Noted labor and employment attorney Harold L. Lichten was feeling A-OK as he put the finishing touches on his preparations for an oral argument before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

A few days before the scheduled hearing date for Lopez v Massachusetts Division of Human Resources, et al., Lichten received a copy of a favorable amicus brief filed by the MCAD.

The Boston lawyer, who practices at Lichten & Liss-Riordan, represents a group of minority police officers seeking promotions in a number of cities and towns across Massachusetts. The SJC is being asked to decide whether the plaintiffs have the right to file suit against the state on the grounds that Massachusetts officials developed and administered what they allege is a discriminatory promotional exam.

Lichten says the MCAD’s brief, written by Catherine C. Ziehl, embraced his position.

“We were very excited when we received the brief,” he says. “The MCAD’s views on how statutes should be interpreted are obviously entitled to significant deference from the courts, so we were feeling pretty good about what had just happened.”

But his happiness quickly turned to sorrow.

On the Friday afternoon before his Monday morning oral argument, Lichten learned that the MCAD, without explanation, had moved to withdraw its 46-page brief.

A follow-up call to the MCAD ended with an agency employee telling Lichten that she was not at liberty to discuss the change of heart.

“I’ve never seen anything like this,” he says. “It was the MCAD’s official position for at least 56 hours that our position was correct. What happened afterwards was simply not fair.”

Despite the MCAD’s last-minute maneuver, Lichten says, the amicus brief is still on file before the SJC. The motion to withdraw, he adds, has yet to be granted.

Before such a motion is allowed, Lichten plans to lodge what he says is a “vigorous challenge.” He has already fired off an opposition that is now pending before the SJC.

Lichten says the case raises concerns that there may have been a violation of G.L.c. 151B, §8, which makes it a crime to interfere with an MCAD proceeding. The statute, he says, is grounded in the notion that the MCAD is supposed to be an independent adjudicatory agency.

“We don’t know what happened yet, but if the commonwealth attempted to persuade the MCAD to withdraw an amicus brief in a case involving themselves, it would be just as illegal as if Raytheon or anyone else did the same thing,” he says.

Ziehl, the MCAD’s general counsel, could not be reached for comment prior to deadline.