Former associate general counsel says, “I’m disgusted at how I’ve seen senior staff of the commission betray the trust given to them by the commonwealth.”
Cannabis Control Commission Assoc. General Counsel Steven Laduzinski received his notice of termination on April 28, just nine days after Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signed new legislation aimed to “modernize” the commonwealth’s cannabis laws.
In addition to numerous reforms, the act ended the terms of the previous commission members effective on the date of signing. The appointed body was basically closed with all its assets, activities, rules, and employees transferred to new leadership. One section provides for the continuity of staff: “Any employees at the transferor commission … shall remain employed by the transferee commission without interruption.”
According to Laduzinski, though, that’s not how things unfolded for him. After almost six years at the CCC as an attorney specializing in contracts, he’s filing for unemployment benefits. He says his termination was retaliation for whistleblowing during a 2023 probe of the CCC by the state’s Office of the Inspector General, and over internal investigations he later conducted under the direction of then-CCC Chair Shannon O’Brien—especially one into connections between Greatest Hits Cannabis and former Executive Director Shawn Collins.
The internal investigator
Shannon O’Brien returned to the chair of the CCC last September, following a two-year forced hiatus. An appeals court upheld a judge’s order reversing Treasurer Deb Goldberg’s axing of O’Brien over alleged misconduct, and that validation invigorated O‘Brien’s pursuit of internal investigations. In short, she didn’t trust many of her colleagues, some of whom she viewed to have undermined her previous tenure as chair.
One of O’Brien’s first actions after reclaiming the chair was to designate Laduzinski a special investigator. The CCC’s enabling statute allows the chair to call an investigation into and hearing on any matter beyond formal business, with the concurrence of just one other commissioner. Per the law, “Any such matter may be heard, examined, and investigated by an employee of the commission designated and assigned by the chair.”
During the commission’s meeting on Oct. 1, 2025, O’Brien and Commissioner Kimberly Roy designated Laduzinski under this investigator provision, which required no vote. Commissioner Bruce Stebbins attempted to speak, but was snubbed by the chair, who advanced the agenda over his objections.
Under the designation, Laduzinski had “all of the powers conferred upon a commissioner.” Six months later, the internal investigator provision was preserved in the bill signed into law by Healey.
Early clashes and alleged retaliation
This article is based on numerous emails between Laduzinski, O’Brien, and the CCC’s senior staff: the current executive director, the chief people officer, and General Counsel Kajal Chattopadhyay.
One correspondence alleges that Chattopadhyay’s interest in Laduzinski’s role began right after O’Brien announced the appointment: “GC immediately messaged me during the public meeting upon hearing my name, followed by a video call and an email.”
In an Oct. 24 email, Chair O’Brien wrote to CCC leadership demanding a meeting to “discuss the ongoing harassment of Atty. Laduzinski and myself by the GC.” “Chattopadhyay,” she alleged, “continues to act in a way that obstructs my legal authority under the statute.”
A November email from Laduzinski alleges retaliation against a whistleblowing colleague. The chief people officer suspended the fellow attorney for “refusal to work with your assigned supervisors” shortly after he shared tips with Laduzinski about purported legal department impropriety.
A private debate over public records
Emails from January 2026 recount internal commission clashes over a public records request from “CCC Sunshine,” apparently an outside group. The inquiry requested “materials, reports, emails, or correspondence prepared by [Laduzinski] presented to, circulated among, or used by the Commission or individual Commissioners from September 1, 2025, to December 5, 2025.”
Laduzinski argued to senior staff that such records were protected from public disclosure, writing, “The matters that I am handling for the Chair … involve examination and investigation and are not only subject to attorney-client privilege but are also exempt from [public records requests].”
At the same time, Chattopadhyay repeatedly demanded an itemized list of any documents Laduzinski was withholding from the records request. In emails, the general counsel repeatedly cited the requirements public records law establishes for cases of attorney-client privilege. Chattopadhyay elevated the matter to the executive director, who sent Laduzinski an email which began, “This doesn’t appear to remotely answer the item that is requested of you.”
Chair O’Brien weighed in with a Jan. 7 email defending Laduzinski, and requesting a meeting the next day. She followed with another email listing her numerous complaints against Chattopadhyay.
The aforementioned public information request was the object of more strife at the end of January. The exception to requests for materials related to ongoing investigations is one the CCC invokes often. Still, an appeal by “CCC Sunshine” to the state’s supervisor of records spurred GC Chattopadhyay to again request that Laduzinski produce an itemized list of privileged documents.
On Jan. 21, Laduzinski responded: “I am handling over 10 matters for Chair O’Brien … that all involve examination and investigation.” Speaking for this story, he said that should have satisfied the demand from the supervisor of records and settled the dispute over “CCC Sunshine.”
Tension spills into public before termination
Aggravation became public during the April 16 CCC meeting. Tensions flared after Chair O’Brien challenged Chattopadhyay over a document the general counsel was supposed to have drafted by then.
Chattopadhyay blamed “bandwidth” and short staffing, then turned accusatory: “We also have, as you are aware, one attorney who has been commandeered by the chair to act, purportedly, as her personal attorney, so …”
O’Brien didn’t allow him to complete the statement or speak again. Three days later, Healey’s pen ended her second run as chair.
Just before returning from a spring vacation, on April 27, Laduzinski sent an email to the CCC’s chief people officer stating, “I trust that you are well aware of my prior complaints regarding bullying, harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by the General Counsel, Kajal Chattopadhyay.” The letter went on to allege age discrimination and noted Chattopadhyay’s outburst in the public meeting, claiming that it constituted “slander” by blaming Laduzinski for delays when he hadn’t been assigned a project in months.
The following day, a courier hand-delivered a letter of termination and a final paycheck to Laduzinski. The letter cites “conduct that demonstrated an unwillingness to adhere to the supervisory structure of the Department and the Commission,” but doesn’t describe particular instances of insubordination, dates of incidents, or other context.
Conflicting claims
Since his dismissal, Laduzinski has attempted to file claims for unemployment and COBRA gap insurance, but encountered conflicting designations of his separation from the CCC. Having in-hand a letter which announced his termination, he reported on his “separation” as a firing for-cause, which would typically make him ineligible for some benefits. But emails shared by Laduzinski show that the commission has provided explanations which appear to be in conflict.
Laduzinski emailed the CCC’s benefits coordinator after a form about COBRA benefits listed his separation status as “Termination – voluntary.” After giving apparently contradictory responses, the coordinator clarified that CCC records listed Laduzinski as having been terminated rather than resigned. He has since continued his correspondence with the agency coordinator, writing that he is “not going to make any misrepresentations.”
The new cannabis law provided for continuity of more than just employees: “All … investigations … before the transferor commission prior to the effective date of this act shall continue unabated and remain in force.” It’s not clear if any of the work Laduzinski did at the direction of O’Brien will continue in the absence of them both.
In response to my questions about Laduzinski’s dismissal, a CCC spokesperson wrote, “Commissioners are being brought up to speed on all relevant business matters based on the authority to which they have been appointed.”
Otherwise, the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission “does not comment on personnel matters or investigations.”
The spokesperson also referenced a section of the new law which notes the executive director’s retention of delegated authorities through the transfer to the new commission.
Laduzinski says he is frustrated with how things turned out: “I’m disgusted at how I’ve seen senior staff of the commission betray the trust given to them by the commonwealth. At some point, their self-serving re-interpretations of the law become a contradictory narrative.”
