Hiring of Wistow’s firm It was announced by Governor Dan McKee at a press conference in April.. Wistow, along with attorney Jonathan Savage, was hired to investigate who was responsible for the bridge’s failure in order to recoup the state’s money. Savage remains involved in the case.

Wistow is known for remedial work in Rhode Island millions For the state after the failure of Curt Schilling’s video game company 38 Studiosand at the same time to make millions for the victims Station nightclub fire.

The westbound Washington Bridge has been closed since December 2023 after a critical fault with the tie rods was discovered. While the state initially planned to repair the structure, more problems emerged in the following months and the highway bridge is now planned to be completely demolished and rebuilt. Demolition is expected to last at least another year There is no expected date yet for when the new bridge will be built.

There were lawyers outside investigated the case From April to August, they were preparing to indict 13 defendants when Neronha became involved. He told the Globe at the time that the case was at risk of being dismissed without his office being the “ultimate decision-maker” and leader of the case. lawsuit filed On August 16th.

Reached by the Globe, Wistow declined to comment on the reason for his withdrawal, citing attorney-client privilege.

Neronha spokesman Tim Rondeau also declined to comment on why Wistow dropped the lawsuit. Wistow’s firm was replaced by the law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll.

“Max Wistow has informed us of his decision to withdraw from this case for professional reasons,” Rondeau said. “We are grateful to Attorney Wistow for his contributions to this investigation and this case. “It was our choice that he remain part of the litigation team, but we respect his decision and are grateful that he agreed to remain on the case until we can find a replacement attorney.”

Under a new agreement signed Thursday between McKee, Neronha and outside firms, Wistow could be paid up to 2.66 percent of the potential recovery. The total amount to be shared between companies will be 16.66 percent of the compensation given to the state. If they cannot make money, they are not paid, but the expenses incurred during the case are reimbursed by the state.

Rondeau said the new firm, Cohen Milstein, “has an extensive track record that includes successfully handling complex, high-profile matters such as the Flint, Michigan Water Pollution case.”

It’s unclear what impact the change in attorneys will have on the case. But the frosty relationship between McKee and Neronha, both Democrats, worsened this week in Neronha’s wake. Refused to charge McKee in criminal investigation includes a training contract, but still accused him of violating purchasing rules.

McKee He blasted Neronha at a press conference on Thursdayhe declared: “I don’t trust the attorney general.”

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

Neronha said he gave instructions to the RI Department of Transportation after getting the case under control. Stop the demolition of the bridge in SeptemberHe’s trying to preserve the evidence. bridge dismantling Relaunched in October under McKee’s instructions, after a month-long pause.

Meanwhile, Aetna Bridge Co., which built the bridge and is currently in the process of demolishing it. Many companies sued in the case, including , filed petitions to dismiss the case this week.

The joint venture of Barletta Heavy Division and Aetna, which was contracted in 2021 to rehabilitate the bridge, wrote that “the state’s blame game is political and lacks a supportable legal basis.”

The defendants argue that the decision to repair the bridge at the time they were hired, rather than build a new bridge, was “solely the state’s responsibility.”

“The state’s decision to purchase the project was revealed to be flawed when it was discovered that post-stress tendons in the beams were compromised after expensive (and previously unfunded) testing was authorized in early 2024,” the defendants’ attorneys wrote. “If the state had done these expensive tests before issuing the RFP for the project, the rehabilitation portion of the project would not have even hit the drawing board.”

Another defendant, AECOM, wrote in its own motion that the state did not clearly state what type of damage the company providing design services was responsible for.

“AECOM did not perform any physical work on the bridge at any time, and AECOM had no responsibility for maintaining or physically repairing the bridge,” the company wrote.

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

Steph Machado can be reached at [email protected]. follow him @StephMachado.