Church asserts fairness, compassion in negotiations

An attorney for the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston sharply disagreed yesterday with comments by lawyers for alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse, who contended that the church has adopted a hard line toward abuse survivors in ongoing settlement negotiations.

Thomas H. Hannigan Jr., the lawyer who represented the church in the landmark 2003 settlement in which the archdiocese paid $85 million to 554 people who said they had been sexually abused by clergy, said the church is trying to be both fair and compassionate to the second wave of alleged victims.

''We are very much trying to design a process that is just and sensitive to the survivors," Hannigan said yesterday. ''We are not trying to revictimize anyone or demean them."

Lawyers representing alleged victims went public Thursday with details of a proposed settlement process for the second wave of about 200 people who have made sexual abuse claims against the archdiocese. Most of those were reluctant to come forward prior to the 2003 settlement, lawyers said.

Under the proposal, the second wave of claimants would be split into three groups, both sides said.

For the first group, the archdiocese would accept as true the allegations of about 100 alleged victims. After presenting their allegations in a nonadversarial process, an arbitrator would award each claimant a judgment of between $5,000 and $200,000, with $75,000 as a median.

Some 30 people in the second group, however, would be required to convince the arbitrator that their abuse actually happened before a judgment of up to $200,000 could be awarded. If the arbitrator ruled that the abuse never happened, the claimant would get nothing, and the decision would be binding.

The remaining 70 people in the third group will not be offered arbitration at this time, and their claims -- many of which involve nondiocesan clergy, alleged abusers who are lay people, and abuse suffered while the alleged victims were adults -- will be considered on a case-by-case basis after the arbitration process is over.

A lawyer for some of the alleged victims called the proposal ''egregiously disingenuous." Another lawyer accused the archdiocese of setting up a ''new internal tribunal system." Both lawyers said the offer would provide far less money to each of their clients than the 2003 agreement, in which the median settlement was $155,000.

Boston attorney Carmen Durso accused the archdiocese of ''telling this group that their cases are less significant and less important."

In a press release issued yesterday, archdiocesan officials confirmed the smaller dollar amounts for the second wave of settlements.

''While not as high as in the global settlement, [the amounts] reflect the present financial capability of the Archdiocese and recognize its deteriorated financial condition since the time of the last settlement," the press release stated.

Both Hannigan and the archdiocese criticized the claimants' lawyers for breaking the confidentiality of the settlement negotiations and for making statements that were misleading and inaccurate.

In particular, Hannigan said that no tribunal system was being set up outside the independent arbitration process, which was established in the 2003 settlement.

He also said that, contrary to assertions by lawyers on the other side, it will not be necessary for alleged victims in the second group to face their alleged abusers during the adversarial arbitration.

''They don't necessarily have to be in the same room," Hannigan said. ''That is something we are willing to work with them on. I told the plaintiffs' lawyers that we were willing to talk about the ground rules and that we want to do things in a way that is pastoral and sensitive."

Hannigan also strongly denied that the church was trying to demean some victims by forcing them to prove that their abuse occurred.

''We are not saying that they are baseless claims," he said. ''We are just saying that we don't have a sufficient basis to determine whether or not the claim has merit at this time."

While people in the second group could face questioning and cross-examination during an adversarial arbitration, Hannigan said, the process would still be less painful and time-consuming than taking their cases to court.

For people in the second group, he said, the archdiocese has also agreed to drop other possible legal defenses such as statute of limitations and charitable immunity, meaning that if the arbitrator rules that the abuse did occur, the case would move straight to the damage award phase.