $9,022 $9,822 $18,904 Conservation 94 $14,926 $967 $15,893 Collector 105 $14,611 $553 $15,164
Jerry Chase May 30, 2011 at 04:02 AM
And, BTW, I have no problem with Bob M.. I do note that the monetary amount mentioned, a bit over $231 'large', is for only one calendar quarter. At this rate, the annual sum would approach one mil.. It's a bad omen for the City to be paying the ARA legal bills, which are over a third of this total dollar amount, in the sense of what other costs will the city's taxpayers be dunned for. I know that there remain people who truly believe in the ARA and the IBP concepts. Yet others might say that the best that can be said about both is, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Fact Checker May 31, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Jerry: at what point will you just go away? Frank Cook made a mistake and corrected it. The DA agreed (that is why the DA took no action). As it has been pointed out here before, you willfully and repeatedly violated the Commonwealth's Open Meeting law. The only reason charges were not pressed against you is that nobody cares about your opinion! Anybody who doubts Jerry broke the law, check with the minutes of the Municipal council from late September 2008 to early October 2008. All of his violations were read into the record to remain for posterity. Could that be the reason Jerry fought to have the official minutes illegally altered? Nice legacy Jerry.
Jerry Chase May 31, 2011 at 09:11 PM
No estoy equivocado, Fact Checker. The office of D A Sam Sutter made only ONE ruling: that against Frank Cook for illegally-convening an executive session against the specific provisions of the Open Meeting Law, for which I have documentation from said office of Sam Sutter, dated 10/6/08. In stark contrast, I did not break the O. M. L.. The minutes, for which I have copies, are merely Frank's editorial(s). He is as self-deceived as you are. C'est la vie. Anyway, may you be well and have peace. The U. S. of A. is truly great. BTW, what's your real name, courageous one? Jerry
Jerry Chase October 20, 2011 at 05:49 PM
Now we're closing in on Halloween. I wonder how much the tab for legal expenses incurred by the City is up to by then. I say that it's about a half-million dollars. Does the City NEED to hire a high-priced BOSTON law firm? Yes, the bills come from the firm, not from Bob M. who is on their staff. I have no animus toward Bob. I'm simply asking why does the City have to spend so much money here.
Jerry Chase April 04, 2014 at 03:41 PM
Well, here it is almost three years since this report on the City's spending on legal services. It surely is fair to think that this "money down a rat-hole" has continued since this report was disseminated. Shouldn't the voters know how much the City has actually spent in the last three years for legal expenses? I remember that it was about $350,000 annually all of five years ago. There is no evidence to suggest that this amount is now less.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »