|In This Issue|
|ASM Upcoming Events
We are sad that events still cannot happen in person and
so hopefully, if trends continue in the right direction, we can host live
programs again soon. This certainly would include our GC Showcase which is currently
scheduled for October 5th. On July 2,
Governor Baker issued an updated order pertaining to limits on gathering sizes in the
Commonwealth. The updated order provides for new indoor and outdoor gathering
limits as of July 6th. Indoor gatherings are limited to 8 persons
per 1,000 square feet of accessible, indoor floor space and never more than 25
persons in a single enclosed, indoor space. Any programs that we eventually do
hold, will be in-compliance with CDC recommendations and state health and safety
That being said, stay turned for more webinars and online
events and programs.
|Return to Top|
|ASM Associate Members are your Trusted Partners
Are you looking for
services from a trusted partner? Consider contacting an ASM Associate Member.
Our Associate Members include suppliers, law firms, insurance companies,
financial advisors and more. Click here for a list of our Associate Member
|Return to Top|
Today is July 27th.
Under normal circumstances, since this is an even numbered year, the
Legislature would conclude formal sessions this Friday July 31st.
Legislators would return to work in their districts for the balance of the
summer and then turn their focus to elections this fall. Like everything else,
this year we are not under normal circumstances. There will be the usual end of
July rush to get some bills over the finish line, but there are already
discussions happening about the Legislature coming back into session to address
outstanding issues. These would likely include passing a budget for the balance
of fiscal 2021. In addition, there could be more action on major bills
outstanding in the areas of transportation, economic development, energy, and
health care, to name a few.
Along with some of the “big
ticket” issues mentioned above, the Legislature continues to focus on COVID-19
bills. As of today, 228 bills have been filed in
the Massachusetts legislature specific to the pandemic on a variety of topics.
Many bills would impact employers. As you would expect, many
bills deal with unemployment programs, workers compensation, workplace safety,
employer liability, and relief bills for families, employers, and
municipalities. Certainly not all these bills will be signed into law and we
must acknowledge that not all issues can be fixed by legislation.
Legislation Heard at Virtual Public Hearing
The Joint Committee on
State Administration & Regulatory Oversight collected written testimony
this month on legislation that would make significant changes to the
Massachusetts filed sub-bid law. H.4511, a bill filed by the Baker-Polito
Administration would give additional authority to DCAMM and all awarding
authorities. Specifically, it would allow the awarding authority to set MBE and
WBE participation goals by requiring filed sub-bidders to subcontract up to 10%
of the work on filed sub-bids or trade bids on projects where the overall value
exceeds $5 million. The bill would also amend the filed sub-bid law to raise
the threshold for which the law applies from $150,000 to $1,000,000 total job
value and increase the individual bid value from $25,000 to $50,000.
ASM has a long and proud
history of supporting ways for more MWBE firms to enter the construction
business but at the same time, we raised some points of concern with some of
the specifics in this bill. Click here to view ASM’s testimony on this bill.
If you recall back to
February and early March, transportation and infrastructure funding was a main
issue on the minds of the public and the legislature. Traffic in the Greater
Boston area had never been so bad. The House passed a bill back in March that
would raise $500 million a year in additional revenue for transportation
projects with a 5- cent gas tax increase, a 9-cent diesel tax increase, and
additional fees on app ride services like Uber.
Last week, the Senate
approved a bill that would allow cities and towns to impose new tax surcharges
for local transportation projects. This would allow municipalities the ability
to form regional tax districts to place a surcharge on property tax, sales tax,
auto excise, and lodging tax. New taxes would require local approval. As some
have pointed out, this would create a patchwork of tax policy across the
commonwealth. This is one issue that remains unresolved.
AG Overturns Brookline
Gas and Oil Moratorium
Last week, Attorney General
Maura Healey issued
a decision blocking Brookline’s bylaw that would ban new connections for
gas and oil as part of new development. The AG noted that the bylaw conflicted
with state building and gas codes and the Department of Public Utilities
jurisdiction in regulating the sale and distribution of gas. This case was
important not only for the Town of Brookline but also for the precedent it
would have set for other municipalities.
Subcontractor Liability Related to COVID-19
pending before in the legislature is a bill dealing with contractor liability
issues related to COVID-19. The bill would grant immunity to contractors and
subcontractors from liability for damages related to delays caused by workforce
shortages, schedule changes, and other impacts resulting from COVID19. Those are
costs that are more likely to be incurred by subcontractors. While this bill
would protect subcontractors from such claims, at the same time it would remove
the ability of a subcontractors to recover against a contractor. In another
section, the bill would prohibit suits for damages against any employee
organization or union for advising their members to refuse to work because of
dangerous conditions relayed to COVID-19.
welcomes your input on all of these bills. Send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Are you interested in legislation and politics?
If so, we would love to have you join our Legislative Committee. The Committee
meets periodically to review and discuss pressing legislative and regulatory
matters and how they would impact ASM and the members. Contact ASM if you would
like to volunteer!
|Return to Top|
|Recent Guidance for Paragraph E Vendors
by Emanuel Bardanis, Corwin & Corwin
A recent advisory opinion from the Massachusetts Attorney
General provides important guidance for listing so-called “Paragraph E” vendors
– i.e., specialized sub-subcontractors – on trade bid forms for jobs bid under
M.G.L. c. 149A. In a nutshell, the opinion states that trade bidders may
make such listings even where the awarding authority has not specifically
requested them. Indeed, failing to do so could result in a possible
challenge to a successful low trade bid.
“Paragraph E” listings were created as part of the
traditional c. 149 approach to public bidding. Because certain work is
almost always sub-subcontracted out – e.g., temperature controls work within
the HVAC trade – the bid laws had to allow such delegation, albeit with certain
limits. First, the awarding authority must make clear in the bid
documents what work may be sub-subcontracted; and even then, it can only do so
if that work is: (1) customarily sub-subcontracted within the trade; and (2)
worth more than $25,000. If these criteria are met, the sub-bidder must
list who will perform this work, and at what price, on Paragraph E of the
statutory bid form contained in M.G.L. c. 149, § 44F. A sub-bidder may
also list itself if it customarily performs such work, in which case it need
not state a price.
Many trade bidders assumed c. 149A worked the same way,
as the bid process is similar. There are key differences, however.
First, as the advisory opinion notes, there is no statutory bid form in M.G.L
c. 149A, § 8, which governs trade bidding. Hence, unlike under c. 149, §
44F, trade bid forms need not include language restricting bidders to listing
only those sub-subcontractors “for which the provisions of the section of the
specifications for this sub-trade require a listing.” Rather, c. 149A, §
8 requires “certification that the trade contractor will perform the complete
trade work with employees on his own payroll, except for work customarily
performed by sub-trade subcontractors within the trade; and the names of all
sub-trade subcontractors to be used if awarded the trade contract and each
sub-trade contract sum [emphasis added].”
Hence, the Attorney General concluded that listing a
sub-subcontractor on a c. 149A trade bid form – although the specifications do
not call for such a listing – does not necessarily require rejection on grounds
it is an “addition not called for.” Of course, if the awarding
authority’s trade bid form contains the traditional c. 149 “Paragraph E”
language quoted above, the result could be different. (And even then, the
awarding authority may be able to waive the error.) But short of that –
or unless the Legislature rewrites c. 149A, § 8 – trade bidders on c. 149A job
must list all sub-subcontractors they intend to use, as long as the work is
“customarily performed by sub-trade subcontractors within the trade.” If
you are unsure as to whether to make such a listing on a c. 149A job, the
safest course would be to make a pre-bid inquiry asking the awarding authority
to confirm the listing is appropriate.
|Return to Top|
|COVID-19 and Contract Performance: May I Be Excused?
By Sakib A. Khan, Esq.
and Benjamin Roberts
In addition to its health risks, COVID-19 has disturbed
our businesses and the entire economic system of our country. We are
learning how courts will factor these disruptions in when judging contract
performance and evaluating breach.
In one of the first cases addressing how Massachusetts
courts will consider COVID-19’s effects on the ability of parties to perform
v. Rapp, Judge Michael D. Vhay of the Massachusetts Land Court
ruled that a home buyer’s wife’s hospitalization with COVID-19 did not excuse
the failure to make the closing date, even when the home buyer’s wife’s
availability was integral in securing financing for the purchase.
In February 2020, the buyer made a deposit and signed a
purchase and sale agreement to close the following month. The P&S would
become void and the deposit retained as liquidated damages if the buyer did not
meet the deadline. The P&S did not include any financing contingency
clause. Unknown to the seller, the buyer required his wife to secure a mortgage
for the closing.
In March, the buyer and seller agreed twice to extend the
deadline due to the coronavirus pandemic. In mid-March, the wife was notified
by her bank that the couple had qualified for a mortgage. Unfortunately, the
wife subsequently became ill with COVID-19 and was hospitalized. The husband
then self-quarantined and requested a third extension, but the seller refused.
The buyer missed the closing date and was unable to recover his deposit.
The buyer argued that his breach of the P&S should be
excused by the doctrine of impossibility, which excuses performance of a
contract, where from the beginning, both parties have understood that the
continued existence of a specific thing is a foundation of what was to be done
and that thing becomes impossible to do without fault of either party. The
buyer’s argument was essentially that a pandemic free environment was a mutual
assumption and the end of the pandemic free environment rendered the buyer’s
performance of the contract, that is closing on the closing date, impossible.
The court rejected the buyer’s argument on two grounds.
First, the seller was not aware of the buyer’s reliance on financing to be able
to pay for the closing was fundamental to his agreement. The contract
explicitly stated that there were “no contingencies affecting [his] obligation
to perform.” The seller thought that the buyer would have enough cash to close
and did not understand that financing was foundational to the agreement.
Second, the person who suffered incapacity due to COVID-19 was the wife, not
the husband. The seller was not aware that the buyer relied on his wife’s
ability to secure a mortgage to deliver payment. The husband’s performance
would have only been excused if the seller understood that the wife’s
involvement was foundational to the transaction.
While this seems like a harsh decision because the
devastating effects of COVID-19 on the family could not have been foreseen, the
seller was unaware of the buyer’s reliance on financing secured by another
party and the buyer himself was not suffering from COVID-19.
Additionally, the buyer in that case did not argue (but could have argued) that
the seller’s refusal to grant a further extension of the closing date when the
buyer was self-quarantined and the Commonwealth was under a “stay at home”
advisory from the Governor (thus likely impeding the seller’s ability to
re-market the property in any event) as a breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.
Despite the strict nature of this decision, Contractors
with projects affected by COVID-19 may have a more convincing argument for
impossibility. First, prime construction contracts (including the commonly used
AIA documents) tend to expressly define the roles and expectations of
Subcontractors, Designers and other non-parties upon whom the parties to the
contract depend on to perform their obligations. Further, there is an industry
understanding of the fundamental relationships between the parties in a
project. Owners should be aware that Contractors often rely on other parties in
a project. It would not be a surprise that the Contractor’s work was made
impossible by a Subcontractor failing to work due to COVID-19, supply chain
disruptions, acute labor shortages, quarantine orders and the like.
Parties may also proactively protect themselves by
including force majeure clauses which excuse performance when circumstances
outside of their control make performance impractical or impossible. For
example, the unmodified AIA A201-2017 provides for extensions of time for
circumstances outside of the contractor’s control, as long as the Architect
agrees. See A201 § 8.3.3(5).
Contractors should consult with counsel if their work has
been made impossible by COVID-19 to see if they may be excused from
|Return to Top|
|What an Employee Should Know About Workers' Compensation Insurance in the Pandemic
What an Employee Should Know
About Workers' Compensation Insurance in the Pandemic
Whether a worker is entitled
to coverage is determined by the Governor’s Department of
Industrial Accidents (DIA) on a
case-by-case basis. Workers' compensation only covers injuries that are work
related. Coverage for communicable disease, such as COVID-19, is
further limited to situations where “the hazard of contracting such diseases by
an employee is inherent in the employment.” The Attorney General's Office
believes employees in certain fields where the employment inherently leaves
them with a heightened risk of COVID-19 exposure are likely to meet this
test. Nurses working with COVID-19 patients, for example, will likely
qualify. However, no matter what your job, lost wage benefits
are generally only available if you miss more than five days of work due
to the illness.
Department of Family and Medical Leave (DFML) Regulations Updated
The Department of Family and
Medical Leave (DFML) has recently concluded its public hearing and comment
period with respect to 458 CMR 2.00. The final version of the regulations
has been submitted to the Secretary of State and is anticipated to be published
on July 24, 2020.
The DFML is providing this unofficial version of the final regulation for your
convenience. Below is a brief synopsis of some of the changes from the May
proposed draft regulations and the final version.
Changed titles of 2.08, 2.09, 2.12 and 2.16 in Index Section and
Actual Section Headings
Accrued Paid Leave - Expanded definition.
Active Duty - Changed definition to require foreign deployment
as a condition precedent.
Average Weekly Wage - Clarified definition to address multiple
Average Working Week – New definition.
Base Period – Clarified definition.
Continuing Treatment by a Health Care Provider - Added allowance
for telehealth in section (a)(3).
Continuing Treatment by a Health Care Provider - Deleted
reference to Substance Abuse in section (g).
Extended Illness Leave Bank – New definition.
Financial Eligibility Test - Expanded definition to address
calculations where there are multiple employers.
Former Member of Armed Services – Deleted reference to exclusion
for dishonorable discharge.
Intermittent Leave – Changed to allow usage in 15-minute
increments consistent with employer policies provided, however, that payment by
the Department will not be made in requests of less than 8 hours.
Job Protected Leave – Clarified that use of a disability policy
of an employer, a paid leave policy of an employer and Extended Illness Leave
Bank program of an employer will begin job protected leave and such time will
run concurrently with the DFML benefits.
Section 2.06(8) - Clarified reference to Horace Mann Charter Schools.
Section 2.07(1)(c) – Clarified eligibility for covered
individuals to require coverage under a private plan.
Section 2.07(1)(c)(2) – Extended timeline that Department
can notify an employer of a change in the term of an approved exemption from 30
to 60 days.
Section 2.07(2)(e) -Clarified criteria for financial eligibility
and leave benefits under a private plan.
Section 2.07(8)(b) – Clarified coverage where an employer
terminates a private plan or leaves the state plan for a private plan or
transfers among private plans.
Section 2.07(c) – Clarifies that covered individuals can begin
to file applications for benefits with the Department on the first day of the
first quarter following an employer’s termination of a private plan.
Section 2.07(8)(e) – Addresses coverage of former employees and
how applications for benefits are filed depending on whether covered individual
is employed or unemployed at the time of filing.
Section 2.08(10) – New section to address substance abuse.
Section 2.10(1) – Clarifies that each request for intermittent
leave shall require recertification consistent with new definition of
Section 2.10(2) – Obligates covered individual to notify the
Department within 7 days of a change in circumstances affecting benefits.
Section 2.12(2) – Clarifies that benefit determinations will be
based on wages earned with a specific employer.
Section 2.12(4) – Deleted references to allowing the Department
to limit benefits based on benefits or wages received from other employers.
Section 2.12(4) - Clarifies that leave in the case of multiple
employers does not need to be taken at the same time.
2.12(6) – Deleted reference to leave allotment for avoidance of
2.12(6)(b) and (c) – Deleted references to allowing the Department
to reduce benefits where the covered individual has other benefits under
another employer’s private plan or for wages earned from other employment.
2.12(6)(d)(3) – Added a new subsection to allow the Department
to consider other wages earned by a covered employee as a possible reduction.
2.12(7) – Clarified that 7-day waiting period commences job
protected leave period.
2.12(8)(a) and (c) – Clarified the affect on use of time
provided by employer towards DFML benefits.
2.12(9) – Clarified situations in which employer is entitled to
The website provides three versions of the proposed regulations in order
to facilitate your review of the final changes. First, the original
version of the draft regulations posted in May can be found here.
The redline version showing changes between the May version and the current
version can be accessed here.
Lastly, the clean version of the draft final regulations can be located using
|Return to Top|
|Update from DCAMM
Overall Annual Program Participation Goals For MBE & WBE Participation On
Certain State Funded Building Projects Affirmative
Marketing Program Announcement:
Pursuant to M.G.L. c 7c, §6 and
M.G.L. c. 7, §61(l), the Supplier Diversity Office (“SDO”) and the Division of
Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (“DCAMM”) have set new Overall Annual
Program Goals for Minority Business Enterprise (“MBE”) and Women Business
Enterprise (“WBE”) Participation. These
new Overall Annual MBE and WBE Participation Goals apply to the total dollar
amount of contracts awarded annually for construction work and design services
on affected capital facility projects and state assisted building projects as
those projects are defined in the above referenced laws and related Executive
July 1, 2020, and until such time as the
Overall Annual MBE and WBE Participation Goals may be revised, the MBE and WBE
participation goals applicable to annual spending by those affected public
awarding authorities on their building construction and design project awards
are as follows:
Overall Annual Program Goals
Applied to Awarded Projects
Construction Awards Design Awards
MBE Participation 4.2%
6.6% WBE Participation 8.8% 15.0%
Note: These are annual goals and are only
applicable to the overall annual dollar value of contracts awarded by an
awarding authority. These overall annual
participation goals should not be applied in setting MBE and WBE participation
goals on individual construction or design projects. Individual project goals shall be set using
project specific information including project costs, MBE/WBE availability and
other applicable factors.
For those individual building
construction or design contracts advertised for procurement on or after July 1,
2020 for which MBE and WBE Participation Goals are set, the MBE and WBE
participation goals shall be established on a project by project basis and be
listed as separate MBE and WBE participation goals in procurement documents and
MBE and WBE goals for
individual building construction and design contracts shall be established on a
project by project basis, using project specific information including
estimated project costs, MBE/WBE availability, project specific and other
applicable factors. Municipal public awarding authorities should contact SDO,
and state public awarding authorities should contact DCAMM for additional
information on setting project participation goals on individual projects, as
well as their project compliance and participation reporting
|Return to Top|
|Join the National Safety Stand-Down To Prevent Falls in Construction
To Prevent Falls in Construction
Fatalities caused by
falls from elevation continue to be a leading cause of death for construction
employees, accounting for 320 of the 1,008 construction fatalities recorded in
2018 (BLS data). Those deaths were preventable. The National Safety
Stand-Down raises fall hazard awareness across the country in an effort to stop
fall fatalities and injuries.
is a Safety Stand-Down?
A Safety Stand-Down
is a voluntary event for employers to talk directly to employees about safety.
Any workplace can hold a stand-down by taking a break to focus on "Fall
Hazards" and reinforcing the importance of "Fall Prevention".
Employers of companies not exposed to fall hazards, can also use this
opportunity to have a conversation with employees about the other job hazards
they face, protective methods, and the company's safety policies and goals. It
can also be an opportunity for employees to talk to management about fall and
other job hazards they see.
Anyone who wants to
prevent hazards in the workplace can participate in the Stand-Down. In past
years, participants included commercial construction companies of all sizes,
residential construction contractors, sub- and independent contractors, highway
construction companies, general industry employers, the U.S. Military, other
government participants, unions, employer's trade associations, institutes,
employee interest organizations, and safety equipment manufacturers.
OSHA is partnering
with key groups to assist with this effort, including the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National Occupational Research
Agenda (NORA), OSHA approved State Plans, State consultation programs, the
Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR), the American Society of Safety
Engineers (ASSE), the National Safety Council, the National Construction Safety
Executives (NCSE), the U.S. Air Force, and the OSHA Training Institute (OTI)
to Conduct a Safety Stand-Down and FAQ's
conduct a Safety Stand-Down by taking a break to have a toolbox talk or another
safety activity such as conducting safety equipment inspections, developing
rescue plans, or discussing job specific hazards. Managers are encouraged to
plan a stand-down that works best for their workplace anytime. See Suggestions to Prepare for a Successful "Stand-Down"and Highlights
from the Past Stand-Downs. OSHA also hosts an Events page with
events that are free and open to the public to help employers and employees
find events in your area.
If you plan to host
a free event that is open to the public, see OSHA's Events
page to submit the event details and to contact your Regional
Employers will be
able to provide feedback about their Stand-Down and download a Certificate of
Participation following the Stand-Down. The certificate pages will be active on
September 14, 2020, for employers to enter their information and print their
If you want to share
information with OSHA on your Safety Stand-Down, Fall Prevention Programs or
suggestions on how we can improve future initiatives like this, please send
your email to email@example.com. Also share your
Stand-Down story on social media, with the hashtag: #StandDown4Safety.
|Return to Top|
|Joseph Bodio Honored with 2020 NECA Coggeshall Award
Peter Gormley, Sue Mailman, Joseph Bodio
Kristen Gowin, NECA Boston Chapter, Electrical Contractors Association
June 24, the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) announced
that Joseph Bodio, CEO and Founder
of LAN-TEL Communications, Inc. was selected as the honoree of the
Association’s 2020 Coggeshall Award. The award, established in 1956, is
presented annually to a NECA electrical contractor who has made outstanding
contributions to the industry in the Technical and Service field.
past President, Governor and now Director of NECA Greater Boston Chapter, Bodio
has dedicated much of his career to education and training. He was a
founding member of the Boston Chapter’s Telecom Division, served on the Joint
Conference Committee as a Trustee from 2010 to 2012, and was also as an active
member of the Telecom Training subcommittee for six years.
the Training Committee, Joe was instrumental in the growth and enhancement of
the Boston’s five-year JATC Telecommunications Apprenticeship Training
Program,” said NECA Boston Senior Advisor and former Executive Manager, Glenn
relationship with the Boston JATC telecom program began in the early 90's when
he, along with his lifelong friend and Local 103 member Paul Woods, assisted
the administration with improving the newly founded telecom program. In the
late 1990’s, Bodio was the instructor of the “Blueprints for Telecom,” course
at the JATC, which has evolved to become the current "Systems Drawings
& Specifications” course. In 2007, he participated in the JATC Telecom
Curriculum Review Committee, which brought updated and emerging technologies
into the telecom curriculum. Concurrently, the Review Committee was
instrumental in bringing state-of-the-art improvements to the JATC’s telecom
2009, Joe's helped establish the JATC’s Paul Woods Scholarship, which awards
$500 annually to the outstanding telecom graduate.
recently, Bodio has provided his leadership and expertise to the Systems
Integration Task Force, created during the 2019 collective bargaining process,
which was founded to determine the role of a systems’ integrator, its place in
the telecom industry, and job classification within the union.
Joe currently serves on the NECA Management Development Committee as the
Chapter’s representative for ELECTRI-International, an organization that
funds, conducts, coordinates and monitors the electrical industry’s most vital
research and delivers exemplary management education and supervisory training
of the award, JATC Greater Boston Training Director Chris Sherlock said,
"Joe Bodio has been a consistent leader in the training of our apprentices
for the last 30 years. His knowledge, and vision for future industry
trends in technology, have greatly assisted the JATC in keeping the telecom
training program ahead of the curve.”
added, “Joe has always put the JATC program, our apprentices and the telecom
industry first. He is true industry professional and it’s fitting that NECA has
honored him with the Coggeshall Award for his outstanding contributions to the
technical and training field. Joe always had his eye on the future of our
industry and the JATC looks forward to our continued collaboration with him, in
our mutual focus on the success of our training program."
Boston Chapter Manager Kristen Gowin said, “In addition to his dedication to
training and education, Joe has been a tireless advocate for updating and
strengthening Massachusetts’ electrical and telecom system licensing laws to
adapt to integration and include communications systems.”
Coggeshall Award will officially be presented during the NECA 2020 Convention
and Trade Show, October 5 - 7 which will take place online, due to the Coronavirus
served as President of ASM from 2015-2017.
|Return to Top|
|Do You Have A Legal Question? Accessing The ASM Hotline
an employer, you face a myriad of issues including employee leave,
discrimination, wage and hour rules, hiring and termination.
As a construction business, you face a host of issues through the life
of a project, including bidding, contract terms, payment and more. When
issues arise, it’s often hard to know what to do. There is an easy way to get quick answers to your questions – ASM’s Hotline –FREE to ASM Members.
How do I access the Hotline?
Send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. We will forward your question
to the appropriate attorney who will respond by phone or email.
Who are the attorneys?
Construction questions are referred to JohnM. Curran, Esq. at the law firm of Corwin & Corwin LLP, which has served as legal counsel to ASM for more than 65 years.
questions are referred to David B. Wilson, Esq. and Catherine E.
Reuben,Esq., at the law firm of Hirsch Roberts Weinstein, LLP.
Insurance questions are referred to David M. O’Connor, Esq. at the law firm of O’Connor & Associates, LLC.
What if I already have my own lawyer? You can still call the Hotline. It is a privilege of membership in ASM.
What kind of help can I expect?
The attorney will typically spend 5-15 minutes addressing questions
that can be answered easily based on years of experience in their areas
of practice. You will receive information to help you determine whether
to handle the issue yourself or to seek professional help to pursue
legal action. The Hotline is limited in scope and does not include
research or document preparation.
To pursue legal action, do I have to use the Hotline attorney? No.
You are free to use your own attorney or you may retain a hotline
attorney. The choice is up to you and it is a private matter between you
and the attorney.
|Return to Top|
|Are You Following ASM On Social Media?
ASM is now on Instagram. Check us
out, follow us, and comment on our photos!
Please also like the
ASM Facebook page and follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn.
|Return to Top|