Not exactly the best way to get off to a good start.

23. The sophistry of the Department's counsel was also exemplified on the first day of the trial when in her opening statement, Assistant Attorney General Yogman indicated that the Department had no obligation under the Settlement Agreement to act in good faith. This Court is appalled that a senior member of the Office of the Attorney General, representing an agency which is supposed to serve the people of the Commonwealth could seriously contend that there was no obligation for her client to act in good faith. Attorney Yogman's remarks were representative of the manner in which the Department and its counsel conducted these proceedings as well as their lack of respect for the judicial process.

National Law Journal, November 13, 1995

In 1986, the state and the center agreed to have a court-appointed monitor oversee their disputes. The center receives $1,771,000 from Massachusetts for its 11 students from that state, according to its executive director, Matthew Israel, and is named after Judge Ernest I. Rotenberg, the Bristol County probate judge who oversaw the litigation and ensuing agreement until his death in July 1992.

Scorching Reprimand

A year after the judge's death, the school filed a contempt complaint alleging that the Department of Mental Retardation, which regulates it, refused to meet with the monitor. A 13-day trial on the contempt charge began in June, and on Oct. 6, Judge Elizabeth O'Neill LaStaiti, who took over that matter when Judge Rotenberg died, released her 126-page decision. The document is a scorching reprimand of the department's officials and its lawyers. The judge - who says the attorneys "perpetrated a fraud on a tribunal" - denounced their behavior before, during and after the trial. Behavior Research Institute, Inc. v. Campbell, 86E0018-G1.