Archives

On January 3, 2014 The National Law Journal ran a story spotlighting Ruskai v. Pistole, the firm’s case challenging the TSA’s policy of giving invasive full-body pat-downs to disabled passengers who alarm metal detectors. Inga Bernstein, lead counsel on the case, explains that basic Fourth Amendment law requires the court to balance the need for any search “against the intrusiveness of the search, and the [TSA’s] search is highly intrusive.” Bernstein also notes that the TSA’s policy disproportionately affects older passengers with metal joint implants, who are a significant portion of the passengers who alarm metal detectors, but that those passengers are not a heightened security risk. ““There’s no correlation between [their devices] alarming the system and the risk they present as a traveler,” Bernstein stated.

The full article can be found at The National Law Journal

On January 6, 2014 the Boston Business Journal ran an article on the case, describing the pat-downs Ruskai receives when she alarms metal detectors: “The TSA pat-downs Ruskai receives include her entire body, Bernstein said. Ruskai repeatedly is touched on her inner thighs, Bernstein said. ‘She objects to that,’ Bernstein said, adding that Ruskai’s breasts are touched and fingers are run on the inside of her waist band.”

Liza Lunt is featured in a January 2, 2014 Massachusetts Lawyer’s Weekly article discussing the First Circuit’s recent decision in U.S. v. Mensah, where the court held that a defendant’s equal protection rights were not violated by the prosecution’s peremptory challenge to two Asian potential jurors. Lunt, the president of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, is quoted as saying: “Getting more than one or two minority jurors is unusual . . . It’s often very hard to get a representative jury for your client if you are a defense lawyer in federal court in Boston. . . . This decision is going to make it even harder.” The full article is available here.

In January 2014, Zoraida Fernandez won a motion in federal court granting her client early termination of his supervised release on the grounds that he had been fully compliant with the conditions of probation, is a productive member of the community, and has no history of violence or being a danger to the community.

Rachel Stroup, who has been with the firm since 2006, became the firm’s newest partner as of January 2014.

In December 2013, Monica Shah won an arbitration award, including valuable real estate and six-figure monetary award, for a client who was in a longstanding contract dispute with his partner over a joint venture agreement to renovate and develop condominium units in the Boston area.

In a recent video interview with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Harvey Silverglate discusses the importance of defending free speech and academic freedom on campus.

Watch the video here.

In December 2013 Naomi Shatz prevented a criminal charge of leaving the scene after committing property damage from issuing against her client. Ms. Shatz had previously prevented the charge from issuing at a magistrate’s hearing; the Commonwealth appealed the magistrate’s decision denying its application for a criminal complaint and the case was heard by a district court judge, who agreed with the magistrate and our client that no charge should issue.

Inga Bernstein was featured in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article discussing a judge’s decision to set aside a $1.2 million jury verdict award based on a claim of retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act. Ms. Bernstein commented on a case the firm had last year where a $1.1 million dollar jury verdict was overturned by a Superior Court judge. The article quotes Ms. Bernstein as saying “It’s terribly concerning to me when these JNOVs are entered because our entire system of justice is grounded fundamentally in the jury trial process.”

In September 2013, the firm filed a petition for certiorari arguing that the honest services statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, is unconstitutionally vague as applied because it fails to provide notice of the scope of the fiduciary duty, compromise of which for money is a breach of a government appointee’s duty of honest services.

At a September 2013 magistrate hearing Naomi Shatz prevented a criminal charge of a restraining order violation from issuing against her client, over the Commonwealth’s objection.