Among the names of men named in court Friday as customers of “brothels” that ran in Cambridge, Watertown and Virginia was Paul Toner. It’s the second round of names to be revealed in court – 28 total from a list of 2,800 contacts, authorities said. The names were posted in coverage in The Boston Globe, Harvard Crimson and WBUR identifying Toner as a Cambridge city councillor.
Toner was contacted Friday for comment and confirmed through a spokesperson that the name read in court was his.
“I caused pain for the people I care about most. For that, I will be forever sorry. This is an ongoing legal matter and I will not have further comment at this time,” Toner said.
None of the men named in court on Friday were present for a hearing of the charges and as a clerk magistrate advanced a charge of sexual conduct for a fee, according to media reports.
The operators of the brothels used by the men have pleaded guilty. Cambridge resident Han Lee – her co-defendants are Junmyung Lee, 31, of Dedham, and James Lee, 69, of Torrance, California – pleaded in September and was sentenced Wednesday in federal court to four years in prison followed by a year of supervised release, and ordered to pay $5.4 million and restitution in an amount to be determined at a later date.
The operation was in place from at least July 2020 and used rented apartments in the Luxe at Alewife building at 80 Cambridgepark Drive, North Cambridge, and the Atmark, 90 Fawcett St., Cambridge Highlands, both near the Alewife MBTA station, prosecutors said. Officials ended the operation in November 2023.
Customers of the brothels fought for months to keep their names shielded from the public.
Colleagues react
“I have worked closely with councillor Toner for several years; he has been a strong legislative partner and has made many valuable contributions to our city,” mayor E. Denise Simmons said. “I understand that allegations of this nature can raise serious concerns. Nonetheless, it is essential that we respect due process and uphold the presumption of innocence as the legal proceedings unfold. Councillor Toner and his family must determine how they wish to proceed, and as mayor I intend to provide them the appropriate space and privacy to navigate this difficult time, to the extent possible. I will continue to monitor the situation closely and will have no further comment on this matter at this time.”
Four of Toner’s fellow councillors – Burhan Azeem, Patty Nolan, Sumbul Siddiqui and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler – released a group statement calling the charges “deeply concerning”:
Councillor Toner has the right to a fair process through the judicial system. Any violation of the law would violate the oath of office he took upon taking office. Solicitation of prostitution is illegal in Massachusetts. If convicted, his actions would not simply be a lapse in judgment of a private individual but a crime and a violation of the trust placed in him by the public.
Illegal prostitution is inherently exploitative and is not a victimless crime. We stand with those hurt by exploitation. We call on councillor Toner to consider the impact of this situation on the City Council and his role as a leader in the community.
Vice mayor Marc McGovern said separately, but similarly, that “it is important to note that councillor Toner has not been found guilty and is entitled to due process. However, the nature of these charges is deeply concerning.”
“Participation in the illegal sex trade is not merely a lapse in judgment, it fuels an industry that exploits and harms women. As this case advances, the council, and more specifically councillor Toner, will need to make decisions on how to move forward,” McGovern said.
Municipal elections, when Toner might run for reelection, take place in November. Toner won election in 2021 and was returned to the council in 2023.
A rerun of the November election by independent journalist John Hawkinson using the same software as the city showed John Hanratty as taking a seat on the City Council if Toner steps down. A message was left with Hanratty, but there was no reply.
This post was updated March 21, 2025, with statements by city councillors.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
What charges did the operators plead guilty to?
If you look at the story two below this one: “Lee’s sentence is the result of her pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to persuade, induce, entice, and coerce one or more individuals to travel in interstate or foreign commerce to engage in prostitution; and one count of money laundering conspiracy.” aka trafficking
According to the Globe Toner was one of the 28 most frequent clients, interacting with the brothel 400 times or more.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/14/metro/cambridge-brothel-case-men-hearings/
Meanwhile Zusy is standing up for him:
“He adds extraordinary value,” said Zusy. “He did something really stupid. No, I don’t think he should resign from the Council. We need him.”
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/21/metro/cambridge-watertown-brothel-men-charged/
He seems to have done something ‘really stupid’ [not to mention contrary to his oath of office] at least 400 times! That’s not the ‘value’ I want on my Council.
I’m also curious how he paid for it all…
Many of the councilors are probably crossing their fingers. While this is a disturbing situation fraught with bad decisions and implications for a city councilor and elected body, I can’t help feeling that his removal one way or another will make it easier for the remainder with less push-back and accountability in their horse-trading. Councilor Toner was one that asked the hard questions and found compromise for the benefit of the community, not developers in general. He wasn’t afraid to stand alone or in the minority. Innocent until proven guilty.
He represented homeowners protecting their wealth, not the broader community. Most Cambridge residents are renters, yet he supported housing policies that kept rents high.
He also defended parking, despite most people in Cambridge not relying on cars.
He championed a privileged minority.
Toner should resign. I suppose if he then wants to run again in November and the people elect him knowing his record, fine– but he’s a laughingstock now and needs to show some decency. Resign.
Ugh. Whenever these kind of scandals happen, I feel incredibly bad for the public figure’s family.
He championed hard working people that worked for everything they got!! The Democrats have left this group a long time ago!! Just ask Donald Trump!!!
Renters work hard for everything they have. They deserve a champion because they are less advantaged.
I’d ask, but he seems too busy cutting benefits for poor to answer.
@ajdisidoro good joke, appreciate this. I’m sorry but neither donald trump (policy for billionaires only) nor Toner (policy for home owners driving cars) are representing interests of a broad group of people.
Toner acknowledges hurting his family… he’s not trying to claim he didn’t use the brothel [and thereby break his oath of office].
What are his defenders arguing here?
That he engaged the services of trafficked women more than 400 times, but they always seemed happy so he doesn’t deserve any consequences?
That he engaged less than 400 times by his count, so he doesn’t deserve to be charged with the other frequent fliers?
Toner is fighting the criminal charges, but he’s not claiming innocence, just his degree of culpability.
Toner championed those who could afford homes and cars, rather than advocating for the disadvantaged who truly needed representation.
He should not resign or be removed. He made a mistake. Where is the outrage surrounding Tania Fernandes Anderson?
Those “people” that own homes and cars pay property and excise taxes as well as for parking permits….
@Lazarus Renters indirectly pay property taxes through their rent—how else do you think landlords cover those costs? They also pay excise taxes on many products.
Everyone contributes to road construction and maintenance, regardless of car ownership. Parking permits don’t grant ownership of public streets.
Most Cambridge residents don’t own homes, and nearly half don’t regularly use cars. They deserve representation too.
Tania Fernandes Anderson is a Boston city councilor—not from Cambridge—and she’s currently facing a lengthy prison sentence.
@lazarus
Seems like he made hundreds of “mistakes.” Meanwhile your selective outrage is showing, and there has been considerable outrage surrounding her.
Excise taxes and parking permits don’t come anywhere close to covering the costs to the city that driving incur. Excise tax goes into the general fund it doesn’t even directly fund roads: https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/curious-about-the-use-of-excise-tax/
An expert on transportation, invited by Zusy, recently urged the city to increase the costs of parking permits, making them monthly, capping the number people can get, and higher fees for second and heavier vehicles because they are currently not reflective of city goals or the cost: https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=23624&MeetingID=4689
Renters also ultimately pay property taxes, The landlord simply passes on the burden to their renters.
In the tradiorion of Jonathan Swift, make car and home ownership illegal now.
The villification would thus come to its logical conclusion.
Eventually the number of parking spots on main roads will be winnowed down even more tequiring resident permit only spots to be taken away also.
Why not get rid of parking permits since they don’t defray the cpats of anything as you claim?
Car excise taxes go directly to municipality that collects them.
Forgot gasoline taxes also.
Please cite other excise taxes… this is a sincere question.
Toner’s backers in CCC recently published a hit piece in Cambridge day about councilor Azeem buying a property while supporting an upzoning for more housing: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2025/02/03/councillor-who-struggled-to-rent-three-years-ago-buys-a-home-met-with-suspicion-ahead-of-voting/ but they are perfectly fine with defending a councilor for repeatedly breaking the law.
I find it very telling what those who defend Toner here see as acceptable from people on their side compared to the kinds of controversies they manufacture against their opponents on much more tenuous grounds.
Non-drivers subsidize drivers in MA by 14,000 each per year: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/64-billion-massachusetts-vehicle-economy
Let the legal process play out. As everyone else, Councillor Toner deserves his day in court, and the decision about resigning rests with himself (and the voters this Fall).
Separately, two points regarding the repeated assertion/allegation that Councillor Toner made 400 visits to the brothels:
1. According to the CPD in a court appearance, they counted *each line* of a text message (including “Please” and “Thank you”) as a meetup, regardless of poster (which includes the back and forth in a text stream). Clearly not a reasonable calculation, though it’s reasonable and likely accurate to conclude that there was more than one meetup.
2. The Cambridge locations were active from about 7/20-11/23 according to reports. That’s about 170 weeks. 400 meetups would be 2 or 3 a week at a reported $350 or so each. That’s assuming the visits started in 7/20 and ended in 11/23, which is not a given. Multiple visits? Plausibly. 400? Extremely doubtful.
There may not have been 400 visits, but if there were 400 texts, multiple visits were likely.
@Slaw I was going to make the same point. The CCC made a big deal about Councilor Azeem buying property in Cambridge (gasp), but now they’re defending a councilor who likely broke the law multiple times—and definitely knew about an illegal operation yet did nothing.
@Lazarus Hyperbole like “make car and home ownership illegal now” weakens arguments.
Massachusetts taxes alcoholic beverages through both sales and excise taxes.