PROVIDENCE (RI)
Providence Journal [Providence RI]
May 22, 2026
By Katherine Gregg
In his day job, criminal defense lawyer Matthew LaMountain is representing a former Ponaganset High teacher accused of sexual misconduct with one or more students.
As the chairman of the Rhode Island Senate Judiciary Committee, LaMountain is leading a drive for a Supreme Court opinion – in lieu of a long-sought Senate vote in the waning days of this legislative session – on House-passed legislation to allow child sex-abuse victims to sue the Catholic Church and other institutions that failed to protect them from pedophiles.
“It’s hard for me to wrap my head around Sen. Matt LaMountain currently defending a school teacher indicted for sexual assault of her minor student, while simultaneously stonewalling our bill which would give victims of such crimes a road to justice,” clergy abuse victim Ann Webb told The Journal earlier this week.
“It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest,” said Webb, who has publicly recounted her repeated rape and molestation by her family’s now deceased parish priest in West Warwick multiple times over the years as her sister, state Rep. Carol McEntee, has pushed legislation to allow victims to sue the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence for damages.
“He is not casting one vote among 38 senators; he is the chairman who decides whether the bill ever reaches a vote at all,” said Kathryn Robb, the national director of the Children’s Justice Campaign at Enough Abuse.
Given that his “private law office markets criminal-defense services to people accused of the precise offenses the bill targets,” she called on LaMountain to recuse himself from any further discussion of the legislation that rose to a top issue this year after Attorney General Peter Neronha’s scathing report on clergy sex abuse in March.
“This is not a hypothetical. The Providence Journal reported this week that Sen. LaMountain is currently representing Alisha Crins, a former Ponaganset High School teacher indicted … on two counts of third-degree sexual assault of a student, a child sexual abuse offense under Rhode Island law.”
LaMountain responds
In an email to The Journal, he said: “I strongly disagree with the suggestion that my legal practice creates a conflict with my duties as a legislator or my role as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The assertion that I am attempting to ‘block’ legislation is also inaccurate,” he said.
“Legislators have a responsibility not simply to pass legislation and leave constitutional concerns for courts to resolve later. We are elected to carefully examine legal and constitutional issues before acting,” he said.
The legislation
At issue in the Senate: which tack to take.
Senators could pass Sen. Mark McKenney’s bill S 2616 to allow child abuse victims to file civil suits against the institutions that failed to protect them, and open a two-year “revival window” for claims that time-limits would otherwise bar.
Or, they could pass LaMountain’s resolution S 3275 seeking an opinion from the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of McKenney’s bill to revive “time barred civil claims.”
The attorney general and a retired federal judge, William Smith, urged the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing earlier this month to allow victims of sexual abuse to sue and not seek an advisory opinion.
The General Assembly “has relied on my office to fight for the legislation that has been passed,” Neronha told the senators. “On balance, we have prevailed time and time again. And I would submit that if we submit to this committee that this legislation is constitutional, I would ask you to take it on faith that we are correct.”
Smith, who retired from the U.S. District Court bench earlier this year, told lawmakers that there is a good chance the Supreme Court justices will decline to issue an advisory opinion, opting to wait until an actual court case comes before them.
“It means you are going to be back here a year from now, right back where you are right now,” Smith said. “The bills will be reintroduced and you will hear from the same victims. That is what will re-victimize them.”
‘The Senate has not foreclosed any option”
In his response on Friday, LaMountain noted that he “met with survivors and advocates directly … [and] listened to their experiences, concerns, and perspectives.
“While there may be disagreement regarding process or approach, I want to be clear that I have been sincere in my statements that victims deserve a meaningful avenue to seek justice through the courts and that institutions which failed to protect children should be held accountable where responsibility exists under the law.”
After “reviewing testimony … meeting with interested parties and carefully evaluating the legal and constitutional issues that have been raised,” he said he believes “there is a path forward that can provide victims access to the courts while ensuring that legislation is carefully crafted and capable of achieving its intended purpose.”
He did not elaborate on how that might play out in the final weeks of a legislative session expected to end before the “candidate declaration period” begins on June 22. (Of note: the lawmakers can always return in the fall for a special session, but that has not been suggested publicly.)
“The Senate has not foreclosed any option,” LaMountain told The Journal.
As for the clients of his private law practice, he said: “Every person accused of wrongdoing is entitled to a vigorous legal defense,” but representing clients “does not mean endorsing their conduct, beliefs, or actions.”
He said his current legal practice includes “criminal law, DUI, expungements, family law, personal injury, and general practice matters,” but in his earlier role as a state prosecutor, he “prosecuted cases involving individuals who preyed upon children and obtained convictions in those cases.”
He said his bid for a Supreme Court advisory opinion “was not intended as a directive or as a mechanism to kill legislation. Rather, it was part of a broader discussion surrounding complex constitutional questions and was presented in an open and transparent manner with public input and open dialogue.”