Attorney Max Wistow drops RI lawsuit over Washington Bridge failure

Hiring Wistow’s firm was announced by Governor Dan McKee during a press conference in April. Wistow, along with attorney Jonathan Savage, was hired to investigate who was responsible for the bridge’s failure, with the goal of recouping money for the state. Savage continues to keep an eye on the case.

Wistow is known in Rhode Island for his payback work millions for the state after the bankruptcy of Curt Schilling’s video game company, 38 studiosand also for getting millions for the victims of the Station nightclub fire.

The westbound Washington Bridge has been closed since December 2023 after a critical failure involving tension rods was discovered. While the state initially planned to repair the structure, more problems were discovered in the following months, and now the plan is to completely demolish and rebuild the highway bridge. Demolition is expected to take at least another year there is no expected date yet for the construction of a new bridge.

The external lawyers had done that investigated the case from April to August, and were ready to file the lawsuit against the 13 defendants when Neronha became involved. He told the Globe at the time that without his office being the “final decision maker” and leader of the case, the lawsuit was at risk of being dismissed. The lawsuit was filed on August 16.

Reached by the Globe, Wistow declined to comment on why he withdrew, citing attorney-client privilege.

Neronha’s spokesman Tim Rondeau also declined to comment on why Wistow left the business. Wistow’s office has been replaced by the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

“Max Wistow has informed us of his decision to withdraw from this lawsuit for professional reasons,” Rondeau said. “We are grateful for Attorney Wistow’s contributions to this investigation and case. Our preference would have been for him to be part of the trial team, but we respect his decision and are grateful that he has agreed to remain on the case until we find replacement counsel.”

Wistow can still be paid up to 2.66 percent of any recovery, according to a new agreement signed Thursday between McKee, Neronha and the third-party companies. The total amount to be shared between the companies amounts to 16.66 percent of the damages awarded to the state. They do not receive any money if they do not win money, but they are reimbursed by the state for the costs incurred during the case.

Cohen Milstein, the new firm, “has an extensive track record, including successfully navigating complex, high-profile cases such as the historic Flint, Michigan Water Contamination lawsuit,” Rondeau said.

It’s unclear what impact the shakeup in attorneys will have on the case. But the frosty relationship between McKee and Neronha, both Democrats, deteriorated this week after Neronha declined to charge McKee in a criminal investigation with a teaching contract, but still accused him of violating procurement rules.

McKee shot Neronha at a press conference on Thursdayin which he stated, “I don’t trust the attorney general.”

Both McKee and Neronha signed the new bridge lawsuit agreement Thursday, according to a copy of the agreement, which states Neronha has veto power over any decisions made in the case.

After taking over the case, Neronha said he referred the RI Department of Transportation stop the bridge demolition in Septemberin an attempt to preserve evidence. The dismantling of the bridge resumed in October at McKee’s direction, after a month’s break.

Meanwhile, several companies charged in the lawsuit filed motions this week to dismiss the case, including the company that built the bridge and is now in the midst of demolition, Aetna Bridge Co.

A joint venture of Barletta Heavy Division and Aetna, which contracted in 2021 to rehabilitate the bridge, wrote that “the state’s blame game is political and has no supporting legal basis.”

The defendants claim that the decision to renovate the bridge at the time they were hired — rather than build a new one — “rested solely with the state.”

“The state’s decision to purchase the project was found to be flawed following the discovery, in early 2024, of compromised post-tension tendons in the beams after expensive (and previously unfunded) testing was allowed,” the defendants’ attorneys wrote. “If the state had conducted those expensive tests before issuing the RFP for the project, the renovation portion of the project would not have even made it to the drawing board.”

Another defendant, AECOM, wrote on its own motion to dismiss that the state has not made clear what type of damage that company, which provided design services, is responsible for.

“At no time did AECOM perform any physical work on the bridge and AECOM had no responsibility for the maintenance or physical repair of the bridge,” the company wrote.

Several other companies also asked Judge Brian Stern this week to dismiss the case. It is not yet clear when the motions will be heard.

---

Steph Machado can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her @StephMachado.