massachusetts lawyers journal march 2015

BY PETER ELIKANN

Juries have traditionally placed a great deal of faith in eyewitness identifications. They generally find it exceptionally credible when a witness takes the stands, points to the defendant and says something to the effect of: “Look, it was absolutely, definitely, positive-ly him. Don’t you be telling me I didn’t see what I saw.”

Yet almost every one of a plethora of re-cent studies by the relevant scientific com-munity have shown that despite these sorts of loud declarations of unconditional certainty, the eyewitness might still very well be mis-taken.

For example, in recent years, DNA has exonerated innocent citizens languishing in prison whose conviction may have rested solely on an adamant identification by

I saw a photograph of a recently snow-engulfed Massachusetts neighbor-hood captioned, “Welcome to Alaska-chusetts,” and had to remind myself that since February is the shortest month, this “snowpocalypse” should soon be over. As we enter March and head toward spring, I am happy to announce a number of exciting upcoming events.

March 16 — Seeing voir dire in ac-tion: The courts have put a lot of thought into the voir dire pilot program and its roll out, and our rescheduled voir dire training scheduled for March 16 gives us all a chance to see how it continues to evolve. With Superior Court Judges Bon-nie MacLeod-Mancuso, Peter Lauriat and Maynard Kirpalani, plus an expert panel of lawyers, this free CLE program will be a great opportunity to get insight from both bench and bar as to the best way to approach our voir dire and learn best practices.

April 6–10 — Member Apprecia-tion Week: Our members (you) are the heart and soul of our association. The MBA would not be here today without your support for our programs, your commitment to volunteerism and your dedication to legal excellence. We are grateful year-round for everything

9

BY MIKE VIGNEUXFinding the right lawyer can be a daunting task for many

people. Not knowing what to do or even where to begin in the search for an attorney often presents a confusing and stressful situation.

That feeling of uncertainty was exactly what one of Jef-frey N. Catalano’s clients experienced before she reached out to the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Lawyer Referral Service (LRS) in July 2009. Before calling LRS she didn’t know any attorneys or even who to reach out to.

The client, a young mother who gave birth to a child with severe disabilities, was referred to Catalano, a partner at Todd & Weld LLP, who specializes in medical malpractice cases. After a few years in the litigation process, Catalano’s client re-ceived a record-setting $10 million arbitration award this past fall. What began as an overwhelming situation for the client’s family was eased by a simple phone call to LRS. The final out-come was beyond what the family could have ever imagined.

“My client was very thankful that she had a reputable source to go to for a referral. The family wanted some assur-ance that whomever they were getting for a lawyer had req-uisite qualifications,” said Catalano, who also serves as MBA treasurer. “Part of the MBA’s mission is to serve the interests

of the citizens of the commonwealth. In this case, the MBA’s LRS helped to alleviate the tremendous financial and emotional burdens suffered by a terrific family.”

Answering the call for 40-plus yearsLRS has served as a trusted starting point for those in need

of a lawyer for more than 40 years. Created in 1974, LRS is a free referral service that connects people with MBA

BY KELSEY SADOFF

The Massachusetts Bar Association is pleased to announce that trial attorney Mark J. Geragos, of Geragos & Geragos, APC, in Los Angeles, will deliver the keynote address at the Annual Dinner on Thursday, May 7, at the Westin Boston Waterfront.

Geragos, the principal at the inter-nationally known law firm of Geragos & Geragos APC, in Los Angeles, is the only lawyer besides Johnnie Cochran ever named “Lawyer of the Year” in both the criminal and civil arenas.

Geragos cemented his national repu-tation as a trial attorney winning back-to-back state and federal court jury trial acquittals, and a presidential pardon, for renowned Whitewater figure Susan Mc-Dougal. In addition, during the last de-cade, Geragos has won two consecutive dismissals of murder charges against clients by proving flawed eyewitness identification. One of those clients later won a $1.7 million settlement when the Geragos firm sued the City of Glendale for their false arrest of that client.

“I am so excited to announce attor-ney Mark Geragos as the MBA’s keynote speaker for our annual dinner. Attorney Geragos has had an extraordinary ca-reer in his representation of so-called celebrity clients, including but not lim-ited to Winona Ryder, Michael Jackson and many more,” said MBA President Marsha V. Kazarosian. “Notably, as a proud Armenian, he advocates vigor-ously for the recognition of the Arme-nian genocide and for reparations. As an accomplished author and president of the Armenian Bone Marrow Donor Registry (ABMDR), Attorney Geragos has pledged a percentage of his earnings from his 2013 book, Mistrial, to the AB-MDR. Please join us on May 7 to listen and learn from Attorney Geragos … an extraordinary lawyer, accomplished au-thor, speaker and advocate for human rights.”

Geragos was one of the lead law-yers in a pair of groundbreaking federal class action lawsuits against New York Life Insurance and AXA Corporation for insurance policies issued in the early 20th century during the genocide of over 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman

Turk Regime, eventually settling these two cases for more than $37.5 million. He is currently suing the Government of Turkey for reparations arising out of the Armenian genocide.

In addition, his $59 million jury ver-dict in a trade secrets case against phar-maceutical giant Pfizer Corporation was voted a “Top Fifty Verdicts in the United States” by the National Law

Lawyer Referral Service a lifeline for lawyer and client

Understanding the new eyewitness I.D.

jury instruction

6 13

SEE PAGE 2 FOR A COMPLETE LISTING OF THIS ISSUE’S CONTENTS.

WWW.MASSBAR.ORG VOLUME 22 | NUMBER 7 | MARCH 2015

THE MBA'S SPRINGFIELD OFFICE HAS MOVED

COMCOM HOSTS KOREAN DELEGATION

PRESIDENT’S VIEW

MARSHA KAZAROSIAN

6 3

2

The Massachusetts Bar Association’sSPRINGFIELD office and the

MBA INSURANCE AGENCY have

moved

MBA SPRINGFIELD NEW ADDRESS

1441 MAIN ST., SUITE 925SPRINGFIELD, MA 01103-1450

TEL (413) 731-5134 FAX (413) 731-5915

WWW.MASSBAR.ORG

A spring in our step

Trial attorney, activist Mark J. Geragos

to keynote 2015 Annual Dinner

Mark J. Geragos

you bring to the MBA, and for the fifth year in a row we’ve dedicated a week to celebrate you. This year, from April 6–10, the MBA will offer fun social ac-tivities, as well as great giveaways and prizes. Please join us in all that we offer during this special week (and all year, of course) and revel in the vibrant statewide legal community that you, as a member, have created.

April 14–16 — ABA Day in Wash-ington: Right after Member Apprecia-tion Week, from April 14–16, I have the honor of representing the MBA during ABA Day in Washington, DC, where I and other leaders from the American Bar Association and other local bars will have a chance to meet with members of Con-gress to lobby for important issues that directly impact the legal profession and the administration of justice. We all know of the positive impact we can make when we collaborate with legislative leaders here in the commonwealth. On ABA Day, we have an opportunity to educate our elective representatives on Capitol Hill and make a difference on a national level.

May 7 — 2015 MBA Annual Din-ner: Plans are now set for what prom-

ises to be the pinnacle of our year — the MBA’s 2015 Annual Dinner, which will be held at the Westin Boston Waterfront on May 7. We have a very full agenda planned, highlighted by keynote remarks from Mark J. Geragos, a renowned trial lawyer who has amassed an extraordi-nary career representing high-profile and celebrity clients, such as Susan McDou-gal (“Whitewater” controversy), Winona Ryder, Michael Jackson and many oth-ers. Attorney Geragos is also an accom-plished author, speaker and advocate for human rights. As a fellow Armenian-American and grandchild of genocide survivors, I am especially proud of his vigorous advocacy for the recognition of the Armenian genocide and for repara-tions. It makes his presence at our Annual Dinner especially meaningful to me.

We will also be honoring two indi-viduals who have consistently support-ed members of the bar: House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo (President’s Award) and Superior Court Judge Dennis J. Cur-ran (Chief Justice Edward F. Hennessey Award). The Annual Dinner will also feature the presentation of the Access to Justice Awards, and, for the first time, the presentation of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Scholarship to a third-year law

student. This will be a can’t-miss event. You can find all the details about the An-nual Dinner at www.massbar.org/AD15.

No more snow! It goes without say-ing that all of us are looking forward to seeing an end to this winter. Record snowfall led to court closures, office clo-sures, commuter headaches and more. The wheels of justice kept moving (even if the MBTA was not), but I know many lawyers had to make sacrifices to meet their client and court obligations, because that’s what we do.

MBA programs were not immune to disruptions, and several meetings and CLEs had to be rescheduled. The MBA’s Mock Trial program was hit especially hard as the storms wreaked havoc on pre-viously scheduled trials around the com-monwealth. With over 100 trials that had to be rescheduled, I am grateful to all the attorneys who took on make-up trials at very last moment, as well as the MBA’s Elizabeth O’Neil and Amy Osborne for their hard work in keeping this impor-tant program on track under such trying weather conditions.

We have a great deal to look forward to in the second half of our MBA year. I have a spring in my step just thinking about it. ■

Volume 22 / No. 7 / March 2015

EDITOR/DIRECTOR OF MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS: Jason M. Scally, Esq.

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Kelsey Sadoff

ASSISTANT EDITOR: Mike Vigneux

SENIOR DESIGN MANAGER: N. Elyse Lindahl

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER/CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL: Martin W. Healy, Esq.

LEGAL EDITOR: Martin W. Healy, Esq.

DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND OPERATIONS: Lee Ann Constantine

PRESIDENT: Marsha V. Kazarosian, Esq.

PRESIDENT-ELECT: Robert W. Harnais, Esq.

VICE PRESIDENT: Christopher A. Kenney, Esq.

VICE PRESIDENT: John J. Morrissey, Esq.

TREASURER: Jeffrey N. Catalano, Esq.

SECRETARY: Christopher P. Sullivan, Esq.

© 2015 Massachusetts Bar Association

Materials not to be reproduced without permission.

Lawyers Journal (ISSN 1524-1823) is published monthly by the Massachusetts Bar Association, 20 West St, Boston, MA 02111-1204. Periodicals postage paid at Boston, MA 02205. Postmaster: send address changes to Lawyers Journal, 20 West St., Boston, MA 02111-1204.

Subscription rate for members is $20, which is included in the dues. U.S. subscription rate to non-members is $30. Single copies are $3.

Telephone numbers: editorial (617) 338-0680; general MBA (617) 338-0500.

Email address: [email protected].

Readers are invited to express their opinions as letters to the editor and op-ed commentaries. All submissions are subject to editing for length and content. Submit letters and commentaries to: Editor, Lawyers Journal, at the address given above or via email to [email protected], or fax to (617) 542-7947.

A publication of the Massachusetts Bar Association

THE WARREN GROUP

DESIGN / PRODUCTION / ADVERTISING

ADVERTISING (617) 896-5307

EVENTS (617) 338-5359

2 MASSACHUSETTS LAWYERS JOURNAL | MARCH 2015

PRESIDENT’S VIEWContinued from page 1

INSIDE THIS ISSUE EXPERTS & RESOURCES8, 9, 10, 11

ON THE COVER • TRIAL ATTORNEY, ACTIVIST MARK J. GERAGOS

TO KEYNOTE 2015 ANNUAL DINNER

• PRESIDENT’S VIEW

• LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE A LIFELINE FOR LAWYER AND CLIENT

• UNDERSTANDING THE NEW EYEWITNESS I.D. JURY INSTRUCTION

LEGAL NEWS3 NEWS FROM THE COURTS

4 SJC RULES PARENT HAS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS

BAR NEWS5 MASSBAR EDUCATES: CLE AT A GLANCE

6 MEMBER SPOTLIGHT

7 NOTABLE AND QUOTABLE

8 CALENDAR OF EVENTS

10 MOCK TRIAL CHAMPIONSHIP SET FOR

MARCH 27

11 MEMBER SPOTLIGHT

13 MASSACHUSETTS BAR FOUNDATION

FOR YOUR PRACTICE12 LAWYERS CONCERNED FOR LAWYERS

SECTION REVIEW14 CARE: AN ALTERNATIVE TO MEDICAL

MALPRACTICE LITIGATION

15 PRACTICE POINTERS PREVENT POTENTIALLY PAINFUL PITFALLS

16 ATTORNEY-CONDUCTED VOIR DIRE BEGINS IN MASSACHUSETTS

MASSBARA S S O C I A T I O N

1 9 1 1

«M

ASSA

CH

US E

T T S B A R A S SO

CIA

TIO

N«

Young Lawyers host Celtics NightThe MBA’s Young Lawyers Division hosted a Celtics Night on Feb. 11. Members of the division were able to sit courtside for pre-game warm-ups. The Celtics played the Atlanta Hawks at TD Garden. ■

Snapshots from around the MBA

MASSACHUSETTS LAWYERS JOURNAL | MARCH 2015 3

LEGAL NEWS

an eyewitness. In fact, 76 percent of the first 250 convictions overturned because of DNA evidence since 1989 involved eyewitness misidentifica-tion. Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions in the United States.

This only confirms the consistent reliability of what research going back into the late 1800s has shown. For example, a 1932 groundbreaking book by Yale law professor Edwin Borchard examined 65 wrongful con-victions and determined that eyewit-ness misidentification was the chief cause to blame.

In order to better protect accused citizens and better maintain the integ-rity of the system, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently up-graded its jury instruction to assist jurors to better assess the reliability of eyewitnesses.

In Commonwealth v. Gomes, 470 Mass. 352 (2015), the SJC, in a unani-mous decision authored by Chief Jus-tice Ralph D. Gants, did not, in fact, overturn the conviction of the defen-dant who was convicted of slashing the face of a man as he sat in a car in Pittsfield. It reasoned, in part, that the judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to give a jury instruction proposed by the defense because the defense did not present an expert wit-ness, scholarly articles or treatises to substantiate the concepts outlined in the proposed instruction.

Nevertheless, the SJC did insist that a variation of the proposed jury instruction requested by the defense should be adopted from here on in. It is the first update of the eyewitness I.D. jury instruction in Massachusetts

since 1979. The court’s viewpoint was further bolstered by a recent re-port from its own SJC Study Group on Eyewitness Identification, which concluded, “The scientific studies have produced a consensus among ex-perts about the ... variables that have been shown to affect the reliability of eyewitness identification.”

The court concluded that juries should be instructed on five increas-ingly accepted scientific principles regarding eyewitness identification and human memory, most important-ly that (1) human memory does not operate like a video recording that a person can replay to recall what hap-pened; (2) a witness’s level of con-fidence in an identification may not indicate its accuracy; (3) high levels of stress can reduce the likelihood of making an accurate identification; (4) information from other witnesses or outside sources can affect the reli-ability of an identification and inflate an eyewitness’s confidence in the identification; and (5) viewing the same person in multiple identifica-tion procedures may increase the risk of misidentification.

It cited a dissent from U.S. Su-preme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer in the recent case of Perry v. New Hampshire, which said: “Study after study demonstrates that eyewitness recollections are highly susceptible to distortion by postevent informa-tion or social cues; that jurors rou-tinely overestimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications; that jurors place the greatest weight on eyewit-ness confidence in assessing identi-fications even though confidence is a poor gauge of accuracy; and that

suggestiveness can stem from sources beyond police-orchestrated proce-dures.”

It is fair to say that misidentifica-tions cannot solely blame system fail-ures such as poorly conducted lineups and photo arrays. Many factors out-side the criminal justice system can also come into play, such as lighting, distance, racial perceptions and the stress and trauma momentarily expe-rienced by the eyewitness.

Most concerning is that the more vociferous the eyewitness is in the confidence of his or her unquestion-able certainty, the more weight the jury gives to that identification. Yet the court concluded that “such con-fidence correlates only weakly with accuracy. Therefore, it is necessary to inform the jury that an eyewitness’s expressed certainty in an identifica-tion, standing alone, may not indicate the accuracy of an identification.”

The SJC expressed the belief that, since there is a “near consensus” that jurors give more weight to an eyewit-ness’s certainty than is warranted by the research into its accuracy, it would be remiss in not informing the jury to, at the very least, consider this.

The provisional jury instruction goes into immediate use, but the SJC will solicit public comments prior to finalizing an authoritative version. Yet it did acknowledge that, even then, any eyewitness identification instruction may never reach its final form and may perpetually be a work in progress, since, as the research into this science evolves, it will continu-ally be subject to further revision. ■

Peter Elikann is a criminal defense attorney

and vice chair of the MBA’s Criminal Justice

Section Council. He also serves as a member

of the MBA’s Executive Management Board.

JURY INSTRUCTIONContinued from page 1

News from the CourtsChief Justice Rapoza announces retirement

Appeals Court Chief Jus-tice Phillip Rapoza has an-nounced he will retire from the Massachusetts Appeals Court on June 30, 2015. Rapo-za was first appointed to the bench in 1992 by Gov. Wil-liam Weld and has served as a trial judge on the Fall River District Court and the Massa-chusetts Superior Court.

In 1998, Rapoza was ap-pointed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court and in 2006 was named chief justice of the court.

Rapoza is a past recipient of the MBA President’s Award (2011), which is given to individuals who have made a significant contribution to the work of the MBA, to the preservation of MBA values, to the success of MBA initiatives and to the promotion of MBA leadership roles within the legal community in Massachusetts.

“Chief Justice Rapoza has been an outstanding leader for the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Under his helm, the Appeals Court brought sessions to the four corners of the state, making our justice sys-tem open and transparent to the public and instill-ing confidence in the judiciary,” said MBA Chief Legal Counsel and Chief Operating Officer Martin W. Healy. “We applaud Chief Justice Rapoza, whose commitment to justice included serving as an inter-national expert to developing countries on behalf of the United Nations. His footprint in the judicial arena has been felt throughout the world.”

Judge William Hillman to retire, bankruptcy merit selection panel appointed

Chief Judge Sandra Lynch of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has announced the formation of a Bankruptcy Merit Selec-tion Panel to screen and review the qualifications of applicants for a forthcoming vacant bank-ruptcy judgeship in Worcester.

The Hon. William C. Hill-man, who has served as a bank-ruptcy judge in the District of

Massachusetts in Boston since 1991, has announced his retirement, effective Aug. 14, 2015. The First Circuit Judicial Council has approved Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge Melvin S. Hoffman’s request to change his duty station from Worcester to Boston, also effective on Aug. 14, 2015. Consequently, the bankruptcy judgeship vacancy to be filled will occur in Worcester.

The court is seeking attorneys with demonstrated excellence in the practice of bankruptcy law and/or commercial litigation. Interested applicants may ob-tain an application from the Circuit Executive’s Office, from the Bankruptcy Court Clerk for the District of Massachusetts or by accessing the Court of Appeals’ website at www.ca1.uscourts.gov. Persons interested in applying for this position should submit seven cop-ies of their application to: Susan J. Goldberg, Circuit Executive, Office of the Circuit Executive, John Jo-seph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 3700, Boston, MA 02210. Applications are to be postmarked by Monday, March 16, 2015.

Reminder: MA Trial Court Electronic Case Access

Massachusetts attorneys can research civil, sum-mary process and small claims cases online through Massachusetts Trial Court electronic case access at www.masscourts.org.

Baker establishes Judicial Nominating Commission; Appeals Court vacancies posted

Gov. Charlie Baker has signed Executive Order 558 establishing the Judicial Nominating Commis-sion (JNC), a 21-member, statewide body to screen applications for judicial and clerk-magistrate posi-tions. He also announced that the Baker-Polito Ad-ministration is currently accepting applications for individuals seeking to serve on the JNC.

Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito are recruiting a team of commissioners to serve on the JNC through the JNC website, mass.gov/jnc.

After the members of the commission have been selected, the JNC will immediately begin work on re-viewing applications for open judicial positions.

The JNC has posted two Appeals Court vacancies as the first openings they are accepting applications for, both with an application deadline of March 18, 2015.

Appeals Court:

• The Honorable Joseph A. Grasso, Jr., Associate Justice (Jan. 9, 2015)

• The Honorable R. Malcolm Graham, Associate Jus-tice (Feb. 22, 2015)

Applications for the new JNC and current judicial openings are available at www.mass.gov/jnc.

Chief Justice Phillip RapozaWilliam C. Hillman

4


SJC rules parent has right to counsel in guardianship proceedingsIn early February, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the parent of a minor child has a right to counsel when someone other than the parent seeks to be

appointed as the child’s guardian. In doing so, the court agreed with the Massachusetts Bar Association and numerous other legal organizations, which had filed an amicus brief in the case.

Visit www. MassBar.org/Guardianship to view the SJC’s ruling and the amicus brief submitted by the MBA and others. ■

Warren FitzgeraldBoston

Phillip O’NeillBoston (Arb. Only)

Paul FinnBrockton

Dennis CalcagnoQuincy

Brad HonoroffBrookline

Brian MoneBrockton

John RyanBoston

Jeffrey SternBoston

Richard CorbettBoston

Brian JeromeBoston

Geoffrey WhiteNewton

Walter McDonoughNeedham

Sarah WorleyBoston

MASSACHUSETTS CHAPTER ANNOUNCEMENTThe following attorneys are recognized for

Excellence in the field of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Check preferred available mediation dates or schedule appointments online directly

with our Massachusetts Chapter Members for free at

This free bar website is funded by the members of our Massachusetts Chapter. For more info on NADN, visit www.NADN.org/about

Trial Court seeks public comments on proposed BMC and District Court Standing Order 1-15

The Chief Justice of the Trial Court invites comments on the proposed Standing Order 1-15 on Verification of Defendant’s Address for Claims In-curred in Trade or Commerce or Pursu-ing Assigned Debt.

This new standing order would ex-pand the current requirements for ad-dress verification in Small Claims R. 2(b) to all Boston Municipal Court and District Court regular civil cases for claims incurred in trade or commerce or pursuing assigned debt. This order is intended to introduce uniformity and to reduce the number of default judgments the courts must later vacate because ser-vice was made to an improper address.

The chief justice welcomes all com-ments pertaining to the issues raised and will determine whether to approve the proposed standing orders after review-ing the comments submitted.

Comments should be directed to Chief Justice Paula M. Carey, c/o Gen-eral Counsel Joseph M. Ditkoff at Jo-

[email protected] or Ad-ministrative Office of the District Court, Edward W. Brooke Courthouse, 24 New Chardon St., Boston 02114 on or be-fore March 16, 2015. Comments will be made available to the public upon request.

Pasquarello appointed director of the Electronic Monitoring Program

Massachusetts Commissioner of Probation Edward J. Dolan has appoint-ed Thomas Pasquarello as the new state-wide manager of the Electronic Moni-toring Center. Pasquarello started his new position at the center on March 2.

The Monitoring Center in Clinton is the headquarters for the Massachusetts Probation Service’s Electronic Monitor-ing (ELMO) Program. The center is a 365-day, 24-hour operation which em-ploys a 40-member staff. The employ-ees closely monitor the whereabouts of 3,000 probationers and parolees who are sentenced to wear the GPS bracelet.

Pasquarello, formerly the Chief of Police in Somerville, brings to the po-sition more than 30 years of municipal and federal law enforcement experience.

Among Pasquarello’s duties as the statewide manager of ELMO are the development and implementation of ELMO Center operation policies and practices, management of ELMO Center operations and oversight of staff, ensur-ing compliance with subpoenas for re-cords and testimony by ELMO staff and monitoring the issuance of warrants by the on-call staff.

SJC amends Rule 1 and Rule 6 of the Commission on Judicial Conduct; Mass. R. Civ. P. 45; Mass. R. Crim. P. 12

The Supreme Judicial Court has re-cently announced amendments to the following rules:• Rule 1 and Rule 6 of the Commis-

sion on Judicial Conduct: On Jan. 29, 2015, the SJC adopted amend-ments to Rules 1 and 6 of the Rules of the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The amendments became effective on March 1, 2015. The amendment to Rule 1 permits the Commission to adopt a broader definition of the term “complainant,” for purposes of

its rules. The amendments to Rule 6 reflect the replacement of the position of Chief Justice for Administration and Management with the position of Chief Justice of the Trial Court, pur-suant to M.G.L. c.93, sec. 137.

• Mass. R. Civ. P. 45: Through amend-ments to Rule 45, Massachusetts ad-opted the practice of a “documents only” subpoena directed to a non-party, a practice that has existed un-der the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-dure since 1991. With the adoption of a documents only subpoena as of the effective date of April 1, 2015, there is no longer a need in Massachusetts to use deposition practice in regard to a non-party for the sole purpose of document production.

• Mass. R. Crim. P. 12: As the title of Rule 12 suggests (Pleas and Plea Agreements), the 2015 revision of the rule resulted in a more carefully de-lineated and somewhat expanded role for plea agreements in the process of a judge’s consideration and accep-tance of a proffered guilty plea. The amendments, resulting from propos-als of the Court’s Standing Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, will become effective on May 11, 2015. ■

NEWS FROM THE COURTS Continued from page 3

LEGAL NEWS


REGISTER ONLINE AT WWW.MASSBAR.ORG/EDUCATION OR CALL (617) 338-0530

COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATIONRECENT PATENT LAW DEVELOPMENTS AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT Wednesday, March 18, noon–3 p.m., MBA, 20 West St., Boston

The Massachusetts Bar Association’s Complex Commercial Litigation Section’s Intel-lectual Property Litigation Committee and the MBA’s Business Law Section will host an educational forum regarding recent developments in patent law at the U.S. Supreme Court.

This program will provide an overview and analysis of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions bearing on patent law, including CLS Bank, Limelight Networks and Octane Fitness. FACULTY: Sean Thompson, Esq., program co-chair; Mat Trachok, Esq., program co-chair; Michelle Liszt Sandals, Esq.

CRIMINAL LAWTHE 4Cs PART II: EMPLOYMENT CONSEQUENCES OF CORI Wednesday, March 11, 4:30– 7 p.m., MBA, 20 West St., Boston

Too often defendants are unaware of and/or not informed about significant barriers to employment and opportunities for professional advancement that arise from pleas and involvement in the criminal justice system. This second installment of the MBA’s Criminal Justice Section’s “4Cs” programs examines the collateral con-sequences of CORI in the employment context and what attorneys can do to ameliorate the effects of CORI.

We encourage not only defense attorneys and other advocates to at-tend, but also prosecutors so that they too can make well informed and reasoned recommendations. FACULTY: Pauline Quirion, Esq., program chair; Crispin Birnbaum, Esq.; Agapi Kouloris, Esq.

FAMILY LAWALIMONY ROUNDTABLE: MOVING ALONG THE PATHWAY FROM THE ALIMONY REFORM ACT OF 2011 Thursday, March 12, 5–7:30 p.m., MBA, 20 West St., Boston

Hosted by the MBA in collaboration with the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

Join the MBA as we team with the AAML to present this exciting roundtable event. Experienced panelists, including members of the joint MBA/BBA Alimony Task Force and the attorneys who argued the most recent trio of alimony reform cases before the Supreme Judicial Court , will build upon the thoughtful analysis presented at the 2014 MBA Family Law Conference and address the evolving implementation of the Alimony Reform Act of 2011. Dis-cussion will focus on the recent SJC decisions in the matters of Chin v. Merriot, Rodman v. Rodman and Doktor v. Doktor. Be part of the continuing discussion and at the forefront of developments relating to the act, the most significant overhaul of family law in the last quarter century.FACULTY: Kimberley J. Joyce, Esq., moderator; Catharine V. Blake, Esq.; David E. Cherny, Esq.; Cynthia Grover Hasting, Esq.; David H. Lee, Esq.; Paul P. Perocchi, Esq.

LITIGATIONFEED YOUR MIND — THE MBA’S LEGAL LUNCH SERIES: EFFECTIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS Wednesday, March 11, 12:30–1:30 p.m., MBA, 20 West St., Boston

All Massachusetts Bar Association members are encouraged to attend these free lunch-time programs. We gear these programs toward civil litigators of all experience levels, providing an oppor-tunity to participate in a discussion of selected areas of law, or practice, in a collegial setting where you can meet and exchange ideas with other members of the profession. This month’s speakers will provide a “how to” on effectively drafting and arguing a motion for summary judgment.FACULTY: Craig D. Levey, Esq., co-moderator; Courtney C. Shea, Esq., co-moderator; Adam Hamel, Esq.; Jennifer Markowski, Esq.

SOLICITATION AND REPRESENTATION OF CHAPTER 11 CREDITORS’ COMMITTEES Wednesday, March 11, 4–6 p.m., MBA, 20 West St., Boston

Join us for a discussion of the standards and the latest decisions governing the so-licitation of members of creditors’ committees formed in Chapter 11 bankruptcy by attorneys seeking to be retained as committee counsel. The discussion will include issues relating to the representation of such committees.FACULTY: Steven C. Reingold, Esq., program chair; Eric K. Bradford, Esq.; Andrew G. Lizotte, Esq.; Adrienne K. Walker, Esq.

VOIR DIRE TRAINING: LEARN FROM THE EXPERTS Monday, March 16, 1–5 p.m., MBA, 20 West St., Boston

Now that Massachusetts attorneys are allowed to question prospective jurors in civil and criminal trials throughout the Superior Court, learn how to conduct voir dire from experts who have used it successfully.

With the passage of Chapter 254 of the Acts of 2014 last August, Massachusetts joined 39 other states that allow some form of attorney-conducted voir dire. The law not only permits attorneys to question potential jurors and screen for bias in Superior Court tri-als, it also allows attorneys to suggest a monetary amount for damages suffered by a plaintiff in a civil trial. The Massachusetts Bar Associa-tion advocated strongly for both measures. FACULTY: Marsha V. Kazarosian, Esq., program chair; Hon. Peter Lauriat; Hon. Maynard Kirpalani; Hon. Bonnie MacLeod-Mancuso; Bud DeLuca, Esq.; Annette Gonthier-Kiely, Esq.; Carolyn McGowan, Esq.; Christopher Parkerson, Esq.; Douglas K. Sheff, Esq.

PROBATE LAWFINANCIAL EXPLOITATION OF ELDERS AND UNDUE INFLUENCEThursday, March 26, noon–4 p.m., Massachusetts School of Law, 500 Federal St., Andover

When the elderly fall victim to undue influence (a key element in financial abuse cases), it is usually done through coercion or manipu-lation causing loss of property or money. This program will address financial exploitation of elders and other vulnerable persons. FACULTY: Lisa Cukier, Esq., program chair; James M. O’Sullivan, Esq.

REAL ESTATE LAW

UNDERSTANDING TITLE EXAMINATIONS AND THE ANATOMY OF TITLE COMMITMENTS & POLICIES Tuesday, March 10 , 3–7 p.m., MBA, 20 West St., Boston

Title examination is the most important phase of a real estate transac-tion. The examination determines whether the title is marketable and informs the purchaser and lender if the property being conveyed is free of any liens, encumbrances or judgments that may have arisen during prior ownership. FACULTY: Melanie Hagopian, Esq., program chair; Elizabeth J. Barton, Esq.; Ward P. Graham, Esq.

STEVEN C. REINGOLD

KIMBERLEY J. JOYCE

Your MBA membership includes FREE, UNLIMITED CLE seminars and MBA On Demand programming. (Excludes half- and full-day conferences and Practicing with Professionalism courses.)

M A R C H 2 015

CRAIG LEVEY COURTNEY SHEA

SEAN THOMPSON MAT TRACHOK

PAULINE QUIRION

MELANIE HAGOPIAN

MARSHA V. KAZAROSIAN

LISA CUKIER

Visit the MBA’s Voir Dire Resource Center— www.massbar.org/voir-

dire — for voir dire protocols, alerts and other useful information.

BUSINESS LAWBanking Law UpdateRecorded Jan. 14, 2015

CRIMINAL LAWSubstance Use, Abuse and Addiction in

District CourtRecorded Jan. 13, 2015

FAMILY LAWSophisticated Family Law Practice: Critical

Tax and Creative Compensation IssuesRecorded Feb. 5, 2015

LITIGATIONFeed Your Mind—The MBA’s Legal Lunch

Series: Taking and Defending DepositionsRecorded Jan. 21, 2015

NEW LAWYERSA Day in the Life:

The Real Lives of Young LawyersRecorded Jan. 15, 2015

Intellectual Property Basics for the Non-Specialist

Recorded Jan. 20, 2015

Check out these MBA On

Demand programs you may

have missed and view them

anytime, anywhere ... FREE with

your MBA membership.

Free for AAML members.Register at MBA Member Services

at (617) 338-0530.

Attendees are encouraged to bring their own lunch.

Attendees are encouraged to bring their own lunch.


The Massachusetts Bar Association’sSPRINGFIELD office and the

MBA INSURANCE AGENCY have

moved

MBA SPRINGFIELD NEW ADDRESS

1441 MAIN ST., SUITE 925SPRINGFIELD, MA 01103-1450

TEL (413) 731-5134 FAX (413) 731-5915

WWW.MASSBAR.ORG

BAR NEWS

Sullivan to serve as BBO Hearing Officer

Massachusetts Bar Association Secretary Christopher P. Sullivan has been appointed to a three-year term as a Board of Bar Overseers Hearing Officer. Sullivan’s term continues through Dec. 31, 2017.

As part of a three panel Hearing Committee, Sullivan will take part in disciplinary proceedings brought by the Of-fice of Bar Counsel against individual attorneys. The posi-tion receives no monetary compensation and is for individu-als who are interested in “devot[ing] their time as a public service in the vital interest of preserving the integrity of the legal profession.”

“It is an honor and privilege to serve as a BBO Hearing Officer. I am delighted to have the chance to perform a public service and give back to the legal community here in Massachusetts. I am truly looking forward to doing this important work,” said Sullivan. ■

Member Spotlight

Christopher P. Sullivan

member attorneys in a specific geographic location based on law practice area.

The service can be reached Mon-day through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. by calling (617) 654-0400 or toll-free at (866) MASS-LRS. Requests can also be made online any time at www.MassLawHelp.com, which also in-cludes a helpful list of answers to frequent-ly asked questions, such as: When do I need a lawyer? How can a lawyer help me? How do I find the right lawyer?

When calls come in they are initially screened as the caller describes their situa-tion. With the assistance of MBA staff, the area of law is determined and an attorney who practices that type of law is identified based on a ZIP code provided by the caller. Attorneys can choose to have calls trans-ferred directly to their office and can opt in to receive an email once a referral is made to them. The caller can also choose to re-ceive an email containing all the necessary referral contact information.

Online users fill out a request form and are contacted by LRS the next business day. In 2014, LRS received nearly 23,000 calls and more than 1,500 emails. While there is no cost to use LRS, referrals are made to fee-charging attorneys.

Member benefit for attorneysIn order for an attorney to join LRS and

start receiving referrals, they have to be an MBA member, be in good standing with the Board of Bar Overseers and carry profes-sional liability insurance. There is a mini-mal fee for MBA members to join LRS in addition to their normal membership dues.

“As a lawyer it’s nice to have anoth-er source of referrals. It costs very little money and pays tremendous dividends,” said Catalano, who has subscribed to LRS for more than 10 years. Several other cas-es that also led to settlements have come to Catalano through LRS.

MBA members from across the state use LRS as an additional referral source. These attorneys range from solo practitio-ners to lawyers at large firms. When law-yers join LRS they choose what areas of

law they want to be listed under: family, labor and employment, estate planning, real estate, consumer protection, personal injury, criminal, personal finance, busi-ness, individual rights, government ben-efits and services, and immigration.

From a caller’s viewpoint, there’s a certain comfort level that these attorneys have all been vetted by the MBA. This is a much more reliable way of finding an at-torney than conducting a blind search on the Internet without the necessary back-ground information.

“The lawyers who are a part of the MBA are people who understand the im-portance of their role,” said Catalano. “Someone who’s calling the MBA is going to be assigned to or given the name of an MBA lawyer who’s dedicated to the pro-fession, dedicated to justice and dedicated to getting a good result for their client.”

The MBA handles all the marketing and promotion of the service as a member benefit. In addition to advertising on the MBTA and on WBZ radio, LRS is also promoted as a referral source during the MBA’s monthly Dial-A-Lawyer program, which takes place on the first Wednesday of every month.

An additional member benefit of LRS is that attorneys can now access referral information online whenever they need it. LRS uses Intellix, a cloud-based manage-ment system, which allows participating

attorneys to go online and update their cases, renew their LRS membership, put temporary holds on referral notices and pay remittance fees.

A sympathetic earThe MBA is uniquely positioned to

help people when they call LRS because of its available resources. Staff members answering the phones understand the legal realm and can often sympathize with the plight of a caller. A key first step in the re-ferral process is simply serving as a sym-pathetic ear on the other end of the phone.

“When people are calling the Mass. Bar Association, they’re calling some-one who understands what they’ve gone through. They’re not just calling some 1-800 number where the person on the other end of the line doesn’t have the sensitivity to appreciate what someone’s dealing with,” said Catalano.

Depending on the situation, the MBA staff members answering the phones are also able to provide supplemental re-sources to callers in addition to providing a referral. Some instances may require the caller to also get in touch with agencies, such as the Attorney General’s Office, their local police department or mayor’s office, or the Better Business Bureau.

“We help people find some order in the chaos that’s going on when they have a legal issue,” said Joseph Caci, LRS/pub-lic and community marketing manager at the MBA.

Also available to LRS callers is a lan-guage line so calls can be taken in virtu-ally any language. The MBA provides a bilingual staff member to assist with Spanish speaking callers.

Everyone’s referral serviceWhether someone is filing for bank-

ruptcy, going through a divorce, buying a house, adopting a child or going through any other type of legal situation, LRS is a free service that’s applicable to everyone. When someone needs a lawyer, contacting LRS is an easy and reassuring first step.

Although cases with high-level settle-ments such as the one involving Cata-lano’s client are rare, LRS serves a vital function for the everyday situations that arise in people’s lives.

“These are life events for people and we fill a void of being able to match a person with an attorney they need,” said Elizabeth O’Neil, director of commu-nity and public services at the MBA. “Through LRS we are able to provide a great public service to the entire com-monwealth.” ■

REFERRAL SERVICE Continued from page 1 "As a lawyer, it’s nice to have another source

of referrals. It costs very little money and pays tremendous dividends."

— MBA Treasurer Jeffrey N. Catalano

Jeffrey N. Catalano


QUOTABLENOTABLE A

ND

M B A M E M B E R S I N T H E M E D I A

They shouldn’t delay. Somebody could get injured,

somebody could lose their life, so in this case, the

company should rectify the situation immediately.

‘Solve It 7’: stove scare

MBA PRESIDENT-ELECT ROBERT W. HARNAIS WHDH TV (CHANNEL 7), JANUARY 8

In this segment of “Solve It 7” Harnais provided legal analysis on the case of a faulty stove that was emitting dangerous levels of carbon monoxide.

I always have that concern that if

it's not done circumspectly and with

respect, and by people who know

what they're talking about ... you run

the danger of making the public the

judge and jury when they don't have

all the same information as the judge

and jury. It causes problems.

Where available, news clips — including audio/video — can be found on our website at www.massbar.org.

Medical malpractice law The hospital did the right thing.

My client felt really good about it. MBA TREASURER JEFFREY N. CATALANO, WASHINGTON

POST (VIA KAISER HEALTH NEWS), JANUARY 20

Catalano was quoted in a story about a recently enacted medical malpractice law in Massachusetts, which pro-vides a faster and more open process for injured patients.

MBA MEMBER DAVID HARLOW, PRINCIPAL OF THE HARLOW GROUP LLC, iHEALTHBEAT, JANUARY 5

Harlow was one of 12 experts featured by iHealthBeat, a national on-line publication published by the California Healthcare Foundation, in a piece on health IT progress and disappointments in 2014 and what to expect in 2015.

While we need to guard against alarm fatigue and

information overload for clinicians, driving adoption

of these tools from a consumer perspective may

make their use more palatable to individuals and may

aid the health care sector in achieving the elusive

goal of promoting prevention — changing behavior

that exacerbates risk factors for chronic disease, as

opposed to the 'I'll take a pill for that' mindset.

Health information technology

When a judge is asking questions in a voir dire, that

aura, that superiority that a judge has impacts the

way in which a prospective juror responds.

MBA PAST PRESIDENT RICHARD P. CAMPBELL WBUR, JANUARY 15

Campbell was interviewed by WBUR for a story on jury selection in the trial of accused Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Jury selection in Tsarnaev trial

Criminal justice attorney compensationWithout a doubt, we’re mindful of the fiscal reality. But even in good times,

policy makers have the challenging task of making decisions on how to spend

limited tax dollars. So we’re hopeful that with this report, on top of the MBA

report, there will be some positive movement on this critical issue.

Cameras in the courtroom

MBA EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT BOARD MEMBER AND COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES CHIEF COUNSEL

ANTHONY J. BENEDETTI, BOSTON GLOBE, JANUARY 13

Benedetti was quoted by the Globe in a piece about a report released by the Gov-ernor’s Commission to Study Compensation of Assistant District Attorneys and Staff Attorneys for the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS).

MBA PRESIDENT MARSHA V. KAZAROSIAN EAGLE TRIBUNE, JANUARY 25

Kazarosian was quoted in the Eagle Tribune in a sto-ry about televised courtroom proceedings in high-profile cases. Cameras are not allowed in federal court cases such as the upcoming trial of accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzokhar Tsarnaev.


ADR

GLYNN MEDIATIONExperience • Common Sense

Resolution

Attorney Glynn has been designated as a neutral for both non-binding mediation

and arbitration; he has successfully managed those matters, either resolving/settling cases in mediation or rendering fair/equitable decisions at arbitration.

John B. Glynn, Esq.25 Braintree Office Hill Park, Suite 408

Braintree, MA 02184781-356-1399

[email protected]://glhrlaw.com/john-b-glynn

ADR

FLORIDA PER SONAL INJURY

FLORIDAATTORNEY

Toll FREE: 1-877-FLA-ATTY (352-2889)www.personalinjurylawyer.ws

LAW OFFICES OF Randy C. Botwinick

Formerly of Pazer, Epstein & Jaffe

Concentrating in Personal Injury• Co-Counsel and

Participation Fees Paid

MIAMI OFFICE150 Alhambra CircleSuite 1100Coral Gables, FL 33134P: 305 895.5700F: 305 445.1169

PALM BEACH OFFICEPeninsula Executive Center2385 NW Executive Center Dr.Suite 100, Boca Raton, FL 33431P: 561 995.5001F: 561 962.2710

• 29 Years Experience

ADR

N O R T H vs. S O U T H

We Could Have Settled It!Dennis J. Calcagno, esq6 1 7 . 3 2 8 . 8 8 8 8

www.northeastmediation.com

Case Evaluation | Full Neutral Panel









6 1 7 . 3 2 8 . 8 8 8 8

Would YouRather

Gambleor be

Certain!

EXPERTS&RESOURCES

CONTINUED ON PAGE 9

AVIATION L AW

AVIATION LAWANTHONY TARRICONE, concentrating in cases involving serious personal injuries and wrongful death resulting from the

operation, design, and maintenance of all types of aircraft. Twenty-five years experience in aviation cases including airline, commercial and general aviation.

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP855 Boylston St.Boston, MA 02116Tel (617) 424-9100Fax (617) 424-9120E-mail: [email protected]

THURSDAY, MARCH 12

Alimony Roundtable: Moving Along the Pathway From the Alimony Reform Act of 20115-7:30 p.m.MBA, 20 West St., Boston

MONDAY, MARCH 16

Voir Dire Training: Learn from the Experts 1-5 p.m.MBA, 20 West St., Boston

MONDAY, MARCH 16

Mock Trial Elite 8/ Final 4 Competition9 a.m.-5 p.m.Worcester Courthouse 225 Main St., Worcester

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18

Mock Trial Elite 8/Final 4 Competition9 a.m.-5 p.m.Boston

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18

Recent Patent Law Developments at the U.S. Supreme Court Noon-3 p.m.MBA, 20 West St., Boston

THURSDAY, MARCH 19

Practicing with Professionalism 9 a.m.-5 p.m.University of Massachusetts School of Law – Dartmouth 333 Faunce Corner Road, North Dartmouth

THURSDAY, MARCH 26

House of Delegates meeting4-6 p.m.Courtyard by Marriott – Marlborough 75 Felton St., Marlborough

THURSDAY, MARCH 26

Financial Exploitation of Elders & Undue InfluenceNoon-4 p.m.Massachusetts School of Law 500 Federal St., Andover

FRIDAY, MARCH 27

Mock Trial State Championships10 a.m.Faneuil Hall 1 Faneuil Hall Square, Boston

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1

MBA Monthly Dial-A-Lawyer Program5:30-7:30 p.m.Statewide dial-in #: (617) 338-0610

THURSDAY, APRIL 2

Survive and Thrive: Tips of the Trade6-8:30 p.m.MBA, 20 West St., Boston

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8

Feed Your Mind: The MBA’s Legal Lunch Series Effective Motions to Dismiss12:30-1:30 p.m.MBA, 20 West St., Boston

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8

MBA’s A View from the Bench Series: Clerks’ Tips for Success4:30-6:30 p.m.MBA, 20 West St., Boston

THURSDAY, APRIL 9

Workers’ Compensation Alphabet Soup 3-6 p.m.MBA, 20 West St., Boston

THURSDAY, APRIL 9

Closely Held Corporation Litigation: Trends, Traps and Trouble Avoidance4:30-6:30 p.m.Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo PC 1 Financial Center, Boston

THURSDAY, APRIL 9

Speed Networking with a Twist5:30-7:30 p.m.MBA, 20 West St., Boston

TUESDAY, APRIL 14

36th Annual Labor and Employment Law Spring Conference11:30 a.m.-5 p.m.Suffolk University Law School, 120 Tremont St., Boston

BAR NEWSCalendar of Events

Real-time webcast available for purchase through MBA On Demand at

www.massbar.org/ondemand.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT MASSBAR.ORG/EVENTS/CALENDAR


WEATHER BR AIN INJURY

Would You Know A

HEAD INJURY If You Saw One?

Most People

Wouldn’t.®

For info on brain injury litigation, visit www.kolpan.com

175 Federal Street, Suite 1425, Boston MA, 02110

617-426 -2558

EXPERTS&RESOURCES

CONTINUED ON PAGE 10

BAR NEWS

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 8

L AW YER ASSISTANCE

Law OfficeManagement

Assistance ProgramAssisting Massachusetts attorneys in establishing professional office practices and procedures to increase their ability to deliver high quality legal services, strengthen client relationships, and enhance their

quality of life.

Call for a Free and Confidential Consultation IN PERSON, BY PHONE, OR BY WEB

FUNDED BY LAWYERS CONCERNED FOR LAWYERS, INC.MASSLOMAP.ORG (857) 383 3250

Journal. He is the immediate past president of the National Trial Lawyers Association.

Mark Geragos has represented some of the most prominent figures in the world. His client list has included former Congressman Gary Condit, former first brother Roger Clinton, Grammy Award-winning artist Chris Brown, platinum-selling artist Kesha Sebert, Nicole Ritchie, hip hop stars Nathaniel “Nate Dogg” Hale and Sean “Diddy” Combs (aka Puff Dad-dy), Usher Raymond and former heavy-weight champion Mike Tyson.

Geragos is a legal analyst for CNN and has regularly appeared as both guest and legal commentator on the “Today Show,” “Good Morning America,” “Date-line NBC,” “Larry King Live,” “Greta Van Susteren’s On the Record,” “60 minutes,” and “48 hours,” and has lectured exten-sively and authored numerous articles and law review publications on the subject of media and the law. Geragos authored Mis-trial: An Inside Look at How the Criminal Justice System Works... and Sometimes Doesn’t, which won the grand prize at the 2014 Los Angeles Book Festival and was a bestseller. ■

ANNUAL DINNERContinued from page 1

Young lawyers volunteer at Greater Boston Food BankThe Young Lawyers Division hosted an MBA Volunteer Night at the Greater

Boston Food Bank on Feb. 4. Fourteen volunteers sorted 3,825 pounds of food, which will provide approximately 3,122 meals to those in need. Thank you to all who participated! ■


L AW YER ASSISTANCE

Lawyers Concerned for lawyers

Free + ConfidentialServing all of Mass

Depression, and Substance Use

Licensed Mental Health Professionals

Lawyers, Law Students,

with

helping

Stress, Anxiety, Burnout,

Judges, & Their Families

LCLLAWYERS CONCERNEDFOR LAWYERS

MASSACHUSETTSwww.lclma.org (617) 482 9600

WWW.BANKERANDTRADESMAN.COM

Call 617.896.5388 or email [email protected]

SUBSCRIBE TODAY!20% OFF FOR MASS BAR MEMBERS ONLY*

BE THE FIRST TO KNOW.

*Offer available for new customers only and can not be combined with any other promotion. Code: H4KMASSBAR

The Banker & Tradesman delivers breaking news and essential insights to real estate and financial professionals every day.

Get subscriber-only access to the stories behind the headlines

and to password-protected transactions – information you need to get ahead.

Arm yourself with the latest updates on movers and shakers, legislation, major sales, foreclosures, liens, bankruptcies and

acquisitions, trends and more.


MEDIATION

Mediation and Arbitration of all Domestic Relations and Probate Matters

Judge KopelmanRet.

Judge SmootRet.

Judge SteinbergRet.

508-588-5800jill@bostonareamediation.comwww.bostonareamediation.com

Bette J. Roth, Esq.

• Mediator

• Arbitrator

• Facilitator

• Fact Finder

• 20+ years experience

• New England ADR Superlawyer

• Former Trial Lawyer

“Every case can be settled with hard work

and an open mind.”

[email protected]

(617) 795-2425

www.RothADR.com

MEDIATION

TA X ATTORNE Y

Chair - Ma Bar assN. state tax praCtiCe groupViCe Chair - Ma Bar assN. taxatioN seCtioNserViNg Ma Bar assN. MeMBers aNd their ClieNtsstate, federal, aNd iNterNatioNal tax Matters

Looking for an experieNCed

tax attorNey for your cLients?

planningaudits

appealslitigation

sales & use taxcorporate income/excise taxmultistate taxation

( 617 ) 848 - 9360( 888 ) 483 - 5884w w w. r i c k s t o n e l aw. c o mr i c k @ r i c k s t o n e l aw. c o m

riCk stoNe law

Chair - Ma Bar assN.taxatioN seCtioN

serViNg Ma Bar assN.MeMBers aNd their ClieNts

state, federal, aNdiNterNatioNal tax Matters

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

MA DEPT. OF REVENUE

CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TAX

(617) 848 - 9360(888) 483 -5884

Francis A. Ford, Esq.

FORD MEDIATION

Former Worcester CountryClerk of Courts

Extensive Mediation & Trial Experience

www.FordMediation.comContact Fran Directly at

508-791-7776 [email protected]

35 Harvard Street, Worcester, MA 01609

(free parking at the door.)

MEDIATION

FEDER AL EMPLOYMENT L AW

CONTINUED ON PAGE 11

EXPERTS&RESOURCES

www.beverlyboorstein.com

ADR

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 9

CALIFORNIA MARYLAND MASSACHUSETTS NEW JERSEY NEW YORK TEXAS WASHINGTON, DC

15 Walnut Street, Suite 400Wellesley, MA 02481 www.bdlaw.com

Jeanine Grachuk pr ov i de s e nv i r o n me n ta l c o mpl i an c e counsel ing, env i r o n me n ta l pe r mi tt i n g o f e n e r gy an d brownf ie lds re de ve l o pme n t pr o j e c ts , an d advi c e o n

managing envi r o n me n ta l r i s k i n c o mpl ex t ran s ac t i o n s to our c l ie n ts i n M ass ac hus e tts an d be y o n d.

Co n g ra t u l a t i o n s to J E A N I N E G R AC H U K

o n h e r e l e c t i o n a s a P r i n c i p a l o f t h e F i r m

Environmental & Land Use Law & Litigation

Beveridge & Diamond’s 100 lawyers in seven U.S. offices help clients around the world resolve critical environmental and sustainability issues, develop new projects, and resolve complex disputes.

BAR NEWS

Mock Trial Championship set for March 27

Join the Massachusetts Bar Association for the final round of the MBA’s 2015 High School Mock Trial Program competition on Friday, March 27, at 10 a.m. in the Great Hall at Faneuil Hall in Boston.

If you would like to attend, please R.S.V.P. to [email protected] or call (617) 338-0570 by March 18. The winning team will secure the state cham-pionship and advance to the national competition in Raleigh, North Carolina, May 14-16. ■


EXPERTS&RESOURCESCONTINUED FROM PAGE 10

SURE TY BONDS

A.A.DORITY

SURETYBONDS

Since 1899

Office: 617-523-2935Fax: 617-523-1707

www.aadority.com

A.A. DORITYCOMPANY, INC.

262 Washington St. • Suite 99Boston, MA 02108

AAD 2"x4" color ad L1:Layout 1 3/19/10 2:19

.

Simply Resolving Complex Disputes.

DISPUTERESOLUTION LLC

..

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Lifeblood of Your Network

Build and Maintain Your Network

Among MassBar Members in

EXPERTS&RESOURCES

Contact Rich Ofsthun. (617) 896-5307

[email protected]

Harnais receives Community Service Award from Norfolk County bar

The Bar Association of Norfolk County honored Massachusetts Bar As-sociation President-elect Robert W. Har-nais with the MBA’s Community Service Award on March 4 at the Neighborhood Club in Quincy. MBA President Marsha V. Kazarosian presented the award to Harnais and spoke about all he has done for the MBA and the community.

“We give this award to attorneys who have made important public service con-tributions to their communities, and to publicize the fact that members of the legal profession are caring, involved in-dividuals, who are eager to use their legal skills for the betterment of society,” said Kazarosian. “That is what Bob exempli-fies. He is truly a caring, empathetic, in-volved and sincere human being.”

Harnais has volunteered his service to the MBA for many years. An MBA officer since 2011, Harnais has been a member of the MBA’s House of Delegates since 2006

and is a member of the MBA’s Executive Management Board. He has also served as co-chair of the MBA’s Crime Lab Task Force and chair of the MBA’s Diversity Task Force.

In addition to his MBA involvement, Harnais is a past president of both the Massachusetts Association of Hispanic Attorneys (MAHA) and the Hispanic Na-tional Bar Association, and remains high-ly involved with both organizations. Last October MAHA presented Harnais with its 2014 Leadership Award. Harnais also received the Quincy Bar Association’s Alfred P. Malaney Award, also known as the “Man of the Year” Award, for distin-guished legal services.

Since 2007, Harnais has served as a member of the Race and Ethnic Advisory Board for the Massachusetts courts. Har-nais is chairman of the Braintree Planning Board and enjoys being a football official in his spare time. ■

Member Spotlight

From left to right: Norfolk County Treasurer E. Pamela Salpoglou, President Joseph P. Hurley III, MBA President Marsha V. Kazarosian, MBA Vice President Christopher A. Kenney, SJC Associate Justice and Keynote Speaker Margot Botsford, MBA President-elect and Community Service Award Honoree Robert W. Harnais, MBA Secretary Christopher P. Sullivan and MBA Vice President John J. Morrissey. Photo by Amy Kelly.

MBA members hit the slopes for inaugural ski-LEThe Massachusetts Bar Association hosted its first MassBar ski-LE on Thursday,

Feb. 26. The event combined legal education with a fun afternoon of skiing and net-working at Wachusett Mountain Ski Area.

Following breakfast, faculty members Scott Goldberg (program chair), Brendan G. Carney, Steven Coren and Alan Klevan led a law practice management-themed discussion about ways to increase efficiency and profits while maximizing work time. Then, after a lunch buffet, the attorneys suited up and hit the mountain for a “bluebird” afternoon of skiing. Several members of the group also met up for some après-ski networking in the lodge.

A great mix of new and seasoned practitioners took part in the MBA’s inaugural slope-side event. One member wrote afterward: “Thanks … for a great program and a wonderful afternoon of skiing and après ski. I enjoyed it very much and hope the MBA will do it again.” ■


MassBar ski-LE members gathered for a group shot at the top of Wachusett Mountain Ski Area.


FOR YOUR PRACTICE

Despite practice success, feeling like a parenting failure

Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers

Q: I am a 51-year-old woman who has, over the years with my law partner, built a rather successful and well regarded general legal practice in Central Massachusetts. I’ve

had some tendency toward depression for many years, but past therapy and an ongoing pre-scription for Prozac have been fairly effective. This week, however, I have been unable to get anything done, even to prepare for an important case. I can’t get my mind off the fact that my college-age daughter is barely talking to me, and chose to stay at school rather than come home for winter vacation. Something seems to have happened at school to trigger this, but I don’t know what it is. When she came home for Thanksgiving, she seemed to want to do nothing but sleep and use social media, and I pushed her to do something more constructive, so in part she may be avoiding a replay of that tug of war. My daughter and I were always very close — she has lived with me since her father and I divorced a decade ago — and I always prioritized her, through various crises and adolescent turmoil, over my work. But I can’t seem to get through to her this time, and now I’m just feeling like a total failure, like my past efforts have not amounted to anything. It’s hard to even ask my partner to fill in for what I can’t seem to do — his kids are doing fine as far as I know, and he’s the kind of person who has no comprehension of depression.

A: To begin with your last point, it’s certainly seems to be true (since we hear if so often) that people who have been fortunate enough not to experience significant depres-

sion often think that one has only to “pull oneself up by the bootstraps.” While a certain amount of self-pushing, such as involvement in activity and exercise even when motivation is hard to come by, is helpful in improving mood, people need to understand that when one is drowning in depression, an extended hand will probably be more helpful than advice to swim harder. Our website (LCLMA.org) has a number of links to resources and articles that are informative on depression in general and specifically in lawyers. And it does seem likely that you’ll need to ask your partner for help on the work that currently faces you — just as he would do if symptomatic from a condition that he does understand, like cancer or arthritis.

If you are not currently in therapy, this is a good time to return, and not because your reaction is unique — most parents as devoted as you have been would have a hard time cop-ing with what sounds like a fairly sudden alienation from their child — but because it’s so stressful. Your daughter is certainly dealing with something (could be so many things), and expressing it partly by turning her anger toward you. For what it’s worth, it may be because you have been such a stable, solid figure that she feels safe enough to do so, but of course it’s still painful to withstand. For you to go from feeling hurt and disappointed to a sense of total failure, however, is a “cognitive distortion” in the direction of inappropriate self-blame, not to mention the implicit belief that her current perspective will last indefinitely, which is unlikely. With your parental support, she’s been able to get through past personal chal-lenges and into college. As you examine and reshape the kinds of thoughts that contribute to your sinking mood, you can remind yourself that your daughter’s life, moods and choices are going to unfold largely in ways that are not within your control. It’s time to take care of yourself, as well; and when she’s ready to talk, you’ll be ready to listen.

Questions quoted are either actual letters/emails or paraphrased and disguised concerns expressed by individuals seeking assistance from Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers. Ques-tions for LCL may be mailed to LCL, 31 Milk St., Suite 810, Boston, MA 02109; emailed to [email protected] or called in to (617) 482-9600. LCL’s licensed clinicians will respond in confidence. Visit LCL online at www.lclma.org.

Join Us

THURSDAY, MAY 7THE WESTIN BOSTON WATERFRONT

425 SUMMER ST., BOSTON

Reception: 5:30 p.m. • Dinner: 7 p.m.

Presentation of

THE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES JR. STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP

and the

2015 ACCESS TO JUSTICE AWARDS

2015 MBA PRESIDENT’S AWARD

HOUSE SPEAKER ROBERT A. DeLEO

(D-Winthrop)

MBA CHIEF JUSTICE EDWARD F. HENNESSEY AWARD

HON. DENNIS J. CURRANAssociate Justice

Massachusetts Superior Court

KEYNOTE SPEAKER

MARK J. GERAGOSPRINCIPAL, GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC

2015 Annual Dinner

REGISTRATION INFORMATION AND SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES:

WWW.MASSBAR.ORG/AD15 (617) 338-0530


MASSACHUSETTS BAR FOUNDATION

Keeping the promise of ju st ice s ince 1964

www.MassBarFoundation.org

The Massachusetts Bar Foundation is the commonwealth's premier legal charity. Founded in 1964, the MBF is the philanthropic partner of the Massachusetts Bar Association. Through its grantmaking and charitable activities, the MBF works to increase access to justice for all Massachusetts citizens. There is a role for every lawyer and judge at the MBF to help

safeguard the values of our justice system — to ensure that equality under the law is a reality, not just an ideal. Visit our website to learn more about our work and to get involved.

THANK YOU TO OUR NEWEST FELLOWS LOUIS D. BRANDEIS FELLOW

Jennifer A. ThornThe Law Offices of Jennifer A. Thorn, PC, Springfield

FOUNDATION FELLOWS Maureen Anne MacFarlane

Cambridge Public Schools, Office of Legal Counsel, Cambridge

Alan D. RoseRose, Chinitz & Rose, Boston

Barry L. WeismanSassoon & Cymrot, LLP, Boston

BECOME AN MBF FELLOW TODAY!The Massachusetts Bar Foundation Society of Fellows is a membership organization of Massachusetts attorneys and judges who are committed to giving back to the profession and supporting legal services for the poor in our state. Our Fellows are our core supporters, helping to ensure that the MBF is a resource through which the legal community can come together and support initiatives that make access to justice a reality for those in need.

To become an MBF Fellow, visit www.MassBarFoundation.org.

Why I give

BUILDING A STRONG FOUNDATION

“I am happy to participate in

the MBF’s grant process each

year, because of the importance

of the MBF’s mission to support

organizations that provide critical

legal resources to the poor and

disadvantaged. I think lawyers

have a responsibility to assist in

these efforts and it is a great honor

to be able to help.”

The MBF Society of Fellows includes Massachusetts attorneys and judges who are committed to giving back to the profes-sion and supporting legal services for the poor in our state. To learn more, or to join, visit www.MassBarFoundation.org.

Robert S. Molloy Destination XL Group Inc.

MBF Oliver Wendell Holmes Fellow

MBA partners with Trial Court for Bench-Bar meetingsThe Massachusetts Trial Court’s District Court Department, in partnership with the Massachusetts Bar Association and local county bar associations, is currently holding a series of bench-bar gatherings across the commonwealth to facilitate increased dialogue between judges, clerk magistrates, chief probation officers, local practitioners and other court personnel. ■

ComCom hosts Korean DelegationThe Intellectual Property Practice Group of the Complex Commercial Litigation Section sponsored a mediation/arbitration training program on Feb. 19, for a Korean delegation through the International IP ADR Center of Seoul, Korea. The delegation included senior judges, business people and professors who are engaged in building ADR capacity for Korea. ■


Chief Justice of the Trial Court Paula M. Carey (center) speaks to attendees about District Court practices at the Jan. 30 Bench-Bar Meeting in Brockton.

From left: Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz, MBA President-elect Robert W. Harnais and Chief Justice of the District Court Paul C. Dawley at the Brockton Bench-Bar Meeting.

PHOTOS BY JEFF THIEBAUTH


M A S S A C H U S E T T S B A R A S S O C I A T I O N

ReviewSection MASSACHUSETTS LAWYERS JOURNAL

MAR 2015MA

SSA

CH

USE

TTS BAR ASSOC

IAT

ION

1 9 1 1

Substantive section-specific articles are featured regularly in Lawyers Journal.

CARe: an alternative to medical malpractice litigationBY JEFFREY CATALANO AND L ISA BUCHSBAUM

In 2012, the Massachusetts Alliance for Communication and Resolution fol-lowing Medical Injury (MACRMI) was formed from a coalition of partners — teaching hospitals and their insurers, patient safety and advocacy groups, and statewide organizations — dedicated to improving the medical liability system. An unprecedented partnership between the Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA), Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys (MATA) and Massachu-setts Medical Society (MMS) led to sig-nificant reforms allowing MACRMI to embark on its mission to implement and study a Communication, Apology and Resolution (CARe) approach to adverse events in health care facilities.

The CARe approach, modeled after programs at institutions like the Uni-versity of Michigan Health System and Stanford Hospital and Clinics, promotes early resolution in cases of avoidable medical injury. Under this model, when unanticipated adverse outcomes occur, patients and their families are provided full disclosure of what happened, what it means for the patient medically, what will be done to prevent the error from

happening again, thereby improving patient safety and, where appropriate, a sincere apology and adequate and fair compensation. In cases where financial compensation is deemed appropriate, patients are encouraged to consult an attorney to advise them of their rights and to evaluate the fairness of any offer.

During the last three years, MAC-RMI members have been working tire-lessly to develop sample policies and procedures to guide and support institu-tions implementing the CARe program. Most recently, the MBA and MACRMI partnered to develop best practices for attorneys representing patients and health care providers in resolution of medical injury using the CARe ap-proach. These tools and additional re-sources for patients, clinicians, admin-

istrators and their attorneys are free and accessible through the MACRMI web-site at macrmi.info.

In January 2015, the MBA and MACRMI co-sponsored an interactive forum at the MBA to educate attorneys on MACRMI’s mission and the CARe approach. The forum provided an op-portunity for attorneys to get informa-tion about how the CARe program works in Massachusetts, hear from at-torneys that have participated in the process, understand the benefits of the program for attorneys and their clients, and have their questions answered by a panel of experts on the topic. Attorneys from across the state, including many prominent plaintiffs’ medical malprac-tice attorneys, attended the event, and it proved to be a resounding success.

The evening began with Dr. Alan Woodward, former MMS president, presenting the background and accom-plishments of MACRMI. Dr. Kenneth Sands, chief quality officer at Beth Is-rael Deaconess Medical Center (BID-MC), provided a history of the program and the current results of its implemen-tation at the pilot sites in Massachusetts. The six pilots include BIDMC, Beth Israel Deaconess Milton, Beth Israel Deaconess Needham, Baystate Medical Center, Baystate Mary Lane, and Bay-state Franklin. Dr. Sands revealed many facts and data with regard to the impact of the CARe program on resolving cas-es early and the progress that has yet to be made. The transparency of informa-tion was impressive and consistent with a key tenet of the CARe program — transparent communication.

A panel of both plaintiff and defense attorneys followed. It was led by a suc-cessful plaintiff’s attorney from Michi-gan, George Googasian, who spoke of the benefits of a well-known Disclosure, Apology and Offer (DA&O) program in that state. He shared examples of recent cases resolved using the CARe-like ap-proach and convincingly dispelled no-tions that such programs are a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” or an attempt to short-change patients by offering them money at the early stages of their in-jury when they are most vulnerable. With 14 years of experience working on cases using the CARe-like approach, Googasian believes that it’s a giant step forward in the legal and medical com-munities. Jeffrey Catalano, a plaintiffs’ attorney and MBA representative on MACRMI’s committee, emphasized the necessity of such programs to im-prove patient safety efforts. In particu-lar, how CARe encourages healthcare providers to disclose errors and learn from their medical mistakes. Defense

attorney Kevin Giordano discussed the importance of having the defense bar buy in to this program. He expressed that his support for this program comes from his belief in a good healthcare sys-tem, and promoting a trusting and good patient-provider relationship. He en-couraged plaintiffs’ attorneys to also be open-minded to resolving these cases collaboratively, fairly and expeditiously because it is the right thing to do.

Patient advocate and Executive Di-rector of Medically Induced Trauma Support Services (MITSS), Linda Ken-ney, spoke of the importance of appreci-ating both the health care provider’s and patient’s emotions when a medical error occurs and the need for early healing for both parties, which the CARe program facilitates.

All panelists repeatedly emphasized that the participation of the attorney for the patient is highly encouraged in order to ensure that the process works fairly. In particular, the attorney’s role is to make sure that the settlement is sufficient to take care of the patient’s comprehensive past, present and fu-ture needs. The attorney is also there to ensure that the terms of the settlement agreement are fair and to assist with exploring and negotiating any medical liens that may subtract from the settle-ment offer.

The program concluded with a fruit-ful question and answer session facili-tated by plaintiff’s attorney Anthony Agudelo, the forum’s moderator. The panel of experts thoughtfully answered a number of questions from the audi-ence, such as how the process affects the National Practitioner Data Bank re-porting requirements and what criteria is used to qualify attorneys to represent patients using the CARe approach.

The forum was universally well re-ceived, as evidenced by written and verbal comments following the presen-tations. Everyone was very interested in the program and invested in future ef-forts to make it work. As the first phase of an effort to solicit the collaboration of all attorneys, it was a tremendous success. It is encouraging to learn that attorneys, healthcare providers and in-surers can find a common ground when it comes to trying to prevent avoidable medical errors and to providing as-sistance to those who are injured. Al-though the road ahead is still long, it promises to be well-paved.

The seminar is available to view through MBA On Demand by visiting massbar.org. ■

C I V I L L I T I G A T I O N

JEFFREY N. CATALANO is a partner at Todd & Weld LLP in Boston, where he represents victims of catastrophic injuries in the areas of medical negligence, product liability,

auto accident, class action and other personal injury cases. Catalano currently serves as treasurer of the Massachusetts Bar Association.

LISA BUCHSBAUM is a project manager at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in the Center for Healthcare Delivery Science. Buchsbaum manages the Communication, Apology and Resolution approach to adverse events at BIDMC. She also manages the Massachusetts Alliance for Communication and Resolution following Medical Injury, which promotes the use of the CARe process throughout the commonwealth.

1 9 1 1

«M

ASSA

CH

US E

T T S B A R A S SO

CIA

TIO

N«

FOR JUST $35 ENJOY:• BREAKFAST, LUNCH AND COCKTAIL RECEPTION

An opportunity to network with seasoned practitioners and judges

•RECORD-KEEPING AND ATTENDANCE REPORTS All required documents handled for you

•FREE MBA MEMBERSHIP (2014 admittees only)

TOPICS INCLUDE:•Yourreputationiseverything—howlawyersshouldact•Ethicsforthepracticinglawyer•Practicinglawinthedigitalage:navigatingsocialmedia•Introductiontolawofficemanagement•IntroductiontotheMassachusettscourtsystem

The number of newly admitted attorneys who completed the

Massachusetts Bar Association’s Practicing with Professionalism

course in 2013–14.475*

UPCOMING COURSE DATESMarch19—UMassSchoolofLaw,Dartmouth

May13—UMassMedical,WorcesterJuly16—MBA,20WestSt.,Boston

Sept.17—UMassLowellInnandConferenceCenterOct.23—WesternNewEnglandUniversitySchoolofLaw,Springfield

AstheonlySupremeJudicialCourt-approvedprovider tooffer thiscoursestate-

wide,theMBAisproudtohelpnewlyadmittedattorneysentertheprofessiononthe

righttrackbyofferinganaffordableandconvenientmeansofsatisfyingtheSJC’s

professionalismrequirement.

SPACE IS LIMITED. REGISTER TODAY.www.MassBar.org/MassBarProfessionalism


BY NICHOLAS D. CAPPIELLO AND PAUL J . KLEHM

Attorneys in Massachusetts are faced with strict notice requirements in a wide variety of tort actions. There are many statutory provisions to know, and failure to fulfill any critical notice provi-sion could be fatal to a client’s claims. Furthermore, there are exceptions and remedies to know should your client fail to comply with a particular notice pro-vision. The following (non-exhaustive) survey of some of the notice require-ments might serve as a handy reference when a potential client calls.

Bringing a dram shop action is not as simple as filing a case against the appropriate defendant(s) within the ap-propriate timeframe and then initiating discovery to determine whether a defen-dant knew that a patron was intoxicated and/or who was at fault for over-serving a patron. Under Massachusetts law, the plaintiff must specify, with particularity, the claims against each dram shop de-fendant, and the basis for those claims, in a supporting affidavit setting forth evidence that the defendant dram shop defendant knew or reasonably should have known that it was serving alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person.1

The supporting affidavit must be ei-ther: 1) attached to the complaint at the time of filing; or 2) filed within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. The rationale behind the requirement is to weed out frivolous and non-meritorious claims at the outset in an effort to reduce liability insurance costs for establish-ments that serve alcohol. The practical effect for dram shop plaintiffs and their attorneys is that they need to have all their ducks in a row when they file suit, because the consequences for failing to comply with the affidavit requirement include dismissal. By statute, the dram shop defendant is entitled to file for sum-

mary judgment if the plaintiff fails to file the supporting affidavit within the pre-scribed timeframe.

While it is obviously advisable to comply with affidavit requirement with-in the 90 days required by statute, the court has the discretion to enlarge the time in which to file the affidavit.2 There-fore, failure to file the affidavit within the statutory time period may not be fatal to the case if the proper motion is filed and the court allows the motion.3 But again, this requires the attorney to be aware of the affidavit requirement and to take af-firmative steps to preserve the client’s rights by moving to enlarge the deadline.

M.G.L. c. 231, § 60LIn November 2012, a new statute

went into effect requiring medical mal-practice plaintiffs to provide the defense with six months’ notice of their intent to file a claim before actually filing the claim. The notice requirements are very specific and failure to comply could re-sult in dismissal of the claim. There also some very important exceptions to the notice letter requirement, as well as some practical considerations that are not ex-plicitly addressed by the statute.

First, the notice letter must identify the defendant, set forth the factual ba-sis for the claim, explicitly set forth the standard of care required of the defen-dant, the plaintiff’s specific allegations of the defendant’s deviation(s) from the standard of care, what the defendant should have done to comply with the standard of care, the causal connection between the negligence and injuries and damages. The notice letter must also list any other potential defendants who were negligent and the fact that, they too, are receiving a notice letter.

Second, after serving the letter on the defendant, the plaintiff must wait 182 days before filing. Within 56 days of giving notice to the defendant, the plaintiff must give the defen-



FEB 2015MA

SSA

CH

USE

TTS BAR ASSOC

IAT

ION

1 9 1 1


Practice pointers prevent potentially painful pitfallsC I V I L L I T I G A T I O N

NICHOLAS D. CAPPIELLO is a partner at the firm of Lubin & Meyer PC. Cappiello dedicates his practice to medical malpractice and general liability litigation. He has secured several

multimillion dollar settlements for injured clients in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and has contributed to several record-setting jury awards in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

PAUL KLEHM is a civil litigation attorney who is a member of the MBA’s Civil Litigation Section Council. He is a partner in the Andover law firm of Krasnoo, Klehm & Falkner LLP, and he is the

immediate past president of the Lawrence Bar Association. Klehm handles business disputes, civil rights and personal injury matters.

18


BY ERIC P. F INAMORE

An enactment by the Legislature during the past calendar year reflects several profound changes underway in civil trial practice before the Superior Court. Chapter 254 of the Acts of 2014 authorizes attorney-conducted voir dire examination of prospective jurors dur-ing the empanelment process, as well the suggestion to the jury of a specific mon-etary amount for damages at trial. The brevity of the statutory language belies the tireless efforts of the advocates, in-cluding the past and present leadership of the Massachusetts Bar Association, who brought about the changes. It also barely hints at the breadth of the change in practice, or at the adaptive process which will be required of most Massa-chusetts attorneys who, unless they have practiced in other jurisdictions as well, will be unprepared for implementation of the statute.

The Massachusetts court system has long been criticized for its restric-tive approach to jury voir dire, which largely limited assessments of prospec-tive jurors’ impartiality to the vital sta-tistics disclosed on the mandatory juror

questionnaire and in the responses to the statutory questions asked by the trial judge. Attorney-conducted voir dire has not been part of the civil trial court culture, and for most attorneys, in most cases, voir dire has not been a meaning-ful, substantial part of trial preparation.

In this respect, trial practice in Mas-sachusetts is undergoing a significant change. Effective Feb. 2, 2015, M.G.L. c. 234, Sec 28(1) provides:

In addition to whatever jury voir dire of the jury venire is conducted by the court, the court shall permit, upon the request of any party’s attorney or a self-represented party, the party’s attorney or self-represented party to conduct an oral examination of the prospective jurors at the discretion of the court.

That the court “shall” permit exami-nation seems to indicate that the request must be allowed as a matter of right, but the sentence ends with the qualification that the questioning shall be permitted “at the discretion of the court.” The ef-fect of these seemingly-contradictory provisions remains to be seen. However, the effect of the statute is clear: counsel in Superior Court cases must be pre-pared for the advent of conducting (and opposing) voir dire questioning of pro-spective jurors in a civil case.

The Supreme Judicial Court Com-mittee on Juror voir dire is expected to promulgate permanent procedures gov-erning the jury voir dire permitted by this statute. In the meantime, Superior Court Standing Order 1-15, adopted on Dec. 5, 2014, will be the governing pro-cedure and all practitioners will have to be intimately familiar with its provisions and its implementation. This article is not intended to substitute for a thorough knowledge of the provision, much less for practical training, but seeks only to mention several pertinent characteristics of concern to the practitioner.

Motion and opposition. First, Standing Order 1-15(C)(1) provides that any attorney (or pro se party) who

seeks to examine prospective jurors in a civil case must serve and file a mo-tion requesting leave to do so under the procedure of Superior Court Rule 9A. The motion must be filed no later than the earlier of the final trial confer-ence or fourteen days prior to the date scheduled for trial. Therefore, active preparation for the questioning of pro-spective jurors must begin at least sev-eral months before trial. This represents a substantial change in trial preparation. In previous practice, when requests for voir dire could often be filed on the day of trial, neither counsel nor the court re-ceived advance notice of such requests, and questions could be formulated at the last minute. Under the new procedure, opposing counsel will have had an op-portunity to oppose the requests, and the court will have had opportunity to rule on the motion, all before the beginning of trial.

Substance of the motion. The standing order requires that the motion identify “generally” the topics of the questions the moving party proposes to ask the prospective jurors. The motion must also include proposed language for the brief explanation of the pertinent principles of law which is required to be



MAR 2015MA

SSA

CH

USE

TTS BAR ASSOC

IAT

ION

1 9 1 1


Attorney-conducted voir dire begins in MassachusettsC I V I L L I T I G A T I O N

ERIC P. FINAMORE practices civil litigation in Boston. He is the managing member of Weston Patrick, PA, and a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Civil Litigation Council.

To find out how the MBA Insurance Agency can help you with

your malpractice and other coverage needs, contact us:

Boston (617) 338-0581 • Springfield (413) 788-7878

Email: [email protected]

Unequalled insurance, ensuring

Massachusetts Bar Association members

are protected with comprehensive

coverage in today’s marketplace.

Underwritten by the nation’s largest

provider of malpractice insurance,

MBA Insurance provides expert,

customer-focused staff.

Designed by lawyers for lawyers.

WE’VE MOVEDMBA Insurance Agency

1441 Main Street, Suite 925 Springfield, MA 01103-1450


given by the court prior to the question-ing under the provisions of Standing Or-der 1-15(C)(5)(b). Taken together, these provisions require counsel to submit the topics of proposed questions, along with an explanation of the legal elements of the claim or defense which might justify those topics. The topics identified shall be interpreted to include reasonable follow-up questions. Standing Order 1-15(C)(2).

However, the standing order also provides that the trial judge may require counsel to submit the specific language of the proposed questions for pre-ap-proval. The standing order does not specify whether follow-up questions, allowed for identified topics, are also allowed where the specific language of the questions has been submitted for ap-proval. It seems logical to suppose that the reasonable follow-up should be al-lowed in virtually all instances. How-ever, the same concern which caused the court to require pre-approval of spe-cific questions could cause the court to restrict the questioning to only the ap-proved language.

Court action on the motion. After the parties’ submissions, the standing or-der requires the trial judge to “approve” or “disapprove” the topics of questions or the specific language of the proposed questions. Standing Order 1-15(C)(3). The order also provides detailed guid-ance on the types of questions which should be generally approved, and those which should be generally disapproved. Standing Order 1-15(C)(4)(a), (b).

Questions that should generally be approved are described in paragraph (C)(4)(a), and include those questions in-quiring about: (1) the prospective juror’s background and experience pertinent to the issues expected to arise in the case and whether and how such background or experiences might influence the juror in the case, (2) preconceptions or biases relating to the identity of the parties or the nature of the claims or issues and (3) the prospective jurors' willingness and ability to accept and apply pertinent le-gal principles as instructed.

The standing order does not say that the three subcategories of paragraph (C)(4)(a) constitute an exhaustive list of questions or topics likely to be ap-proved. However, these subjects seem to encompass the broad types of concerns that counsel will have in the process of seating an impartial jury and they are a fair summary of the types of concerns which have heretofore been raised dur-ing the empanelment process in any civil case.

The standing order also enumerates, in a somewhat longer list, questions which are likely to be disapproved. They include questions:• That duplicate the questions on the

statutory confidential juror question-naire.

• Regarding the prospective juror's po-litical views, voting patterns, party preferences, religious beliefs or affili-ation, reading or viewing habits, char-itable giving, opinions on matters of public policy, hobbies or recreational activities or regarding insurance.

• Regarding the deliberation in or out-come of any trial in which the pro-spective juror has previously served as a juror.

• Purporting to instruct jurors on the law.

• That make arguments on any issue of fact or law; that tend to indoctrinate or persuade; that encourage the juror to identify with a party, victim, witness, attorney or other person or entity, or to send a message; or that encourage

the juror to prejudge any issue in the case, to make a commitment to sup-port a particular result, or to do any-thing other than remain impartial and follow the court’s instructions.

• That require a juror to guess or specu-late about facts or law.

• That would tend to embarrass or of-fend jurors or unduly invade jurors’ privacy Standing Order 1-15(C)(4)(b).

These subparagraphs of the standing order offer guidance to the practitioner about the types of questions or topics to avoid listing in the motion. Particularly in subparagraphs (4) and (5), the order dispels any impression that the voir dire process is an opportunity to “pre-try” a case to the venire, or to create impres-sions or sympathies which will help the client during the course of the trial. While skillful questioning may inevita-bly lead to impressions or beliefs on the part of the prospective juror, the stand-ing order indicates that the court will disapprove topics or questions obvi-ously designed to achieve such a result.

Similarly, according to subpara-graphs (2), the court should disapprove questions about a juror’s religious or political views or affiliations and even opinions regarding matters of public policy. It might be supposed that some of those views would naturally affect a juror’s ability to render a fair and im-partial verdict, and may not be clearly distinguishable from the “experiences” or “preconceptions” which are explicitly approved under paragraph (C)(4)(a). Is a potential juror’s belief that there are too many high damage awards in civil cases a “preconception … relating to the na-ture of the claim” about which question-ing is permissible? Or is it an opinion on a matter of public policy, on which no questions should be asked? Counsel will have to become adept at walking the line between the approved and disapproved categories described by the standing or-der.

Attorney voir dire questioning. Following its ruling on the motion, the court is directed by the standing order to conduct its own explanation of the empanelment process and of the case and to conduct questioning of potential jurors, which by the terms Section (C)(5) appear to encompass the statements and questions with which practitioners are already familiar. As a result of that process, the court will assemble a panel which it finds to be indifferent and able to serve. Only after the trial judge has found an individual juror indifferent and able to serve do attorneys have the op-portunity to question that person, either individually or as part of the venire pan-el, and only to the extent that question-ing has been authorized by the court’s action on the parties’ motions.

The standing order provides for both individual and panel questioning. First, the judge may require that questioning be conducted of each prospective juror individually, outside the presence or hearing of other jurors. Standing Or-der 1-15(C)(6)(a). On the basis of the responses to their questions, the parties may assert challenges for cause at that time. If the juror is not excused for cause the judge may require the exercise of any peremptory challenge at that time, or the judge may seat the juror subject to the parties’ later exercise of peremptory challenges.

Next, upon request of a party, the trial judge may permit counsel to ques-tion jurors as a group in a “panel” voir dire procedure. Standing Order 1-15(C)(6)(b). The panel must consist of at least

the number of jurors that will be seated for trial. Jurors to whom questions are addressed in this form may be identified on the record by juror number only. Af-ter completion of panel questioning the parties may assert challenges for cause and the court may allow counsel oppos-ing the challenge the opportunity to con-duct further questioning of the juror.

These provisions make it clear that, despite the guidance provided by the standing order and the prescription of the statutory enactment, much about attorney-conducted voir dire will be left to the discretion of the trial judge. From the form and substance of the questions and topics, to the manner in which the questions are posed, to the timing of peremptory challenges, each trial judge

will have discretion to structure the pro-cess as he or she sees fit, with due regard to the nature of the case, the parties and counsel in the courtroom and the judge’s own preferences and comfort level.

The allowance of attorney-conducted voir dire is a welcome and long-sought improvement in Massachusetts civil procedure. It brings Massachusetts civil practice more closely into line with the majority of jurisdictions which permit it. It will assist the efforts of the courts and litigants to seat fair and impartial ju-ries. Practitioners in this commonwealth must now learn its uses and limits, in order to employ it toward its commend-able objectives. Superior Court Standing Order 1-15 is an illuminating first step, and a valuable tool, in that process. ■

t

5TH ANNUAL MEMBER APPRECIATION WEEK

April 6–10, 2015

WWW.MASSBAR.ORG/MEMBERAPPRECIATION

To celebrate YOU ... all week long enter to win

great prizes and giveaways, including:

¢ 4-pack Red Sox Tickets¢ Amex Gift Card¢ FREE 2015–16 Membership (including LRS)

... AND MORE!!

The Massachusetts Bar Association wouldn’t be here today without the support of our members.

BelongiMASSBAR

A S S O C I A T I O N


dant access to all relevant medical records, including executed authorizations allowing the defense to obtain those records. The statute gives the defense up to 150 days to respond to the plaintiff’s notice letter. If the defendant fails to respond to the plaintiff’s notice letter and the plaintiff ultimately prevails at trial, then the plaintiff is entitled to interest dating back to the date of the no-tice letter rather than the date the complaint was filed. However, the additional interest is not automatic. To preserve the right to the additional interest, the plaintiff must notify the court in the complaint “or by any other means” that the defendant failed to respond to the notice letter.4

There are a number of additional con-siderations to the timeframes set forth in the statute. First, the plaintiff need only provide 90-day notice to a defendant if 182-day notice has already been given to another healthcare provider. In other words, the plaintiff is only required to give 90-day notice to a defendant before moving to amend an existing complaint to add a defendant. Likewise, if during the pendency of the 182-day waiting period, the plaintiff discovers the identity of an-other potential defendant, then the plain-tiff must serve that additional defendant with a notice letter and has to wait 90 days, not 182 days, before filing against that defendant.

Another important exception to the no-tice letter requirement centers around the proximity to the statute of limitations or the statute of repose. A plaintiff is not required to serve a notice letter if the claim is filed within six months of the statute of limita-tions or within one year of the statute of re-pose. Therefore, a practical consideration for plaintiff’s counsel is whether to serve

a notice letter at all if the six month mark to the statute of limitations, or the one year mark to the statute of repose, is approach-ing, or whether to wait until either of those dates arrives so that suit can be filed with-out the need to serve the notice letter. On the other hand, there may be advantages to serving the notice letter if liability is clear because it is possible the notice letter will prompt pre-suit settlement discussions.

While the statute of limitations and statute of repose exceptions are relatively straightforward in the event of a new case that has not yet been filed, the statute does not expressly set forth the inter-connec-tion with the doctrine of relation back and whether the notice letter is required in the event that a plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add a defendant to an exist-ing lawsuit more than three years after the cause of action has accrued. While the ar-gument certainly exists that the plaintiff is exempt because they are within six months of the statute of limitations, an argument can also be made that the statute of limita-tions is irrelevant given the doctrine of re-lation back (assuming there are no statute of repose considerations), and therefore the plaintiff is required to provide the 90-day notice set forth in the statute.

There is also no notice requirement if there was no reasonable way for the plaintiff to identify the individual defen-dant before filing suit. For instance, if the medical records do not identify the neg-ligent individual or entity, and there was no reasonable way to ascertain his/her identity pre-suit, then a notice letter is not required.

Lastly, within the 182 day period, the plaintiff may file the case at any time after receiving written notice from the defense denying the claim.

The statute lays out all of the require-

ments in detail. This overview is not meant to include an exhaustive list of the require-ments, but instead an illustration of the current procedural constraints and prereq-uisites to filing for medical malpractice in Massachusetts. Failure to comply with the notice requirements may be grounds for dismissal of the claim.

M.G.L. c. 84When a new client calls with a personal

injury claim caused by snow and ice con-ditions, or from a defect in a public way, counsel must quickly assess whether the claimant must give notice under M.G.L. c. 84 within 30 days of the date of injury in order to preserve the claim. Counsel must review the statute carefully, and, further, should look for other potential defendants, especially to the extent that certain claims against a municipality or the common-wealth may be subject to relatively small monetary limits.

Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 84, §15, an in-dividual injured by defect on a public way may seek damages, generally limited to a maximum of $5,000, from the municipal-ity or person by law obligated to repair the defect. The defect must be the sole cause of the injury — neither the claimant nor any third party can be a cause, in part, of the in-jury.5 M.G.L. c. 84 provides the only reme-dy against a municipality and the common-wealth for personal injuries or damages from a defect or want of repair upon a way.6

A claimant seeking to recover for bodi-ly injury or property damage (but not for wrongful death) from defects upon a way must give notice in writing to the munici-pal authority or quasi-municipal authority, like the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority or the Boston Water & Sewer Commission, within 30 days of the date of injury. M.G.L. c. 84 §§ 15, 18.7 The 30-day limitation on notice and the three-year stat-ute of limitations mandated by M.G.L. c. 84 §18, also apply to personal injury claims brought against the commonwealth for de-fects causing an injury on state highways, for which the limit of recovery is only $4,000. See M.G.L. c. 81, §18. The defen-dant must receive the notice within the 30 days.

Chapter 84 also deals with snow and ice claims. A claimant must give appropri-ate notice to a municipality or person obli-gated by law to maintain a way for injuries caused by snow and ice claims within 30 days.8 A municipality will not be liable for any injury on a public way caused by snow or ice if the area was “otherwise reasonably safe and convenient for travelers,” which appears to mean that snow and ice, without some accompanying defect, is not enough to demonstrate the liability of a municipal-ity.9 The failure to give notice for a snow and ice claim to a municipality is not a de-fense unless the defendant can show prej-udice from the lack of notice.10 Since the statute allows for 30 days to give notice to the defendant, during which time weather conditions change daily (thereby changing the condition of the snow and ice), a de-fendant may have difficulty demonstrating prejudice.

When a claimant suffers an injury from snow and ice on private property, M.G.L. c. 84 §21, which includes a 30-day notice provision, applies. While there is some confusion regarding whether the claim-ant must provide timely notice to a private landowner, the prudent claimant will de-liver a notice letter within 30 days, or as soon thereafter as possible.11 Under §21, the private landowner will have to show prejudice in order to assert lack of notice as a defense.

The written notice must include the claimant’s name and full address, and the time, place and cause of the injury or

damage. M.G.L. c. 84 §§18, 19. The no-tice needs to describe the location with sufficient detail so that the defendant may identify the location and conduct an inves-tigation.12 If the injured person dies within the initial 30 days, then the notice must be given within 30 days of the appointment of the personal representative, and, if the mi-nority or physical or mental incapacity of a person renders the giving of notice within 30 days impossible, then the time for send-ing the letter is tolled until the disability is ended.13

Other Personal Injury ClaimsThe following section discusses per-

sonal injury claims against the MBTA, which do not arise from defects in a pub-lic way or snow and ice claims. When first contacted by the client regarding a claim against the MBTA, counsel must take care to determine which statutory scheme applies to the claimant’s set of facts.

From 1964 to 2009, claimants were required to commence personal injury ac-tions against the MBTA within two years after the date of injury or death. See M.G.L. c. 161A, §38. In 2009, the legislature re-moved the two-year statute of limitations for claims against the MBTA and expanded the term “public employer” under M.G.L. c. 258 to include the MBTA.14 As a result, the presentment requirements of c. 258 now apply to tort claims against the MBTA (other than claims for defect in a public way and snow and ice claims), and claim-ants must send a proper letter within two years of the accrual of the cause of action. If the MBTA has not responded to the claim within six months, the claim is deemed to be denied.15 Once the claim is denied, the claimant may commence an action against the MBTA, keeping in mind that the claim-ant must file the action within three years of the accrual of the cause of action.16

A claimant who fails to make present-ment within two years may be able to ex-tend the deadline for making presentment (and the statute of limitations) under the discovery rule if the claim is inherently unknowable.17 The minority or mental incapacity of the claimant generally does not toll the time for presentment, although the statute of limitations may be tolled on that basis.18 ■

1. See Courtemanche v. Beijing Restaurant, Inc. , 490 F.Supp.2d 107, 110 (1st Cir. 2007) and Cimino v. Milford Keg, Inc., 385 Mass. 323, 327-28 (1982).

2. See Croteau v. Swansea Lounge, Inc., 522 N.E.2d 967, 969-970 (1988)

3. See Beijing Restaurant, Inc., 490 F.Supp.2d 107, 110 (1st Cir. 2007), and Cimino v. Milford Keg, Inc., 385 Mass. 323, 327-28 (1982) (although supporting affidavit not filed within 90 days, failure to file the affidavit was not fatal to the plaintiff’s case).

4. M.G.L. c. 231, § 60L (h)

5. Carroll v. City of Lowell, 321 Mass. 98, 100 (1947).

6. See Ram v. Town of Charlton, 409 Mass. 481, 485 (1991).

7. See Wolf v. Boston Water & Sewer Commission, 408 Mass. 490, 492 (1990).

8. M.G.L. c. 84 §18.

9. See M.G.L. c. 84 §17; Intrilligator v. City of Boston, 395 Mass. 489 (1985).

10. M.G.L. c. 84 §18.

11. There may be no requirement to give notice of a snow and ice claim to a private landowner, see Perry v. Medeiros, 369 Mass. 836, 843 n. 5 (1976), but the wiser course is to serve the notice within the thirty days. See 37A Mass. Prac., Tort Law, §21.9 (3d ed.).

12. See M.G.L. c. 84 §20.

13. See M.G.L. c. 84 §19.

14. See M.G.L. c. 161A §38; M.G.L. c. 258 §4.

15. M.G.L. c. 258 §4.

16. Id; see also M.G.L. c. 260 §2A.

17. See Krasnow v. Allen, 29 Mass.App.Ct. 562, 567 (1990); Heck v. Commonwealth, 397 Mass. 336, 340 (1986).

18. M.G.L. c. 260 §7; see George v. Town of Saugus, 394 Mass. 40, 41 (1985) (minority); Heck, 397 Mass. at 339 (mental incapacity).

PAINFUL PITFALLSContinued from page 15

Ten Tremont StreetBoston, MA 02108

617-227-7000www.shefflaw.com

TraumaticBrain Injury

A Sixty Year Tradition of Excellence.Generous referral fees

Our Team is Committed to Superior Results

$9,800,000

$7,000,000

$6,000,000

$4,000,000

$3,500,000

$1,000,000


The challenges of mixing family and business creates a unique set of

complexities that other businesses simply do not encounter. You’re not

alone. The New England Family Business Conference was created as a

central forum for family businesses to come together to celebrate their

successes and to help each other navigate common challenges.

Come join our growing

community of family

businesses at the 3rd Annual

New England Family Business

Conference on June 18 at

Babson College in Wellesley,

Massachusetts.

The New England Family

Business Conference is

gaining momentum as the

#1 networking and educational event specifically designed for the region’s

family-owned businesses to come together to share experiences, learn from

experts, and celebrate the spirit of family business!

Contact The Warren Group for a customized marketing program unique to your business needs. Call 617-896-5307 or email [email protected] today!

CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS INCLUDE:

• Hear from industry experts and experienced family business owners.

• Expand your network and learn from peers.

• Choose which breakout sessions you want to attend.

• Enjoy breakfast and lunch with other conference attendees.

• Outstanding Women of Family Business Awards

• Receive a complimentary subscription to the Massachusetts Family Business magazine.

• Enter to win a Business Profile in an upcoming issue of the magazine.

• Enter to win the Grand Prize raffle while at the event.

• Only family business professionals can purchase tickets; service provider attendance is limited to a select number of sponsors.

WHEN:June 18, 2015

WHERE:Babson College

VISIT WWW.NEFBC.COM FOR MORE INFORMATION!

SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

ARE AVAILABLE CALL TODAY!

JOIN US FOR THE 2015 NEW ENGLAND FAMILY BUSINESS CONFERENCE

Presented by In Partnership with


Keeping an eye out for delinquencies can be difficult. Red Flag

Alerts deliver the information you need in an actionable format.

Red Flag Alerts combine new tax lien filings with lis pendens and

petition filings. They contain more detailed information than you get

from other sources. Important things like owner-occupancy status,

property and owner address, an automated value model for the

property in question and more.

Essential, timely Red Flag Alerts delivered to you automatically.

Be the first to know about delinquencies. Take immediate action.

Red Flag Alerts PROVIDED BY THE WARREN GROUP

617-896-5392 [email protected]

More than 160,000 tax liens, lis pendens and petitions to foreclose have been filed in Massachusetts since 2010.

massachusetts lawyers journal march 2015

Documents