The former Government was advised by its own lawyers that the sacking of an architect from a public works project was not justified and represented a breach of contract, it has been revealed.And Attorney General Mark Pettingill has accused Opposition MPs of misleading the House after they claimed Government could have successfully defended a lawsuit filed by Carruthers, Shaw and Partners (CS&P) after the company was dismissed as project manager for the new Magistrates’ Court and Police Station project in 2008.The company had sued Government for $1.4 million after it was sacked and the OBA Government eventually reached a $700,000 settlement earlier this month.Last week, Opposition MPs claimed that Mr Pettingill, in reaching the settlement, had rejected legal advice given to the former Government which asserted that CS&P did not have a case.According to Shadow Finance Minister Mr Burt, lawyers Conyers, Dill and Pearman (CD&P) had advised that more than $1 million of the claim was “not owing” while a further $182,000 for anticipated change orders was not “valid”. Party colleague Michael Weeks claimed that the former Government had been given “enough ammunition to file a counter claim”, while Opposition Leader Marc Bean had claimed that lawyers had “reduced the claim to less than $200,000”.But in the House of Assembly yesterday, Mr Pettingill read out parts of a January 2009 letter from CD&P, which had clearly informed the former administration that the architect’s claim was valid, and the decision to sack the company could not be justified.According to Mr Pettingill, the advice read: “We think it likely that a court would conclude that the Government was in breach of contract when it terminated the services of CS&P on 2 December, 2008. There was no allegation that CS&P were themselves in breach of their contract such as to justify termination.“This breach of contract gives rise to a claim by CS&P against the Government for such damages as they have sustained by reason of the early termination of their contract.”Mr Pettingill added: “From this, it is crystal clear that the opinion provided by CD&P to the previous Government did not reflect what the Honourable Member [David Burt] asserted.“He stated on record in this Honourable House that this opinion directly contradicted my view that CS&P’s case was valid, when it clearly did exactly the opposite. The fact is that the Honourable Member entirely misled this House and the public of Bermuda by making statements about, and making alleged quotes from a document that were patently false and materially misleading.“Whether this was intended or negligent as based on what he heard as opposed to what he saw matters not. In my view, it is he who must apologise unequivocally for this and make a retraction to the media and the People of Bermuda.”Mr Pettingill also said there was not a single mention by CD&P to the supposed $182,000 for change orders referred to by Mr Burt.And he pointed out that the ammunition for a counter claim referred to by Mr Weeks was “a mere spreadsheet” and “was not sufficiently independent or compelling to amount to ammunition as the Honourable Member suggested”.“The Honourable Member’s statements are grossly misleading, and not a reflection of the true legal position taken by the Government in this matter,” he said.“There simply were no written expert reports brought to our attention or contained in any Government file relating to this matter.”Mr Pettingill rubbished Mr Bean’s claim that lawyers had earlier said a $200,000 settlement could have been negotiated, pointing out that lawyer Julian Hall, who represented Government early in negotiations, had offered $415,000 as an initial bargaining position.“Given the facts now disclosed with regard to the legal opinion and the lack of any formal technical reports as alleged by the Opposition they are clearly at fault for misleading this Honourable House and the public in what can only be seen as an attempt to cloud the truth as it relates to their handling of the issues relating to the court building,” Mr Pettingill said.“An apology, at least, is required.”In a statement sent to this newspaper in response to Mr Pettingill’s claims, Mr Burt stood by his original comments.“The Attorney General’s statement today was merely an attempt to deflect the attention away from himself for not sharing with the people of Bermuda who he received external legal advice from for the controversial settlement that he agreed with CS&P,” Mr Burt said.“Not only do I stand by my statements last week, the Attorney General today confirmed my very position in his own statement. He confirmed the fact that Conyers Dill & Pearman advised the Government that ‘CS&P were not entitled to claim their entire fee to the end of the construction period’.“My line of questioning was directly related the claim that was made against the Government which contained in excess of $1 million related to future work. The Government received advice, and the Attorney General confirmed and today said he AGREED with the advice received from Conyers Dill & Pearman, that CS&P were NOT ENTITLED to claim their entire fee.“There will be no apology from me for doing my job in keeping the OBA accountable. There will be no retraction for sharing important facts with the people of this country. The Attorney General confirmed my position today and I stand by my statement that I made last week.”