Hiring Wistow’s firm it had been announced by Gov. Dan McKee at a news conference in April. Wistow, along with attorney Jonathan Savage, were hired to investigate who was responsible for the bridge’s failure, with the goal of recovering money for the state. Savage remains on the case.

Wistow is well known in Rhode Island for his recovery work MILLION for the state after the failure of Curt Schilling’s video game company, 38 studiosand also for getting millions for the victims Fire at the station nightclub.

The westbound Washington Bridge has been closed since December 2023 after a critical tie rod failure was discovered. While the state initially planned to repair the structure, more problems were discovered in the following months, and now the plan is to completely demolish and rebuild the highway bridge. Demolition is expected to take at least another year and there is no estimated date yet when a new bridge will be built.

Outside lawyers had investigated the case from April to August and were ready to file a lawsuit against the 13 defendants when Neronha got involved. He told the Globe at the time that without his office being the “final decision maker” and the leader of the case, the lawsuit was at risk of being thrown out. The a lawsuit was filed on August 16.

Reached by the Globe, Wistow declined to comment on why he withdrew, citing attorney-client privilege.

Neronha spokesman Tim Rondeau also declined to comment on why Wistow left the case. 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 litigation for professional reasons,” Rondeau said. “We are grateful for Attorney Wistow’s contributions to this investigation and this case. It would have been our preference for him to remain as part of the litigation team, but we respect his decision and are grateful that he has agreed to remain on the case until we obtain replacement counsel.”

Wistow could still be paid up to 2.66 percent of any potential recovery, according to a new agreement signed Thursday between McKee, Neronha and outside firms. The total amount to be shared between the firms is 16.66 percent of any damages awarded to the state. They are not paid if they do not earn any money, but are reimbursed by the state for expenses incurred during the trial.

Cohen Milstein, the new firm, “has an extensive track record that includes successfully navigating complex and important matters such as the landmark water contamination litigation in Flint, Michigan,” Rondeau said.

It’s unclear what impact, if any, the attorney shakeup will have on the case. But the frosty relationship between McKee and Neronha, both Democrats, worsened this week after Neronha declined to charge McKee in a criminal investigation involving an education contract, but still accused him of violating procurement rules.

McKee criticized Neronha in a press conference on Thursdaydeclaring, “I don’t trust the attorney general.”

Both McKee and Neronha signed the new bridge lawsuit agreement Thursday, according to a copy of the agreement, which says Neronha has veto power over all decisions made in the case.

After taking control of the case, Neronha said he referred the RI Department of Transportation to stop the demolition of the bridge in Septembertrying to preserve evidence. Dismantling the bridge resumed in October at McKee’s direction, after a month’s hiatus.

Meanwhile, several of the firms sued in the lawsuit filed motions to dismiss the case this week, including the company that built the bridge and is now in the midst of demolition, Aetna Bridge Co.

A 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 has no sustained legal basis.”

The defendants argue that the decision to rehabilitate the bridge at the time they were hired — rather than build a new one — “was solely up to the state.”

“The state’s decision to procure the project proved flawed following the discovery in early 2024 of compromised post-tensioned tendons in the beams after expensive (and previously unfunded) testing was authorized,” the defendants’ attorneys wrote. “If the state had done this expensive testing before issuing the RFP for the project, the rehabilitation portion of the project wouldn’t have even hit the drawing board.”

Another defendant, AECOM, wrote of its own motion to rebut the state’s failure to clarify what kind of damages that company, which did design services, is responsible for.

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

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

Steph Machado can be reached at [email protected]. Follow a @StephMachado.