1. Introduction.
2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney
3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?
1. Introduction.
On May 4, 2011, I was in the audience as the attorneys for Cambridge and Malvina Monteiro argued the appeal of Malvina Monteiro v. City ofCambridge.
This is the civil rights case concerning allegations that the City of Cambridge destroyed the life of the head of its Police Review board, a black Cape Verdean woman in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint.
In this case:
a. the jury awarded about $1 million in real damages, and $3.5 million in penal damages and
b. the judge, in support of the award, quoted the City Manager testimony at length, and then, based on her analysis, called him “reprehensible.”
I was so very pleased by the presentation of the Monteiro attorney before the Appeals Court that I wrote a letter to the Cambridge Chronicle expressing my pleasure. My letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition.
On May 10, 2011, I received a phone call from a journalist on my office phone asking me what I thought of the idea of the city suing its attorney in Monteiro for malpractice.
It is my opinion that the City Council’s funding of the appeal without getting a second opinion constituted a dereliction of duty. I burst out laughing and confirmed my comments by email.
2. Praise for Monteiro’s Attorney
The following letter was printed in the May 12, 2011 edition of the Cambridge Chronicle on Page 12.
Its location was excellent.
It occupied a double column at the top left of the editorial page following a shorter letter. This location is the normal spot for editorials. No editorial was printed.
*********
Editor
Cambridge Chronicle
My commendations to Attorney Zucker on her representation of Malvina Monteiro before the Appeals Court on May 4, 2011 in response to Cambridge's appeal of the Superior Court decision in Malvina Monteiro v. City of Cambridge.
This is the case in which the jury awarded $4.5 million including $3.5 million in penal damages, and everything had passed $6.0 million a year ago.
Malvina Monteiro is a black Cape Verdean woman who, until her firing, was head of Cambridge's police review board.
Judge and jury found that the City of Cambridge destroyed Ms. Monteiro's life in retaliation for her filing a civil rights complaint. The judge went into extended analysis of the city manager's testimony in her key opinion. The judge proceded to find the Cambridge City Manager "reprehensible" based on her analysis.
I am not privy to the formal submittals in the case.
I did see Attorney Zucker's presentation before the Appeals Court.
I thought her presentation was excellent.
3. Should the City of Cambridge sue their attorney in Monteiro v. Cambridge for malpractice?
On May 10, 2011, I got a phone call at my law office from a woman who identified herself as a journalist. She asked me what I thought of the City of Cambridge suing their attorney in Malvina Montero.
I immediately laughed and then gave her a response which I summarized in the below email:
**********
It was a pleasure talking with you just now. I am copying a few people who have interest in this matter.
The YouTube URL presenting my formal presentation of my opinion on the proper handling of the Monteiro appeal is at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeGQtlFSg7k.
My edit of the Superior Court judge’s key opinion is posted at: http://charlesriverwhitegeeseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/judge-issues-decision-denying.html. This edit is paragraphed and formatted by me. It is taken from a posting by the Superior Court Clerk of Courts which totally lacked paragraphing. The paragraphing is my best estimate. I have made no other changes.
To put it succinctly, it is my opinion that, based on the Superior Court judge’s excellent opinion, the Cambridge City Council was derelict in its duty in funding the appeal of the Monteiro decision without getting independent opinion from an attorney competent in the field of employment law and civil rights law, and that such independent opinion should have been based on the entire record in this case.
If that attorney found that appeal was not warranted, based on the Superior Court judge and jury’s decision, it is my opinion that the city council should have suspended the Cambridge City Manager without pay and appointed the City Clerk as acting City Manager with direction to seek settlement with the plaintiff which would include firing of the City Manager, at minimum, without his golden parachute, plus, within a reasonable level of analysis, without pension.
Such agreement, when reached, should have been and still can be submitted to the Superior Court judge for her approval. The judge, I should think, would certainly approve firing without golden parachute inasmuich as, under these circumstances, the golden parachute would be in violation of public policy. Under the circumstances, I think there is good possibility as well that the judge would approve firing him without pension. The case, based on the judge’s opinion, looks like an ideal situation in which to seek to expand current law to this minor extent, especially since judge made law is very common in this field.
If I could be of further assistance, please contact me at 617-283-7649, my cell phone, or at boblat@yahoo.com.
Thank you very much for your interest and good luck with your story.
