Law Firms
Boston Archdiocese Replaces Firm with In-House Counsel
Posted Nov 30, 2007 4:11 PM CST
By Molly McDonough
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston is changing the face of its legal representation, axing its longtime but controversial law firm and replacing it with an in-house counsel.
Critics have long called for the archdiocese to replace its law firm, which for years defended the archdiocese against individuals who claimed they were abused by priests, the Boston Globe reports.
Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley announced Thursday that Goodwin Procter partner F. Beirne Lovely Jr. will replace the Rogers Law Firm, led by Wilson D. Rogers.
The new in-house counsel will handle a wide variety of legal matters, including personnel and real estate issues, along with church closings and sexual abuse cases.
The Rogers Law Firm won't be completely out of the picture. It will still represent the archdiocesan hospital network. According to the Globe, the archdiocese reported paying the firm $610,000 last fiscal year and $448,054 in 2005. The hospital network reported paying the firm $6.9 million over the past eight years.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
Paul
Dec 3, 2007 11:11 AM CST
For those entities concerned with legal expenses, especially governments this should be the way to go. Why pay outside counsel millions of dollars to represent the entity, when a first class legal department with “white shoe” legal talent can cost by a fraction of the cost of outside counsel? Entities that are frequent targets of employment or antitrust lawsuits can save a bundle by beefing up in-house counsel to handle these matters. The net result? Perhaps lower prices of goods, lower taxes, improved competitiveness in international markets? As a taxpayer, I am quite offended that governments hire outside counsel to handle litigation, instead of hiring competent counsel to join their legal staff.
It may be difficult as first blush to justify paying a government attorney $250,000, but when that one attorney handles the equivalent of $5 million of outside counsel expenses, the value is unquestionable.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.