ATHOL — On the recommendation of Town Counsel John N. Barrett, the Selectboard chose the Massachusetts Opioid Litigation Attorneys to represent the town in opioid litigation.
The association of attorneys includes KP Law, which provides labor counsel services for Athol.
Barrett examined three firms or consortiums of attorneys involved in opioid litigation prior to making his recommendation. He stated roughly 65 to 70 cities and towns across Massachusetts have signed with MOLA, and it is his impression this consortium may have a greater appreciation or understanding of smaller communities and the cost the opioid epidemic has had on them.
MOLA’s litigation on behalf of cities and towns aims to recover monetary damages from pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors that have flooded communities with opioids. The damages are for past costs, including law enforcement, needle exchanges, opioid-overdose antidotes, emergency medical services, and future mitigation/abatement damages for the foreseeable expenditures of taxpayer money toward community treatment, education, and prevention.
According to MOLA, the litigation is intended to address a significant problem. It focuses on the wholesale distributors and manufacturers of opioids and their role in the diversion of millions of prescription opiates into the illicit market, resulting in opioid addiction, abuse, disease and mortality.
In a letter to the town, MOLA states in part, “There is no easy solution and no precedent for such an action against this sector of the industry. Many of the facts of the case are locked behind closed doors. The billion-dollar industry denies liability. The litigation will be very expensive and the litigation expenses will be advanced by the firm with reimbursement contingent upon a successful recovery.”
The lawsuit’s purpose is to seek reimbursement of the costs incurred in the past fighting the opioid epidemic and or recover money necessary to abate the health and safety crisis caused by the unlawful conduct of the wholesale distributors and manufacturers of opioids.
If the remedy is in the form of equitable relief, the town agrees to pay 25 percent of the gross value to the firm as compensation and then reimburse the reasonable litigation expenses.
Asked about “equitable relief,” Barrett said KP Law’s Mark Riech explained this is meant to cover the value of any tangible benefit (for example, an ambulance or antidote supplies), which the town might choose to accept instead of a cash payment. The town has the right to accept or reject this form of settlement. Barrett said, “I am satisfied that this would not compel the town to appropriate funds to pay the attorneys unless the town chooses this form of settlement.”
Selectman Lee Chauvette, who has many years experience in the public safety sector, said, “I don’t want to see the town committed to something and get a massive fee in this.”
According to the agreement, the town will pay 25 percent of the total recovery gross amount. If there is no recovery, the town does not pay a fee. The town will not be required to reimburse the MOLA for litigation expenses of any kind if there is no recovery. If there is a recovery, the expenses charged shall be capped at 10 percent of the recovery, and fees and expenses combined will not exceed 35 percent of the town’s gross recovery.
The town may discharge MOLA at any time by written notice.