Massachusetts Law Review
The issue of affordable housing continues to be an extremely contentious topic in Massachusetts politics. At the center of this controversy is the statutory scheme contained in Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40B, sections 20-23, frequently referred to as the anti-snob zoning statute, the Comprehensive Permit Law or simply Chapter 40B.1
The difficult and controversial question of the propriety of a lawyer's contact with an organizational adversary's employees and agents under Model Rule 4.2 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct has troubled the bench and bar for many years. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court confronted the question on three occasions in 2002. In March, the court issued its decision in Messing, Rudavsky & Weliky, P.C. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College;1 in June, it revised Comment 4 to Rule 4.2 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct (Comment);2 and, in November, it decided Patriarca v. Center For Living & Working, Inc.3
The case of Newly Weds Foods, Inc. v. Westvaco Corp.,1 decided in 2002, has raised the stakes in environmental due diligence for Massachusetts real estate acquisitions. Proving a case for recovery of cleanup costs for a seller's oil contamination under the Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention Act,2 has become much more challenging.