Tim Burke says IJ “injected itself” into Norwood case, not entitled to fees

They weren’t invited by the holdons? They crashed the party?

Admittedly, we have a bias regarding the Norwood case and Tim Burke’s deep involvement in our city’s affairs. That said, Burke’s arguments, if quoted correctly, against the IJ receiving attorney fees and costs sound both thin and desperate to us.

The losers in this case never made a secret of their contempt for the holdons (one now departed councilperson famously and loudly blamed the Gambles for Norwood’s financial problems during at least one council meeting) and the law firm, the IJ, they asked to represent them. For Burke to now argue that the fact the IJ didn’t charge the holdons fees throughout the entire process is a reason for the winning law firm to be denied compensation from the losers sounds absurd to us, even laughable.

Do tell us, Mr. Burke, how litigants who can’t afford pay-as-you-go attorneys can ever hope to protect their constitutional rights in court with your argument? And the IJ “injected itself?” That’s funny. We’ve had the same feeling about you, especially in regard to the rush job you tried to pull on our urban renewal ordinance last year. You know, the one we’re probably going to have to pay you to rewrite one more time.