WPCA votes to join PFAS litigation via legal retainer; commissioners express conflict-of-interest questions
Loading...
Summary
The WPCA voted unanimously Jan. 15 to approve a legal retainer to join multi-jurisdictional PFAS litigation; commissioners asked about potential conflicts because the presenting law firm represents parties that have claims involving the town, and the retainer will be signed by the WPCA signatory and be contingent on any recovery.
The Fairfield Water Pollution Control Authority voted unanimously to approve a legal retainer to join multi‑jurisdictional litigation against manufacturers of PFAS‑containing products, the commission announced at its Jan. 15 meeting.
The retainer presented to the commission was from SGT Law (identified in meeting material); the law firm outlined a multi‑jurisdictional claim strategy and asked the WPCA to become a participating claimant on a pending case. The retainer was structured so that legal fees would be charged only from any eventual recovery, the presenting staff member said. A motion to approve the retainer was moved and seconded and the commission recorded a unanimous “aye.” The transcript records the motion as: “Motion to approve the PFAS litigation legal retainer as presented,” followed by a second and “Unanimous, aye.”
Several commissioners raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest because the law firm also represents parties that the town has named in other suits. One commissioner observed that the firm “is presently representing other parties who have potential claims against the town of Fairfield” and asked whether that created a conflict; commissioners reported they were advised by counsel that no conflict existed or that a waiver was requested. Nevertheless, some commissioners said the dual representation gave them pause; the commission’s attorney advised that the town’s counsel had reviewed the issue.
No settlement or fee payment was approved at the meeting; the retainer approval authorizes staff to sign the retainer and join as a claimant. Staff told the commission that if the WPCA did not sign on, the staff member taking the proposal to the town would convey the commission’s decision and the reason for non‑participation.
Action recorded
- Motion: “Approve the PFAS litigation legal retainer as presented.” - Mover/Second: not specified in transcript (motion moved and seconded) - Outcome: Approved; recorded in transcript as “Unanimous, aye.” - Fee arrangement: contingent on recovery (legal fees charged from award/settlement)
The commission also discussed the scope of the litigation and the large manufacturers commonly targeted in PFAS actions; one commissioner referenced well‑known manufacturer defendants by brand but no specific local exposure or settlement amounts were discussed during the meeting.
