A New Federal Scholarship Tax Credit Could Open Doors for Families, Pioneer New England Legal Foundation Weighs In

/in /by

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation recently submitted a public comment to the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding a new federal scholarship tax credit. As the agencies begin drafting regulations to determine how the new program will operate, public interest has been high—over 3,400 comments have already been submitted. 

This new federal policy is designed to encourage charitable giving that supports educational opportunity. Beginning in 2027, individuals will be able to claim a federal tax credit of up to $1,700 for donations made to nonprofit Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). These organizations raise private donations and use them to provide scholarships for K–12 students, particularly those from low- and middle-income families. Unlike a tax deduction, which reduces taxable income, a tax credit directly reduces the amount of taxes someone owes. That makes it a powerful incentive for donors who want to support students and families seeking additional educational opportunities. 

For the program to operate in a particular state, its governor must first choose to opt into it. Once a state elects to participate, it must provide the IRS with a list of SGO’s in that state that meet the requirements established in federal law. Donations to organizations on that list are then eligible for the federal tax credit. 

Massachusetts has not yet decided whether it will opt into the program, a decision that will rest with Governor Maura Healey.  

As a New England-based public interest legal organization, Pioneer Legal Foundation is closely watching how these rules are written because the details could determine whether families in our state are able to fully benefit from the program. Our comment focuses on a critical issue: whether states should be allowed to impose additional requirements on scholarship organizations beyond those already established in federal law. 

Congress created this credit as a national federal tax policy, and the statute already sets out the criteria that scholarship organizations must meet. If individual states were allowed to add their own conditions, the result could be a patchwork system where eligibility rules vary depending on geography. That could undermine the purpose of a national tax credit and potentially limit scholarship opportunities for families in some states, including here in Massachusetts. 

There are also constitutional considerations. In recent years, the Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that governments may not exclude religious institutions from available public benefit programs simply because they are religious. Allowing states to add eligibility restrictions could increase the risk that certain schools, organizations, or families are excluded from a federal program in ways that conflict with those precedents. 

Pioneer Legal Foundation’s comment recommends a straightforward approach: states that opt into the program should be limited to verifying that SGO’s meet the federal requirements and submitting their list to the IRS. They should not be able to impose additional eligibility rules that Congress did not include in the statute. 

With thousands of public comments submitted, Treasury and the IRS are now reviewing feedback before issuing proposed regulations. 

For readers interested in learning more, you can find our complete comment at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/IRS-2025-0466-0890  

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation and Sullivan & Worcester Sue Boston Over Retaliatory Tax Scheme

/in , /by
Read the Complaint

Class action challenges city’s unlawful penalties against commercial taxpayers who exercised their right to appeal; seeks court intervention to end this retaliatory scheme in next fiscal year

BOSTON, MA — Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (the Legal Foundation) and Sullivan & Worcester LLP today filed on behalf of their client 148 State Street a class action lawsuit against the City of Boston, alleging that the Assessor’s Office has illegally retaliated against commercial taxpayers for exercising their constitutional right to appeal property tax assessments before the Appellate Tax Board (ATB) since 2024.

“This case is about the rule of law,” said Frank J. Bailey, President of Pioneer New England Legal Foundation and a former federal judge. “Boston’s Assessor’s Office has decided that when citizens exercise their right to appeal an unjust tax, they deserve to be punished. That is not how a lawful government behaves. Both our federal and state constitutions give citizens a right to petition the government, including unfettered access to the courts. Boston has made commercial landowners pay a heavy price for exercising that right.”

The lawsuit, which was filed today in Suffolk Superior Court, seeks to prohibit the city from retaliating against taxpayers who appeal their assessments, to declare the city’s policy unlawful, and to order repayment of excess taxes collected for fiscal years 2024 and 2025.

The named plaintiff in this class action is the owner of 148 State Street which represents all commercial property owners, large and small, that have been victimized by this unlawful scheme.

City’s Conduct and Legal Violations

According to the complaint, the City of Boston’s Assessor’s Office deliberately and systematically violated state and federal law by overriding its own determinations of fair market value for taxpayers who filed appeals.

Even when the assessors agreed that a property’s value had declined (e.g. from $120 million to $100 million) it allegedly overrode the CAMS software system and added back value under a “discretionary adjustment” box. In FY2024, those adjustments were labeled “ATB Appeal” or “ATB Dispute.” In FY2025, the labels disappeared, but the practice seemingly continued: roughly half the decline in value was added back to every appealed property. The pattern produced a consistent penalty ratio across the board but the scheme was hidden from taxpayers because it was not visible on the tax bills that the city issued.

The impact was clear and unlawful: commercial taxpayers who appealed their assessments were charged higher taxes than comparable properties that did not appeal. The lawsuit states that the City of Boston thereby violated the very laws that govern assessors’ duties and the constitutional rights of citizens who petition their government for relief.

The lawsuit asserts four independent legal violations by the city:

  • It breached Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, Section 2A(a) by failing to determine “fair cash value” as required;
  • It violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by penalizing taxpayers for exercising their right to petition;
  • It violated Articles XI and XVI of the Massachusetts Constitution by denying free access to the courts;
  • And, it violated Amendment Article CXII of the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires that all property within a class be taxed proportionally and equally.

“At a time when commercial properties are declining in value after the pandemic, property owners are already facing challenging times,” said Patrick P. Dinardo of Sullivan & Worcester. “For Boston to further penalize property owners in an apparent effort to intimidate them from seeking review at the ATB is unconscionable. It discourages investment in the city which hurts every Boston citizen.”

Why a Class Action

The lawsuit seeks class certification because the city’s unlawful practice applies uniformly to affected taxpayers. Virtually all commercial property owners who appealed to the ATB in prior years saw a comparable “discretionary add-back” applied to their FY2024 or FY2025 assessments. A class action allows the court to decide one central question—whether the city may retaliate against taxpayers for appealing—without forcing hundreds of nearly identical lawsuits through the system.

The Legal Foundation began its investigation earlier this year and gave written notice to the city and the Department of Revenue at least three times since June. The Legal Foundation’s research at City Hall uncovered dozens of examples of the retaliatory tax scheme. After the city failed to offer any meaningful response on how to remedy the impact of its assessment practices, 148 State Street and the class of affected owners were left with no choice but to resort to litigation.

“The sooner the city steps up and addresses its unlawful practices, the better for the city and for every taxpayer who plays by the rules,” added Bailey.

About Pioneer New England Legal Foundation

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation is a public-interest law firm that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast and around the country. Through legal action and public education, the Legal Foundation works to preserve and enhance liberties grounded in the constitutions and civil rights laws of the United States and the individual New England states.

About Sullivan & Worcester LLP

Sullivan & Worcester (Sullivan) is a global, mid-sized law firm with lawyers in Boston, London, New York, Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Sullivan’s clients, including Fortune 500 companies, leading financial services firms and asset managers, boards of directors, real estate companies, and emerging businesses, rely on Sullivan’s ability to navigate complex legal and operational landscapes, the impeccable judgment of its lawyers, and its commitment to best in class client service.

Media Contacts:

Amie O’Hearn, Communications Director
Pioneer New England Legal Foundation
aohearn@pioneerinstitute.org

Charlie Chieppo, Senior Media Fellow
Pioneer Institute
cchieppo@pioneerinstitute.org
617-548-7146

Lucinda Ellison
newsPRos
lucinda@newspros.com
610-574-9035

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation Files Lawsuit Challenging Cambridge Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance

/in , /by

Requirement that 20 percent of a housing project remain permanently affordable places burden on developers that should be borne by the public as a whole

Read the Complaint

Cambridge – Pioneer New England Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit in state Land Court against the City of Cambridge on behalf of developer Columbia St, LLC, challenging the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance. The ordinance requires any property owner seeking a building permit for a project of 10 units or more to permanently set aside 20 percent of the square footage for affordable housing.

“The ordinance requires property owners to surrender fundamental property rights protected by the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions,” said Pioneer New England Legal Foundation attorney Paul Johnson.  “These requirements constitute unlawful land-use conditions under settled U.S. Supreme Court precedent.”

Under the Cambridge ordinance, a developer who builds and sells condominium units must agree to sell 20 percent of the square footage at roughly 75 percent below market price.  For a rental project, the rent on 20 percent of the square footage cannot exceed 30 percent of the tenant’s income, and the tenant must meet maximum income-eligibility requirements.

The ordinance violates the long-standing legal principle that government cannot force a small subset of the population to shoulder public burdens that fairness dictates should be borne by the public as a whole.

“Cambridge is unfairly singling out real estate developers to bear the cost of solving the city’s affordable housing problem,” said Frank J. Bailey, President of the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation.  “Real estate developers did not create the housing shortage.  It is a result of a lot of factors – primarily not building enough new housing to keep up with population growth.”

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have confirmed that a city may, in some circumstances, require developers to pay money or even donate real estate as a condition of obtaining a building permit.  But those same decisions make clear that a municipality may impose such conditions only if it can present solid evidence that the specific project will worsen the problem the municipality seeks to address.

For an ordinance designed to address the shortage of affordable housing, the city would have to show that this project will, in some way, make the shortage worse.  In this case, Pioneer alleges in its complaint that the city cannot make that showing .  To the contrary, the project will more than triple the amount of livable square footage on the property.  It reduces the housing shortage; it does not exacerbate it.

“We recognize the importance of building affordable housing,” Johnson added.  “But the cost should be shared equally by the community as a whole.  We should not impose what is essentially a tax on new development to pay for affordable housing.”

The complaint was filed in Land Court late yesterday.

###

PNELF Admonishes DOR for Inaction on Unauthorized and Unconstitutional Commercial Tax Overcharges

/in , /by
Read the Notice

The Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (PNELF) is calling out the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR) for refusing to act on clear evidence that the City of Boston is penalizing commercial taxpayers for exercising their constitutional right to appeal overassessments.

In response to PNELF’s most recent letter detailing these illegal practices, the Commissioner of Revenue claimed his office could not substantiate the findings, asserted he could not discuss specific properties, and insisted he was not allowed to advocate for any individual taxpayer. He also declined PNELF’s repeated request to meet and review the evidence.

PNELF’s reply, sent today, specifically calls out the flaws in the Commissioner’s response:

– He offered no explanation of any steps taken to investigate the evidence PNELF provided.
– PNELF never requested a discussion of specific taxpayers.
– PNELF never asked him to advocate for an individual taxpayer.

“This is about fairness, transparency, and ensuring the City cannot punish those who exercise their rights,” Frank Bailey stated. “The Commissioner’s refusal to address the evidence is unacceptable.”

We encourage the public to review our third letter to the Commissioner here. If you have been affected by this issue, we want to hear from you. Please email Frank at frank.bailey@pioneerlegal.org.

 

Massachusetts Families Urges Court to Reverse Ruling Over Unconstitutional Conditions for Special Education Services

/in , /by
The Institute for Justice and PNELF filed a federal constitutional challenge to Massachusetts’s denial of special education services to children whose parents exercise their fundamental right to enroll them in private school. You can read the brief here:
As it says in the statement of the case-“…parents have a fundamental constitutional right to educate their children in private schools and a state may not deny or restrict an otherwise available benefit simply because the parent of the would-be recipient exercises a constitutional right.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 7/8/2025

BOSTON—Today, the Institute for Justice (IJ) and the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (PNELF) urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse a lower court ruling on behalf of clients Ariella and David Hellman and Josh Harrison and Miriam Segura-Harrison, two sets of parents with children who have special needs. The appeal seeks to reverse a dismissal of their lawsuit challenging a Massachusetts regulation that effectively bars children from receiving special education services to which they are statutorily entitled solely because those children attend private schools.

“Massachusetts guarantees all children with special needs that they can receive special education services,” said IJ Educational Choice Attorney David Hodges. “But Massachusetts regulators have made it almost impossible for a child whose parents enrolled her in private school to get the services the state says she needs. This regulation is an unconstitutional condition on parents who deign to exercise their century-old right to direct the education of their children.”

Massachusetts guarantees all students with special needs a statutory entitlement to special education services, no matter which schools they attend. These services can be as simple as classroom supplements and aids or involve intensive sessions with highly specialized behavioral therapists. The services are vital for children with special needs to help them overcome various learning challenges and properly educate them. Yet even though Massachusetts law entitles all children to the services, a Massachusetts regulation makes access to services practically unobtainable for children whose parents exercise their fundamental, constitutional right to enroll them in private schools.

The regulation does this by barring these children—and only these children—from receiving services in their schools. Unlike many other children with special needs, these children are required as a rule to leave their schools to get services, which effectively makes the services impossible to access. Massachusetts justifies this regulation with an interpretation of a state constitutional amendment that bars “aid” to private schools. This interpretation is erroneous, as special education services for disabled students are aid to children, not schools.

Moreover, the restriction makes many special education services impractical at best, or useless at worst. For many students, services are needed at the point of classroom learning and removing them from the classroom to access such services fails to help the children. Further, the restriction contravenes the Massachusetts special education statute, which says that the default for children is to receive services in their regular educational environment. Also, being removed from their school to access services is stigmatizing for these children and burdensome on working parents, who cannot spend time during the workday shuttling their children from location to location.

The restriction falls solely on parents who exercise their constitutional right to enroll their child in private school. If a child attends public school, she can receive services at the school. If the government enrolls a child in private school, which it often does with special needs children, the child can receive services in the private school. But a classmate who is enrolled in that very same private school by their parents isn’t allowed that option, even if the services they need are identical. In short, it is only parents who exercise their fundamental, federal constitutional right to send their children to a private school whose children are penalized by the Massachusetts regulation.

“Children with special needs are already among the most vulnerable people in society,” said Senior Attorney Renée Flaherty. “The last thing they need is for Massachusetts to discriminate against them because of how their parents exercised a constitutional right.”

#  #  #

IJ is the nation’s leading law firm defending educational choice programs and expanding educational access and opportunity. Since its founding in 1991, IJ has successfully represented parents in educational choice lawsuits in numerous state supreme courts, intermediate courts of appeal, and trial courts, as well as four times at the U.S. Supreme Court (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Carson v. Makin). IJ is currently defending choice programs in Alaska, Ohio,  Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming alongside EdChoice Legal Advocates as part of the Partnership for Educational Choice.

PNELF, which serves as consulting counsel in this case, is a nonpartisan, public interest law firm that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast. PNELF achieves its mission through legal research, amicus briefs, and litigation.

PNELF: Boston Imposes Hidden Tax Penalty on Commercial Property Owners Who Appeal Assessments

/in , /by
Read the Notice

Boston — June 24, 2025 — The Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (PNELF) has sent a formal notice to Massachusetts Department of Revenue Commissioner Geoffrey Snyder asserting that the City of Boston is unlawfully retaliating against commercial real estate owners who seek to challenge their tax assessments.

According to PNELF, the city’s Assessing Department has been quietly and systematically increasing property tax assessments on commercial properties that are under appeal at the Commonwealth’s Appellate Tax Board (ATB), imposing what amounts to a financial penalty on taxpayers who exercise their statutory rights under Massachusetts law.

“This practice is unauthorized and unconstitutional,” said PNELF President Frank J. Bailey, PNELF President and retired judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. “Targeting property owners for higher assessments simply because they filed an appeal, the city is punishing people for seeking redress through lawful channels. That’s retaliation—plain and simple—and a violation of fundamental constitutional protections.”

Appeals Secretly Trigger Substantial Tax Hikes

In its letter, PNELF describes how Boston has quietly overridden its own commercial property valuations, increasing assessments by in some cases millions of dollars in the fiscal year after a taxpayer files an appeal. These overrides are not disclosed on tax bills or public notices. Instead, internal property record cards obtained by affected taxpayers reveal notations such as “ATB dispute” or “override. open appeal.”

PNELF’s investigation also found instances in which the city has removed these internal references before releasing final public versions of the records—effectively concealing its actions.

“These added assessments are not based on market conditions or improvements to the properties,” Bailey explained. “They are based solely on the fact that the taxpayer is exercising their legal right to challenge an overvaluation. That is illegal under both state law and the federal and Massachusetts Constitutions.”

Legal Context: A Violation of Rights

Massachusetts law (G.L. c. 59, §§ 59, 64–65) allows taxpayers to appeal local tax assessments to the Appellate Tax Board. To do so, they must first pay the full assessed tax—even if they believe the valuation is inflated. As PNELF notes, the appeal process can take years to resolve. During that time, the City has been quietly increasing assessments on the same properties.

According to the letter, this practice violates:

  • Due process and the right to petition for redress of grievances under the First Amendment and Articles XI and XIX of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

  • The constitutional requirement of proportional taxation (Article X of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and Article CXII of the Amendments).

  • The statutory requirement that property be taxed based on “fair cash value” (G.L. c. 59, §§ 2A, 38, 52), meaning its true market value—not an arbitrary increase related to litigation status.

“This is a deliberate abuse of governmental authority to suppress legitimate legal claims,” Bailey said.

Post-Pandemic Market Still in Decline

The timing of Boston’s punitive assessment strategy is especially troubling given the continued decline of commercial property values in the wake of the pandemic. Even after reducing some valuations by approximately 10 percent, the city’s assessed values remain significantly above actual fair market value, according to owners and market analysts.

PNELF Demands State Action—or Will Pursue Legal Relief

PNELF calls on the commissioner of revenue to immediately investigate the city’s conduct under his statutory authority (G.L. c. 58, § 1A) and to order Boston to cease the practice and refund affected taxpayers.

If the Department of Revenue or the city fail to act within 30 days, PNELF is prepared to seek judicial relief, including injunctive and declaratory actions under Massachusetts law (G.L. c. 249, § 5), as well as other constitutional remedies.

“This issue affects not only the rule of law, but the integrity of the Commonwealth’s tax system,” Bailey said. “Boston’s current conduct sets a dangerous precedent—one that could chill the willingness of taxpayers across Massachusetts to lawfully dispute unfair tax burdens.”Shape

###

About Pioneer New England Legal Foundation:

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (PNELF) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan legal research and litigation entity, organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. PNELF is a public-interest law firm that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast and around the country. Through legal action and public education, PNELF works to preserve and enhance liberties grounded in the constitutions and civil rights laws of the United States and the individual New England states.

Pioneer Public Interest Law Center and New England Legal Foundation Unite Under New Banner: Pioneer New England Legal Foundation

/in , /by

Boston, MA — The Pioneer Public Interest Law Center (Pioneer Law Center) today announced its strategic alliance with the New England Legal Foundation (NELF), as the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (PNELF). Building on a common mission of advancing educational opportunity, government transparency and free enterprise, PNELF will expand services to defend and promote these freedoms across and beyond New England. 

Brackett Denniston III, founding chair of Pioneer Law Center, will continue to serve as chair of PNELF. Frank J. Bailey will lead the newly expanded organization as president. Natalie Logan, President and General Counsel of the New England Legal Foundation, will join the PNELF Board along with NELF Directors Paul Cushing, Paul Dacier, Brian Leary and Kevin Martin as part of a purposeful advancement of the organizations’ shared values and mission. Additionally, Ben Robbins, formerly Senior Staff Attorney at NELF, has joined the PNELF staff to amplify appellate advocacy efforts and to expand its capacity in trial litigation. PNELF will continue to engage NELF’s state Advisory Councils, which serve as a direct link to each state’s legal community and provide real-time knowledge of emerging issues of concern to the organization. 

“We are excited that Pioneer New England Legal Foundation will be continuing the mission of the storied NELF to fight for educational choice, free enterprise and government accountability,” said Brackett Denniston III, Chair of the PNELF Board. “Now, more than ever, these freedoms are critical. By joining forces, the best legal minds in the business will amplify our work in courtrooms across New England and the nation.” 

“This strategic transition exemplifies the two organizations’ shared dedication to defending and promoting educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast and around the country,” said Frank Bailey. “We welcome leaders in the legal community to PNELF’s Board, and the addition of NELF’s talent will strengthen our ability to achieve our common mission. We now are better positioned to advance justice across the region and beyond.” 

Natalie Logan added, “As we conclude decades of impactful independent operations, we are proud that the New England Legal Foundation brand and mission will live on through the work of the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation. This is an exciting new chapter in our shared effort to protect individual liberties and promote economic freedom.” 

NELF anticipates winding down its operations in the coming months. Moving forward, the work of both organizations will continue and be strengthened through PNELF, which will serve as the primary business-centric, public interest champion for appellate advocacy, impact litigation and legal policy reform in the region. 

This alliance marks something of a homecoming for many members of the Pioneer Law Center board. Bailey and current board members Ern Haddad, Stan Twardy, and others previously served on NELF’s board and Advisory Councils. Lena Goldberg and Brackett Denniston each chaired NELF for many years, deepening the shared legacy that now continues through this partnership. 

The news comes on the heels of a Pioneer Law Center announcement last week that former District of Massachusetts United States Attorney Andrew Lelling, former Director of MEMA Kurt Schwartz, and noted attorney and Sullivan & Worcester partner Joel Carpenter also recently joined the PNELF Board of Directors. 

For additional information visit PioneerLegal.org. 

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation (formerly Pioneer Public Interest Law Center) is the region’s leading public interest law organization dedicated to advancing economic liberty, free enterprise and individual rights. Building on the legacy of the New England Legal Foundation, whose independent operations are winding down, Pioneer New England Legal Foundation carries forward a shared commitment to promoting justice and defending constitutional freedoms through strategic litigation and legal advocacy. 

Pioneer Law Adds Lelling, Schwartz and Carpenter to Board

/in , /by

Boston, MA—Pioneer Public Interest Law Center today announced that it has added three new board members including the former head of MEMA, a former U.S Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, and a prominent law firm chairman.   

“We are thrilled to add Kurt Schwartz, Andrew Lelling and Joel Carpenter to the Pioneer Law Center team,” said Frank J. Bailey, President. “These preeminent lawyers bring refreshing new perspectives along with passion for the rule of law to the Law Center.  They are committed to helping advance and expand our mission.”  

“It’s an honor to welcome these fine attorneys to the Law Center Board,” said Brackett Denniston III, Chair. “Each brings a wealth of expertise and a distinguished track record of legal excellence that will greatly enhance our work. Their shared commitment to advancing the Law Center’s mission of protecting the rule of law will be invaluable as we continue to drive impactful, principled legal solutions through litigation and amicus briefing in state and federal courts.”  

“We are privileged to have such great minds from all walks of the legal community join the Pioneer Law Center Board,” said Bailey. “Their distinguished careers will be instrumental in advancing our mission of defending and promoting educational options, ensuring accountable government, and promoting economic opportunity across the Northeast and around the country.” 

Kurt Schwartz 

Since retiring in 2019 after 37 years of government service in Massachusetts, Kurt Schwartz has consulted with government agencies, corporations, and non-profits in the areas of emergency management, homeland security, crisis leadership, and COVID-19 preparedness and operations.  He also serves on the National Boards of American Friends of Magen David Adom, IsraAID-US, American Friends of Herut, and is a Director of Charm Sciences, Inc.      

From 2007 to 2019, Kurt was a Gubernatorial appointee to the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security where he served in several leadership roles including Undersecretary of Law Enforcement, Undersecretary of Homeland Security, Governor’s Homeland Security Advisor, Chair of the Massachusetts Homeland Security Advisory Council, and Director of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency.  He also was a Gubernatorial appointee to the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Port Authority and served on FEMA’s National Advisory Council and as Co-Chair of the International Emergency Management Group.  

Between 1987 and 2007, Kurt worked as a state criminal prosecutor, including 5 years as Chief of the Criminal Bureau in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and 8 years as Chief of the Special Investigations Unit in the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office.     

Earlier in his career, Kurt served as a police officer and emergency medical technician.  

Kurt holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Wesleyan University and a Juris Doctor degree from Boston College Law School.  He is married, has two grown children, and lives in Concord, Massachusetts.      

Joel Carpenter 

Joel Carpenter is a partner at Sullivan & Worcester, where he served as co-managing partner for many years. Joel is particularly experienced in the tax structuring of complex business and investment arrangements using partnerships, limited liability companies, and Subchapter S corporations. He advises a broad range of private and institutional investors, including real estate investment firms, on a wide variety of U.S. federal income tax matters. This includes fund formation matters, the acquisition and disposition of property, structuring debt and equity investments, equity compensation plans, and tax planning for investors. 

Joel also advises on the tax structuring of corporate mergers and acquisition transactions, as well as the financing of emerging companies. He has served on the boards of several enterprises and provides individual income and estate tax planning services for individuals of substantial means. 

Andrew Lelling 

Andrew Lelling is a former United States Attorney and senior Department of Justice (DOJ) official with deep experience in white collar, securities, and international enforcement matters. He defends companies and individuals in complex civil litigation and government investigations. He also leads internal investigations and advises on compliance with federal, state, and international laws. He has successfully tried dozens of cases in federal and state courts. 

Before joining Jones Day in 2021, Andrew was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, capping a 20-year career with the DOJ. During that time, he handled complex enforcement matters both as a line prosecutor and senior DOJ official, including corporate fraud prosecutions, parallel investigations with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), trade secret theft, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) matters, civil and criminal health care enforcement, and international money laundering. Widely known for leading “Operation Varsity Blues,” the nationwide investigation of corruption in college admissions, he led major initiatives targeting COVID relief fraud, anti-kickback claims against pharma companies under the False Claims Act (FCA), and bank fraud during the financial crisis of 2007-2009. Andrew crafted federal enforcement policy on a national level, including initiatives targeting foreign economic espionage, trade secret theft, and cybercrime, as chair of the Attorney General’s Cybercrime and Intellectual Property Subcommittee.  

In the early 2000s, Andrew led the investigation of the 2000 presidential election in Florida and negotiated human rights issues with the Chinese government. He teaches securities regulation and trial practice at Boston-area law schools. 

American Bar Association Elects President of the Pioneer Law Center as Vice Chair of Judicial Division

/in , /by

The Hon. Frank J. Bailey (ret.) will Advance to Chair in 2026

(Boston, Mass.)- The Pioneer Public Interest Law Center today announced that its president, Hon. Frank J. Bailey (ret.) has been elected as the next Vice Chair of the Judicial Division of the American Bar Association  (ABA). Judge Bailey will advance to chair-elect and then chair in 2026.

“The American Bar Association is proud to welcome retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Frank J. Bailey as our Judicial Division’s next Vice Chair, ” said ABA President Bill Bay. “Judge Bailey’s extensive experience and dedication to the rule of law makes him a strong leader for the division. His commitment to addressing the challenges faced by the judiciary today will be vital as we continue to uphold the integrity and independence of our courts.” 

The Judicial Division comprises 3,000 federal, state, tribal and local judges who serve throughout the United States and serves as the “voice of the American judiciary” within the ABA. Bailey was nominated by the National Conference of Federal Trial Judges for election to this role. He follows the Honorable J. Michele Childs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit as the nominee of the federal judges.

“It is an honor to be elected as the next Vice Chair of the American Bar Association’s Judicial Division,” said Frank J. Bailey, President of the Pioneer Public Interest Law Center. “In today’s climate, it is imperative that our great judges, court officials and tribal leaders come together to share ideas and innovative solutions as we face new challenges, including AI and judicial security, across the legal system.”

In its capacity, the Judicial Division proposes policy to the ABA House of Delegates, coordinates with the ABA President on public statements regarding issues of importance to the American Judiciary, conducts outreach on judicial education to the public -including high school and college students- and works with law students and young lawyers to advance the rule of law in the U.S. and abroad.

Bailey was a long-time partner of Sherin and Lodgen LLP and an associate at Sullivan & Worcester LLP.  He also served as a law clerk to Chief Justice Herbert P. Wilkins at the SJC.

Superior Court Judge Invalidates “Equity Theft” Law as Unconstitutional

/in , /by

SPRINGFIELD, MA –A Massachusetts Superior Court has ruled that a state law allowing municipalities (or private actors to whom municipalities sell the right to foreclose) to foreclose on homes due to property tax debt without having to pay the homeowner the difference between the taxes owed and the value of the home is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of the case at hand.

Read more

MAKE AN IMPACT

Stay Informed

Pioneer New England Legal Foundation is a non-partisan, public interest law firm that defends and promotes educational options, accountable government and economic opportunity across the Northeast. Pioneer New England Legal Foundation achieves its mission through legal research, amicus briefs, and litigation.

CONTACT US
185 Devonshire Street
11th Floor, Boston, MA 02110
617-819-1010