Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-25 ad Hoc Town Counsel Review Committee MinutesLegal Services Review Committee Meeting September 25, 2000 The meeting convened at 8:00 p.m. in the Town Hall Conference Room, 16 Lowell Street, Reading, Massachusetts. Present were Chairman Camille Anthony, Members Tim Twomey, Jonathan Barnes, Stephen Crook, Town Manager Peter Hechenbleikner, David Thomas, Mark Ventola, Rod Hoffman, Leonard Kopelman, resident Kendra Cooper. The purpose of this meeting is to interview three candidates for the position of Town Counsel. Burns & Levinson - David Thomas and Mark Ventola were present representing Burns & Levinson, and explained that the capability and expertise of the 135 lawyers of the firm are at the Town's disposal. Billable rates are irrelevant. Burns & Levinson provides legal counsel services to municipalities. The municipal government unit includes an expert in environmental law, labor relations, real estate, zoning and business law. They are Town Counsel for Ashland, and are the only firm that has been reappointed in that community. They have been there for approximately 8 years. They have through Burns & Levinson 77 different attorneys who will do work on their behalf. Burns & Levinson bills at $135.00 per hour for work over and above the retainer proposed. Their legal staff are people who care about municipal government, and many of their attorneys have been public officials. They will not be counsel to more than 5 f towns at a time they want to keep their reputation and do a great job. They are not a municipal law firm. They are looking forward to the opportunity to provide good legal services. They feel that preventative law is important. They will mediate, negotiate and advise, and the worse case they will litigate they are very good at litigation. They stay on top of things. They will provide %2 day per week in town, all under the retainer. The Department Head and staff would sign up for meeting with counsel through the Town Manager's Office. They would work under the Town Manager's direction. They committed that they will be where they are needed, when they are needed. They have never missed any sessions of a Town Meeting or other meeting where they had advance notice. They will review all Warrant Articles, deal with the Attorney General on the approval of Bylaws, review all Bylaws and drafts, all within the retainer. Jonathan Barnes asked what communities they work for. Burns & Levinson are looking for long-term relationships, and work in Hopkinton and Hingham. Most of the partners in the firm have been there 12 to 20 years. They have the ability to concentrate on a few towns. They have looked to see if they have any conflicts, and they do not know of any. They have two litigators, a paralegal and a zoning specialist working with lead counsel. f`Bums & Levinson offers cost effective quality services, and they give the communities their best, most qualified people. Legal Services Review Committee Meeting September 25, 2000 - Page 2 Most of their attorneys also represent the "other side" i.e., applications before Conservation Commissions, Board of Appeals, etc. and, therefore, they know all the details of these particular areas. Tim Twomey asked how many partners vs. associates they have - the firm is 50150. He asked what training they would do, and it was noted that they would do training in general statutes, ethics, MCAD, sexual harassment and management training. They would do training approximately once per month for nine months of the year. They also do training in Chapter 30B relative to contracts, and do tax lien and foreclosure work including tracking. Stephen Crook asked if they use paralegals for appropriate things. The response was that they do use paralegals but they usually do not bill for them - since a majority of paralegal work is included in the retainer. Camille Anthony asked about the retainer. Burns & Levinson noted that it was $2,800 per month for the first year, to be kept at the same level for the second year, and would increase 5% in the third year. The hourly rate would increase from $135 for the first year to $145 for the second year. There was discussion as to what would be included under the retainer, and it was indicated that they would have to get back to us with the details. It was noted that some of the work that they do is to review all Board of Appeals decisions before they are finalized. There are review procurements and bids. Definitely not included in the retainer are things like litigation, labor law, environmental law and tax liens. There is no mark up on their out of pocket expenses. It was noted that the hours spent in Ashland are approximately 1,000 hours a year, and that Reading's use of counsel seems high. They take pride in being responsive and if they have too many municipal clients, they may not be able to be responsive. One of the associates lives in Stoneham, and will be able to provide services usually to Reading. Deutsch Williams Brooks DeRensis et al - Rod Hoffinan representing the firm was present. Mr. DeRensis was not able to be present due to a conflict in his schedule. Hoffman noted that Deutsch Williams is very good at what they do. They are responsive to the needs of their clients, and they help their Department Heads to get things done. They resolve issues and they have a 96% success in litigation. Their feeling is that the Town ought not to be involved in litigation generally and, therefore, they pick and choose what litigation they will recommend to the community. Jonathan Barnes asked if they had any cost containment suggestions, and Hoffman indicated they don't now. They would have to get involved with the community and review our current practices. They would try what has worked with other towns including training on things like procurement law. Jonathan Barnes asked if they had office hours in Town Hall, and Hoffinan noted that they do not do regular office hours but they are always on call. The firm uses a contact sheet for all calls for counsel services, and lead counsel follows up with whom the project Leal Services Review Committee Meeting= September 25, 2000 - Page 3 is assigned. They go through a formal request process that goes through Paul DeRensis to the person who is doing the work. Tim Twomey asked what they do proactively in training. Hoffman noted that they do education workshops on a broad range of issues including things like affordable housing. They do training for Boards, Committees and Commissions since there is often change on Boards, Committees and Commissions. They sometimes send a member of the firm to a Board, Committee and Commission Meeting incognito and then review the performance of the Board. Tim Twomey asked about the ratio of partners and associates, and it was noted that it was 50150. Twomey asked about what is covered under the retainer and what is not. Hoffman noted that real estate and litigation is not included, and he was not sure about appellate tax board work and tax foreclosure work. Stephen Crook asked if the Town Meeting Warrant review is included in the retainer, and it was noted that it was. Camille Anthony asked if the transition was included in the retainer, and it was noted that it would be. For transition purposes, they would review all litigation and make decisions as to whether they should stay with current counsel or change. Camille Anthony asked if they use paralegals, and Hoffman indicated that they do not have one doing primarily municipal work. In litigation and for filing real estate work, paralegals are used. Tim Twomey asked at what rate paralegals are billed, and it was noted that it was $60.00 an hour. Hoffinan noted that items were referred to different attorneys based on their area of expertise. The Town Manager asked if they do retirement law, and it was noted that this would be not under the retainer but would be a special expense. Hoffman noted that there are ten lawyers in the firm who do non-labor law municipal work and training is part of the retainer. Hoffman noted that Deutsch Williams has replaced law firms in two towns and the transition has gone well. They review all cases and determine what makes sense depending upon the status of the case. There would not be a charge for reviewing ongoing cases in the transition process. Tim Twomey asked if they charge for telephone advice, and it was indicated that they do. Twomey asked whether their price was a three year price. Hoffinan noted that if they are appointed, they would go to three year pricing. Twomey asked additional questions about what is covered under the retainer, and what would be covered under the hourly rate. Clearly, litigation is on the hourly rate as is our union collective bargaining. Hoffman noted that the retainer in Ashland is $2200 per month, not including school, and they have 31 active matters. Their bill last year was $69,000. They don't do much spread work, appellate tax board work or tax lien work. They are currently counsel in Randolph, Cohasset, Carlisle and Nantucket. Legal Services Review Committee Meeting - September 25, 2000 - Page 4 The Town Manager asked if they do school work in any communities, and it was noted that they do in Nantucket and Cohasset. Stephen Crook asked what they felt was a reasonable number of hours. Camille Anthony asked about DeRensis's contact with other clients and his availability. Hoffman noted that DeRensis is on the Board of Selectmen in Dover, and has very few conflicts. Kopelman & Paige - Leonard Kopelman was present and made the following presentation to the Committee: There are 42 lawyers in the firm, and they are accurate, speedy and cost effective. The real issue he felt is cost. There have been a lot of changes in the firm in three years, and the changes have been positive. They have a 10 year lease at a very favorable rate. They have bought a complete computer system and scanned material from the last fifteen years into this system. Clients can tie into the Kopelman & Paige computer system. They have a Pittsfield office now to serve the western part of the state. They are much faster with responses - if a request for information comes into the office, the request is e-mailed around the office and people respond to the lead partner with the answer. They don't charge for paralegals and secretarial help. They very well understand issues that are emerging in municipal law like telecommunications, adult entertainment, landfill closures, energy deregulation and the like. Kopelman has edited the Mass. Selectmen's Handbook and the Mass. FinCom Handbook. Other lawyers who may contest municipal actions, know Kopelman & Paige and tend not to. They recently added Braintree to the communities they serve. They don't charge for transition. The ratio partners to associates is 1-3. They have $3 million in malpractice insurance. All lawyers are good - the newest three are still in training. Len Kopelman would be lead counsel for the Town. He started out work in Brookline and became Town Counsel there. He helped train Ted Cohen. He indicated that nobody could compete on quality, speed and cost. Len Kopelman does two or three towns where he is lead counsel, and he will give its references of those. Kopelman does problem solving for a number of communities. Tim Twomey asked what it was about Reading that appealed to him, and he noted that it was close by and well run. He has turned down large accounts because they would be too disruptive - usually in cities. He does Town Counsel work in two cities - Leominster and Amesbury. Reading will be a perfect fit and allows Kopelman & Paige to grow. He would do training in items like sexual harassment. The firm does special counsel work as fill in and, therefore, the extent that Reading took other time, they would do less special counsel time. They do not charge for travel time. Jonathan Barnes asked whether the relationship would be a long term relationship with Kopelman, and Kopelman noted that he would want it to be a personal relationship. He does not charge to talk to the Board of Selectmen or the Town Manager. He tries to understand what they want to do, tells them how they could do it, and would refer them to who is doing that particular item. Legal Services Review Committee Meeting - September 25, 2000 - Page 5 Tim Twomey asked if in the last five years towns have dropped Kopelman & Paige.. Kopelman noted that he has never been fired but has not been reappointed by eight towns in the history of the firm. In six towns, he has been rehired. In North Andover, he was not rehired three years ago and in Billerica, the same. Camille Anthony asked if they had growing pains in dealing with this level of work. Kopelman noted that the biggest limit to growth is getting good people. They can handle Reading's work by just turning down some of the special counsel work they are doing. They never turn down work for the town where they are Town Counsel. Stephen Crook asked where Len Kopelman was the lead counsel, and Kopelman noted that he is lead counsel in two to three towns. He would remain the prime contact for the duration of the relationship with Reading. Kopelman noted that they are always hiring new attorneys. He would attend all Town Meetings, and would do training so that the use of counsel would not be so much. Phone access saves money. Kopelman lives in Chestnut Hill and, therefore, Reading is very accessible. He suggests that towns not use him at Town Meetings where legal counsel is not needed - such as budget meetings. Camille Anthony asked about the transition. Kopelman would meet with the Town Manager to identify the critical issues, and would meet with the Department Heads. He believes in practicing preventative law. He would review all cases and determine whether they should stay with current counsel or move over to the new counsel. He would meet with the Board of Selectmen periodically on cases that are pending, and would see if all the cases need to or should go forward, or if some of them should be settled. Camille Anthony asked about the fee structure, and Kopelman noted that he raises his fee by $5.00 every two years. He did note that the $125 per hour fee that he quoted would be good for three years in Reading. Training is done at no cost. On motion by Crook seconded by Barnes, the Legal Services Review Committee voted to adjourn their meeting of September 25, 2000 at 10:00 p.m. by a vote of 4-0-0. Respectfully submitted, Weary ' i