Speaker 3 told the committee an outside consultant and the town attorney concluded the town "does not have standing to file this type of lawsuit" challenging state law changes that the presentation described as limiting jury trials. "So they're looking at other avenues in which this can be addressed," Speaker 3 said, adding he had no further specifics at the meeting.

The update centered on a legal strategy question: members said the lawsuit was intended to contest a state provision they described as removing the right to a jury for certain proceedings. Speaker 2 asked to confirm that outside counsel had informed the town it could not pursue the case in the form originally planned; Speaker 3 affirmed that was his understanding.

Committee members agreed the next step is a focused discussion with staff and counsel to determine alternatives and to avoid "spinning our wheels." Speaker 3 suggested requesting a meeting with town staff and the attorney to receive a clearer, documented direction before the committee takes further public-facing action.

The committee did not vote on legal strategy at the meeting. Members asked for a report back once town staff or counsel can say whether the town can pursue a different legal approach or whether non‑litigation options exist.