Trevor Moniz, the Attorney-General, has refused to disclose the price tag for the Bermuda Government’s legal claim against Lahey Clinic.

In addition, Mr Moniz rebuffed calls to identify the Government’s sources for its case, in which former premier Ewart Brown is cited — telling Parliament that “political theatre and the politics of distraction” were being used.

However, cost details could be coming to MPs, after Randolph Horton, the Speaker of the House, told the Attorney-General that Parliament was entitled to hear about monies spent.

It came as Progressive Labour Party MPs accused Mr Moniz of dodging parliamentary questions connected with the Massachusetts lawsuit.

Similar questions were among unanswered queries made last month by The Royal Gazette on the government’s arrangement with the law firm Cooley LLC,

Yesterday Shadow Attorney-General Michael Scott asked for the projected legal expenses for the case, which Mr Moniz refused to divulge.

MPs heard that no retainer had been paid to the firm, whichn would be paid based on the hours spent.

But Mr Moniz argued that releasing the figures would “give an indication of the scale and scope of the work being done, which is privileged”.

“It would be impossible to give a projection in advance of knowing what defence Lahey would file,” he added.

Opposition MP Derrick Burgess objected, telling Mr Horton that Mr Moniz “should be directed to answer questions and not hide behind privilege”, while Kim Wilson, a former Attorney-General under the PLP, branded it a “stalling tactic”.

Mr Horton ruled that while there was “no need for any indication of the scope”, Mr Moniz needed to inform the House of the expenses incurred.

The Attorney-General responded: “Perhaps we can have an offline discussion about it, so that I will be able to address the matter more fully next week.”

Mr Horton allowed a delay until Monday, when he said he hoped Mr Moniz would come back equipped with details.

He was next asked why a public relations firm had been hired for the suit — telling MPs that a company had been hired by Cooley to handle media queries.

“Lahey has an entire media relations department, which has been engaged to deal with this matter, so it seemed to make good sense.”

Opposition leader David Burt asked for the estimated expense approved by the minister, but Mr Moniz said Cooley had simply told him it would be “a reasonable cost”.

PLP MP Jamahl Simmons said the PR firm had a history of being “politically based”, but Mr Moniz was adamant that he had played no part in its selection.

The lawsuit was filed on February 14 in a Boston federal court, two days after police raided Dr Brown’s local medical clinics and seized records.

The Bermuda Government contends that Lahey, with whom Dr Brown has a long working relationship on high-tech medical diagnostic interpretation, conspired with him to secure business on the island and charge for medically unnecessary tests.

This week Dr Brown responded to both Mr Moniz and Michael DeSilva, the Commissioner of Police, with his lawyer alleging among other complaints that the Attorney-General had violated the constitutional separation of separation of his office from the pursuit of criminal matters.

Letters sent Thursday by lawyer Jerome Lynch QC, and copied to the media, said it was “difficult to believe” that the Lahey complaint had not been prepared without dipping into a longstanding investigation of Dr Brown by local police.

“I have nothing to do with the criminal side — I am undertaking a civil case in Boston against Lahey Hospital,” Mr Moniz told the House yesterday.

“In that case there is a complaint which is a public document. I don’t control that. In the US it’s public, and everybody has a right to read it.”

Protesting that there had been “mud slinging to attack my credibility”, he maintained that the legal letters had been “leaked to the media for some sort of public relations benefit” — and said that the information used in the Lahey complaint came from “locally sourced information that we have available to us”.

Pressed for details, the Attorney-General called it sub judice, and thus exempt from public discussion.

Telling MPs that disclosing sources would be prejudicial, Mr Moniz went on: “I will not reveal where I get evidence from. It will come out in the court case.”

But Mr Horton corrected him, saying that under the Erskine May handbook of parliamentary practice, “in regards to matters which are in courts overseas, sub judice falls away”.

The Attorney-General subsequently told Parliament that most of the information derived from “government departments or bodies”.

But he refused to give examples when asked by Opposition MP Zane DeSilva, telling him: “I’m not going to provide evidence to the other side, to Lahey — you’re trying to prejudice an ongoing case”.

And, when challenged by Ms Wilson as to whether Government Employee Health Insurance had been included, the Attorney-General said he was “not prepared to be specific — I’m prepared to be broad”.

Mr Horton accepted the reply, telling the House: “He answered. You may not like the answer.”

Meanwhile, in response to a third parliamentary question on which Bermudian attorney was instructing Cooley LLP, Mr Moniz replied: “It’s myself, Mr Speaker.”

• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on a story that we deem might inflame sensitivities. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.