Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

provides by rules promulgated iiridcr . . . s;c~:tiori 21
ui c:haptet- 40R [,mionq othcr pcrmit.ting prncesses]. . .
for the irnposi t.ion of reasonah1.e fees for t.he
empl.oyment of outside consult.ants may deposit such
fees in a special account.."
The HAC ~Lated j.13 j.ts decision Lhat condition 79
"may be interpreted to require payment. of the board's
fees for qeneral legal represent,at.i.on," arid held ChaL
\I
[SI ince this is riot perinj.tt.ed, the curidition shall be
const.riied to permiL the Hoard t:o iisscss only peer
review fees Lhat are pr0pe.r undcr our precedei1t.s." KA
Vol.1, 470 (ci.ting HAC decisions). Althoi~qh it did not
claborat-e, such prcccdents express the HAC'S apparent
posj ti on thaC attorneys are iiot "outside consu1tant.s"
and thus caririuL be paj.d with 53G Lurid:;. There is no
basis in law for such position. Nothing in G.L, c. 44,
s. 53G distinguishes betwecri attorneys and other
professional consultants ret.ained by rriuriicipai bards,
or othcrwisc disqual i fies atturr'icys from 53G funds.
Not.hjng in G.1,. c.rl@B makes such a distinction, or
even addresses the issue of consultant. fees. No Court
has ever held that ntLorneys, either in the Chapter
4(lB context, or in any context, are disqualified irom
.53G funds. In the only reported case acidrcssir.iy t.he
46