Robert F. Shaw Jr.
Law Offices of Robert F. Shaw, Jr. Cambridge Riverview Center 245 First Street, 18th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Practice Area(s): Criminal Defense, Civil Litigation call (617) 737-0110 fax (617) 812-7744 visit website
Biographical Information
Attorney Robert Shaw, Jr. has handled and consulted on cases in trial and appellate courts throughout Massachusetts and across the country, including the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Florida and the United States Federal Court in Puerto Rico. Mr. Shaw has specialized in criminal defense for over one and one half decades and has handled cases ranging from possession of narcotics to quintuple murder. A Magna Cum Laude graduate of Boston College Law School, Mr. Shaw founded the Law Offices of Robert F. Shaw, Jr. in 1999. While the vast majority of Mr. Shaw’s work is focused on criminal defense and, in particular, homicide cases, he maintains a very selective civil practice ranging from civil rights to medical malpractice, as reflected in a recent federal case where his client received compensation well in excess of one million dollars. Mr. Shaw has been named a Lawyer of the Year by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and was selected as one of the Top 100 Criminal Defense Lawyers in Massachusetts by both The National Trial Lawyers and the American Society of Legal Advocates.
Mr. Shaw began his career in private practice with the prominent firm of Roche, Carens & DeGiacomo, P.C. (now Murtha Cullina LLP) in Boston, Massachusetts, a firm with a more than 50 year history. At the firm Mr. Shaw worked in the litigation department and represented a wide variety of clients including prestigious, multi-billion dollar companies such as E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, John Deere Company, Eastman Kodak, as well as individuals and families in trial and appellate courts across Massachusetts. Prior to joining the firm Mr. Shaw was one of eighteen individuals from across the country selected by the United States Department of Justice to work in the Civil Division, Torts Branch, where he worked on complex civil cases in Washington, D.C. His responsibilities at the Department of Justice included developing strategy and working on many areas of law including, but not limited to discovery issues, abstention by federal courts to avoid duplicative state court litigation, constitutional challenges to state tort reform, and complex tort litigation.
Mr. Shaw is admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the California Supreme Court, the United States District Court for Massachusetts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Shaw has litigated multiple cases involving murder, sexual assault, narcotics trafficking, pornography, police brutality, malpractice, and business litigation. Mr. Shaw has handled several high profile cases involving clients who have been the subject of extensive television and print media from across the country, including but not limited to Court TV, the New York Times, Nation Magazine, the Boston Globe, Boston Magazine, Forbes, the Associates Press and Reuters, among many others. Mr. Shaw serves as a mentor to other attorneys on behalf of the Committee for Public Counsel Services of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in murder and lesser felony cases. He has been an invited lecturer at events ranging from continuing legal education seminars to law school classrooms.
Mr. Shaw’s representation is marked by relationships with the highest levels of honesty, trust and integrity. “Clients understand and rely upon our genuine commitment to them and the care with which we assist them. Our entire legal practice, at every level, reflects our values and the trust and integrity that we facilitate and maintain. Genuine intention is the foundation of legal representation that is characterized by forthright and thorough communication between attorney and client, attention to detail, passion and skill in the courtroom, and results that make a difference. Our word and our genuine commitment is our bond.”
Education
Boston College Law School, Magna Cum Laude, 1997.
Honors & Awards
| Top 100 Criminal Defense Lawyers in Massachusetts | ASLA, American Society of Legal Advocates | 2015 |
| Top 100 Criminal Defense Trial Lawyers | National Trial Lawyers | 2014 |
| Top 100 Criminal Defense Lawyers in Massachusetts | ASLA, American Society of Legal Advocates | 2014 |
| 2012 Lawyer of the Year | Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly | 2013 |
Press
ROBERT F. SHAW, JR. NAMED A 2012 LAWYER OF THE YEAR BY MASSACHUSETTS LAWYERS WEEKLY
“A rap video shouldn’t tip the scales when a man is on trial for murder. That’s what Robert F. Shaw, Jr.’s inner sense of justice told him. And that’s why the 45 year old Cambridge attorney was so gratified when he succeeded in convincing the Supreme Judicial Court to overturn the first degree murder conviction of Lamory Gray last November.”
ZEZIMA, KATIE AND CAREY, BENEDICT, EX-PRIEST CHALLENGES ABUSE CONVICTION ON REPRESSED MEMORIES, NEW YORK TIMES
“You have prominent scientists, psychologists and psychiatrists saying this is not generally accepted. So why allow it in a court of law in a criminal proceeding?” Mr. Shanley’s lawyer, Robert F. Shaw Jr., asked the state’s highest court Thursday.
LAUREL J. SWEET, BOSTON HERALD, COURT ORDERS NEW TRIAL IN GANG MURDER CASE
“It’s one of the most concerning cases I have ever handled in my career. It’s one that can keep you up nights,” Shaw said. “It is the fundamental right to challenge evidence that is being presented against you. This decision affirms that criminal trials in this Commonwealth must be fair. Nobody benefits when the government seeks to win without due regard for fairness.”
[Shaw] also protested the impact Gray’s brief appearance in a rap video was made to have on the jury. “Imagine what a problem it is when the government scours the internet, finds a music video in which a defendant appears and then utilizes that video and all of its imagery — which is a form of artistic expression — to argue to the jury that Mr. Gray is a gang member with the intent to kill,” Shaw said. “No one believes that Bob Marley shot the sheriff, but did not shoot the deputy. It raises issues of constitutional rights to association and freedom of expression.”
DENISE LAVOIE, ASSOCIATED PRESS, BOSTON MAN GETS NEW TRIAL IN STUDENTS KILLING
Robert F. Shaw, Jr., Gray’s lawyer, said he was pleased with the decision. He said he found it “enormously concerning” that the rap video was introduced at the trial. “No one believes that ‘I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy’ by Bob Marley is a statement of actual fact,” Shaw said. “The fact that rap music is a certain genre of music and involves the typical gangster character with exaggerated lyrics does not mean that somebody who expresses that as part of a rap video song is making a statement of fact and intention about themselves.”
Shaw said the defense also should have been allowed to tell the jury about Jamison’s failure to identify Gray in a photo array. “If they are going to be permitted to use statements of identification, the defense must be permitted in a trial that is fundamentally fair to introduce available contrary evidence which demonstrates the exact opposite,” Shaw said.
BOSTON, ASSOCIATED PRESS, BROCKTON WOMAN GETS RETRIAL IN BOYFRIENDS SLAYING
Anestal’s lawyer, Robert F. Shaw, Jr., says the decision affirms that trial proceedings should be grounded in fairness.
BOSTON GLOBE, MARTIN FINUCANE, SJC ORDERS RESENTENCING FOR MAN CONVICTED AS JUVENILE IN ROXBURY SLAYING
Attorney Robert F. Shaw, Jr. , Ray’s attorney, said Ray’s convictions should have been thrown out.
“We respect the supreme judicial court and we vigorously disagree with this decision. The judgments in this case should have been reversed. As for the District Attorney’s public declarations of the gang involvement, they are completely unfounded and contradict what prosecutors have represented in court for nearly a decade,” Shaw said in a statement.
Shaw, on the other hand, said he was pleased that ” the blind, automatic sentence of life without parole no longer has force and effect in Mr. Ray’s case.”
DENISE LAVOIE, ASSOCIATED PRESS, SUPREME COURT TO HEAR APPEAL OF TWO CONVICTED IN CHINATOWN MASSACRE, FIVE WERE KILLED IN 1991 SHOOTING
Tham’s lawyer argues in his appeal that the trial prosecutor pressured the jury to convict the men by referring to the crime as one of the worst in Boston’s history and telling jurors they would write the final chapter of a story that then spanned nearly 15 years.
“The prosecutor’s theme improperly conveyed a false picture of personal obligation to bring closure after 15 years of government effort, driven by harm of historical significance to the Boston community,’’ Tham’s appellate attorney, Robert F. Shaw Jr., argues in his appeal.
COX, LAUREN, EX-PRIEST QUESTIONS REPRESSED MEMORIES, ABC NEWS
“It’s a very difficult issue for people to understand because you have a group of people who say this exists, you also have a large group of people to say that it has not been established,” said Robert F Shaw Jr., Shanley’s attorney. ….
Shaw said, “We are not talking about not thinking about something and later remembering it and we’re not talking about somebody who has some memory distortion and then can’t remember part of a experience later. We are talking about somebody who was in a concentration camp and then forgot it ever happened.”
ABC TV, AUSTRALIA, FALSE MEMORY, BASED UPON CASE OF COMMONWEALTH V. SHANLEY
“The only evidence against him was ‘repressed memory.’ I didn’t think that should be permitted.”
[Note: This is a fourteen minute science program exploring false memory and the “memory wars.”]
JONATHAN SALTZMAN, SJC BANS PROSECUTORS FROM REWARD PROGRAMS, BOSTON GLOBE
Miranda’s appellate lawyer, Robert F. Shaw Jr. of Cambridge, was disappointed that the SJC allowed his client’s verdict to stand, despite forbidding prosecutors from participating in rewards tied to testimony that ends in a conviction. …
He said he had no objection to programs that reward tipsters for information that leads to arrests. But the Chamber’s program, he said, gave witnesses an incentive to tailor their testimony to help prosecutors win a conviction.
NEW ENGLAND CABLE NEWS, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
“We have an individual who says that he was repeatedly abused week after week after week for a period of years, after every abuse he forgot it again, walked into it again, and then for 20 years thereafter, he was completely oblivious.” The judgments should be reversed because, “You have a citizem who was prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned based upon inadmissible evidence.”
CHARIS ANDERSON, SJC REBUKES DA FOR PARTICIPATING IN WITNESS REWARD PROGRAM, SOUTH COAST TODAY
Robert F. Shaw Jr., Miranda’s attorney, said he thought the conviction-contingent rewards paid to two of the prosecution’s witnesses were the most troubling aspect of the case.
“The process by which someone like Wayne Miranda is prosecuted and convicted has to be a fair process,” he said.
“To be holding out cash incentives to government witnesses, conditioned upon there being an outcome that the government wants, we think it’s fundamentally unfair and tainted this entire proceeding.”
Shaw said he was in the process of conducting a thorough analysis of the SJC’s ruling.
“We’ll be evaluating all of our options for pursuing it further,” he said. “We feel quite strongly that the outcome was wrong.”
ASSOCIATED PRESS, MASS. COURT: DAS CANT PARTICIPATE IN REWARDS, BY DENISE LAVOIE
Miranda’s lawyer, Robert F. Shaw Jr., argued that the contingent monetary rewards violated Miranda’s due process rights. He sought a new trial in which the testimony of the two witnesses would be excluded. …
“Now, clearly the Supreme Judicial Court agrees that this is wrong and that it should not happen, and they have made clear that it will not happen in the future, but that doesn’t help Mr. Miranda, who has been subjected to a process in which this occurred,” Shaw said.
“These witnesses go into the trial understanding that if they testify in a manner to get a conviction, they get paid cash,” he said.
WHDH CHANNEL 7 NEWS, SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
“Repressed memory is a theorized phenomenon. It is not accepted by the scientific community.”
WBZ CHANNEL 38 NEWS
“It is improper, and highly prejudicial, and very unfair to admit this kind of evidence, in a criminal proceeding to prosecute and imprison an individual.”
SALTZMAN, JON, REPRESSED MEMORY AT ISSUE IN DEFROCKED PRIESTS APPEAL, BOSTON GLOBE
“Overwhelming evidence proves that the theory of ‘repressed memory’ is not generally accepted by the relevant scientific community on multiple grounds and that the commonwealth’s experts provided misleading junk science testimony that should not have been admitted in a judicial proceeding,” the lawyer, Robert F. Shaw Jr. of Cambridge, argues in his brief.
WYPIJEWSKI, JOANN, CRISIS OF FAITH, THE NATION MAGAZINE
“When the Supreme Judicial Court hears arguments in May, it will consider the issues that, without the impedimenta of panic and prejudice, always made this a case about due process and equal treatment under the law. Shanley’s new lawyer, Robert Shaw Jr., is not asking the court to divine Busa’s veracity or even to determine that the hypothesis of repressed memory is, finally, true or false. That, he asserts, is the function of scientific research. To date, the research shows that the hypothesis is unproven. And so long as it is unproven, it is inadmissible in court. Shaw argues that Shanley had ineffective counsel on this and other matters, and he is seeking a new trial.”
ELLEMENT, JOHN, SJC ORDERS NEW TRIAL FOR FORMER SOUTH SHORE GIRLS SOCCER COACH, BOSTON GLOBE
“Arana’s appellate attorney, Robert F. Shaw, Jr., applauded the court’s decision because the trial “that occurred was very unfair … Jose Arana is entitled to a fair trial; he’s entitled to basic, fundamental fairness. The multiple and excessive errors in this case deprived him of a constitutional right to a fair proceeding.’’
LAVOIE, DENISE, EX-SOCCER COACH GETS NEW TRIAL IN MASS. RAPE CASE, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Arana’s lawyer, Robert F. Shaw Jr., said he was gratified by the court’s ruling.
“In this case, we had a trial that involved people coming in and testifying not only about what accuser said, but the way she said it and her demeanor and their subjective impressions of it,” Shaw said.
“He will now have the opportunity for a fair proceeding.”
NPR, BRADY-MYEROV, MONICA, ‘MASS. HIGH COURT TO HEAR FORMER PRIESTS APPEAL’
[Need Real Audio] Shanley’s new lawyer, Robert Shaw, Jr., says the hysteria of the time played into his conviction. “The issue here, now, is really a legal issue, and one has to be able to look at this situation and analyze it without Paul Shanley’s name in there because of all of the hysteria, and bias, and misinformation that was so widely spread in the public arena. [T]his is really about fairness. …. Repressed memory is a hypothesized phenomenon, it is not accepted by the scientific community, it is not reliable, it is highly controversial, and it should not be admitted in a court of law.”
MURPHY, SHELLY, SJC TO HEAR APPEAL BY EX-PRIEST IN ABUSE CASE, BOSTON GLOBE
Shaw said, “What we’re looking for in this case is a very thorough and honest analysis of the issues.”
LAVOIE, DENISE, ‘PRIEST IN BOSTON CLERGY SCANDAL DENIED NEW TRIAL’, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Shanley’s lawyer, Robert F. Shaw Jr., said Wednesday he would appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Judicial Court.
“The entire theory of the case … was that (the victim) completely repressed his memory for 20 years, and that despite memory triggers throughout that period of time, he was not capable of remembering supposed abuse that occurred week after week after week for a period of years,” Shaw said. “The evidence not only does not corroborate his claims, it contradicts them,” he said.
ROCHE, KERRI, LAWYER QUESTIONS REPRESSED MEMORY SCIENCE, DAILY NEWS TRIBUNE
“Throughout most of yesterday’s hearing, Shaw hammered away at Brown and Chu’s methodology for gathering information and making their findings.”
NEW ENGLAND CABLE NEWS, MAY 29, 2008, 9PM NEWS
“The Commonwealth’s entire case, the bridge between accusations on the one hand, and credible accusation on the other, was something called ‘repressed memory.'” … “To rely upon surveys including social workers, hypnotherapists and individuals who are just clinicians, who make observations and then try to extract scientific principles from that – that is junk.”
WHDH CHANNEL 7 NEWS, MAY 29, 2008
“That is junk. That is called junk science. It is not scientific. It doesn’t involve scientific methodology. It should not be admitted in a court of law,” Robert F. Shaw, Jr., Paul Shanley’s attorney, declared.
GLOBE STAFF, DEFROCKED PRIEST SHANLEY SEEKS NEW TRIAL, BOSTON GLOBE
“The central issue concerns the fact that there is no scientific support, no empirical support for repressed memory, and it never should have been entered into evidence,” said Robert F. Shaw Jr. “It doesn’t really matter who it is that comes to the bar to be tried for alleged criminal conduct. Whether it’s Paul Shanley or anybody else, people deserve due process and people deserve fairness,” Shaw said.
PRIEST IN MASS. CLERGY ABUSE CRISIS SEEKS NEW TRIAL, ASSOCIATED PRESS
In his motion for a new trial, Shanley’s new attorney, Robert F. Shaw Jr., says the man’s memories of the abuse are unreliable. The man testified that he began remembering abuse by the then-priest in 2002, after learning that his childhood friend had recovered memories of abuse by Shanley. … Shaw argues that Shanley’s trial attorney should have presented evidence that the theory of repressed memory is challenged within the scientific community. “There is no solid empirical support for repressed memory,” Shaw said Wednesday.
DENTREMONTE, JIM, ANY PRAYER FOR SHANLEY? THE GUIDE MAGAZINE
“Accused, convicted, and sentenced amid unrelentingly lurid media vilification of Roman Catholic clergy, Paul Shanley now appeals for justice”
“Having looked at every aspect of this case very closely over a considerable period of time,” says Shaw, “I am extraordinarily concerned by what I have seen. I’m left with the firm and unshakable belief that justice was not done.”
COURT OVERTURNS CONVICTION, CITING PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, ASSOCIATED PRESS
”There were a lot of troubling inconsistencies in the facts and the troubling identity issue, which was not pursued by trial counsel,” Shaw said. ”We’re just delighted with the result.”
Representative Cases
Commonwealth v. Gray, Supreme Judicial Court, Judgments Reversed, Verdicts Set Aside
Supreme Judicial Court; Murder in the First Degree; murder conviction challenged on multiple grounds, including but not limited to constitutional right to confront evidence and present a defense, introduction of a music rap video as evidence of gang membership and intent to kill, standards for determining gang membership, use of photographic evidence. “Because we conclude that it was error to preclude the defendant from impeaching Williams’s testimony as to Jamison by introducing Jamison’s contrary grand jury testimony, to permit irrelevant and prejudicial identification testimony concerning certain photographs, and to allow admission of the prejudicial rap video, the convictions must be reversed.”
Commonwealth v. Anestal, Supreme Judicial Court, Judgment Reversed, Verdict Set Aside
Supreme Judicial Court; Murder in the First Degree; murder conviction was challenged on multiple grounds, including but not limited to prosecutorial misconduct, refusal to allow a defense of self defense, and legal standards for mitigating murder to manslaughter that are discriminatory towards women; “The defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree is reversed, the verdict is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial.”
Commonwealth v. Howard, Supreme Judicial Court, Conviction Vacated
Supreme Judicial Court; Murder in the First Degree; murder conviction was challenged on multiple grounds, including bit not limited to police violations of the constitutional right to remain silent during interrogation, prosecutorial misconduct, and erroneous jury instructions: “The defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree on theories of extreme atrocity or cruelty and deliberate premeditation is vacated.”
Commonwealth v. Ray, Supreme Judicial Court, Life Without Parol Sentence Vacated
Supreme Judicial Court; Murder in the First Degree; sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole challenged as an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Commonwealth v. Scott, Appeals Court, Judgment Vacated, Verdict Set Aside
Massachusetts Appeals Court; Alleged Sexual Offenses; Appeal from convictions in the Middlesex Superior Court. Judgment on charge of assault with the intent to rape resulting in concurrent sentence of 19-20 years challenged as violation of Double jeopardy Principles: “the judgment is vacated, the verdict is set aside, and the indictment is dismissed.”
Commonwealth v. A.N., District Court, Evidentiary Proceeding on Remand, New Trial Granted
District Court after remand; evidentiary proceeding on claims that defendant’s constitutional rights were violated. Verdict: constitutional right under 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art. 12 of the Massachusetts Constitution were violated; new trial granted.
Commonwealth v. A.N., Appeals Court, Denial Vacated of New Trial, Case Remanded
Appeals Court; Alleged Indecent Assault & Battery; Challenge to denial of Motion for New Trial; Denial Vacated, Case Remanded.
Commonwealth v. Miranda, SJC, New Prospective Rule banning Prosecutor’s from Reward Programs
Supreme Judicial Court; Second Degree Murder; Court creates new rule for all future cases throughout state barring prosecutors from participating in reward programs. “[W]e declare, exercising our superintendence authority, that prosecutors in the future may not provide (or participate in providing) monetary awards to witnesses contingent on a defendant’s conviction. In so declaring, we recognize that, to prove the crime charged, prosecutors often need to procure the cooperation and truthful information or testimony of reluctant witnesses. The interests of justice, however, are not well served when a witness’s reward is contingent on the conviction of a defendant rather than the provision of truthful information or testimony.”
Commonwealth v. Jordan, Superior Court, New Trial Granted
Superior Court; Various Counts of Assault with Intent to Murder, Assault & Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, Firearms Violations; New Trial Ordered.
Commonwealth v. Yarde, Superior Court, New Trial Granted
Superior Court; Trafficking in Cocaine; Post-Appeal Motion for a New Trial; “It is hereby ordered that the verdicts be set aside and [the defendant] be granted a new trial.”
Commonwealth v. Vallejo, SJC, Case Remanded with Order to Vacate Sentence
Supreme Judicial Court; Alleged Sexual Offenses; Appeal from convictions in the Middlesex Superior Court; Sentence imposed found to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution; Case Remanded with Order to vacate the sentence imposed.
In Re. Confidential Medical Malpractice Litigation
Lead counsel for Plaintiff in United States Federal Court malpractice litigation. Settlement: $1,200,000.00.
Commonwealth v. Arana, Supreme Judicial Court, Judgments Reversed, Verdicts Set Aside
Supreme Judicial Court; Alleged Sexual Offenses; Appeal from criminal convictions in the Plymouth Superior Court; Judgments Reversed, Verdicts Set Aside.
Commonwealth v. Ortiz, Appeals Court No. 2007-P-1388, Judgments Reversed, Verdicts Set Aside
Massachusetts Appeals Court; Attempted Murder, Assault & Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition. The defendant was denied his constitutional right to confront the witness against him. “The judgments are vacated, the findings are set aside, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.”
Commonwealth v. Stuckich, Supreme Judicial Court, Judgments Reversed, Verdicts Set Aside.
Supreme Judicial Court; Alleged sexual offenses; Appeal from criminal convictions in the Norfolk Superior Court; Judgments Reversed, Verdicts Set Aside.
Commonwealth v. West, Appeals Court No. 2005-P-0174, Remanded for Evidentiary Hearing.
Massachusetts Appeals Court; Unlawful Possession of Firearm & Ammunition, Resisting Arrest, Assault with a Dangerous Weapon; Appeal from the Suffolk Superior Court; Challenge to trial courts denial of request to hold evidentiary hearing; trial court reversed, case Remanded.
Commonwealth v. Pittman, Appeals Court, Judgments Reversed, Verdicts Set Aside
Massachusetts Appeals Court; Home Invasion, Assault & Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, Intimidating a Witness; Appeal from the Suffolk Superior Court; Judgments Reversed, Verdicts Set Aside.
Commonwealth v. Gallagher, Appeals Court No. 2003-P-0002, Trial Court Order Vacated, Case Remanded
Massachusetts Appeals Court; Appeal from denial of motion to revise and revoke sentence as untimely in the Barnstable Superior Court; Rule 1:28 Decision: “The order denying the motion to revise and revoke as untimely is vacated, and the matter is remanded for a decision on the defendant’s motion.”
Commonwealth v. Wynter, Appeals Court), Judgments Reversed, Verdicts Set Aside
Massachusetts Appeals Court; Unlawful Possession of Firearm & Ammunition, Discharge of Firearm during shooting; Appeals from conviction in the Suffolk Superior Court; Reversal on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.
Medicus Systems Corp. v. Hospital Dr. Pila, Civil Action
Lead counsel representing defendant 183 Community Hospital based in Puerto Rico against financial claims of publicly traded company with revenues of more than $30 million per quarter asserted in US Court; mounted vigorous defense on constitutional, jurisdictional grounds and forced settlement at less than 20% of amount sought in lawsuit.
Juila Greene v. Golden Gate Transit Authority, Civil Action
Lead counsel representing plaintiff against Golden Gate Transit Authority and multiple other defendants in Superior Court; Severe Injuries resulted from bus accident; Settlement: confidential six (6) figure settlement.
Lam v. Golden Security Management Agency, Inc, Civil Action
Lead counsel representing plaintiff against major security firm after Safeway was robbed at gunpoint and serious injury resulted; Superior Court; Settlement: Confidential.
In re. Confidential Legal Malpractice Litigation, Civil Action
Lead counsel representing plaintiffs in legal malpractice action arising out of multi-year real estate and fraud litigation; Superior Court; Settlement: Confidential six (6) figure settlement.
Morgan v. City of Oakland, Civil Rights Action
Lead counsel representing plaintiff in police brutality civil rights litigation against multiple officers and police department; Superior Court; Settlement: Confidential.
Rein v. Novak, Civil Action
Lead counsel representing plaintiff in personal injury accident resulting from high speed collision; Superior Court; Settlement: Confidential six (6) figure settlement.
Sansone v. Torres, Civil Action
Representation of plaintiff in negligence action against cleaning company due to slip and fall in supermarket; Superior Court; Settlement: Confidential five (5) figure settlement.