I would like to set the record straight regarding the agreement between DuPont Corp. and Rhode Island Atty. Gen. Patrick Lynch in the lead-paint public-nuisance case tried this year.

DuPont was dismissed with prejudice, on the basis of the facts produced in discovery. The dismissal was not pursuant to a settlement. There was no settlement agreement between Attorney General Lynch and DuPont, and DuPont paid no money to either the state or the attorney general's outside contingency-fee lawyers.

DuPont agreed to make contributions to three charities: the Children's Health Forum, Brown University Medical Center, and Brigham and Women's Hospital, in Boston. We will honor each of these commitments. Suggestions to the contrary are just wrong.

Regarding our donation to Brigham and Women's hospital, DuPont did not agree to make any payment on behalf of Jack McConnell or his law firm, Motley Rice, in return for waiving payment of fees and expenses. DuPont's agreement with Attorney General Lynch included no such provision. If Attorney General Lynch had insisted that the contributions be made on behalf of his outside contingency-fee lawyers, no agreement would have been reached.

DuPont's contribution to Brigham and Women's Hospital is an unrestricted gift. We have instructed the hospital that our contribution should not be credited to any pledge or obligation of Mr. McConnell, his law firm, or any other entity.

Last year, DuPont's lawyer explained the terms of the agreement to the court, at which both Mr. McConnell and an assistant attorney general were present. Neither Mr. McConnell nor the assistant attorney general said anything to counter DuPont's explanation.

THOMAS SAGER

Wilmington, Del.

The writer is chief litigation counsel for DuPont Corp.