Archives

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.

In June 2013, in a federal criminal case where the client’s Federal Sentencing Guidelines range was 151-188 months (12.5-15.66 years), Norman Zalkind, Inga Bernstein, and Zoraida Fernandez obtained a binding plea agreement with the government of a sentence between 7 and 10 years. At sentencing, the Government recommended a sentence of 10 years and the Court sentenced the client to 8 yea

At a June 2013 show cause hearing David Duncan and Naomi Shatz prevented criminal charges for harassment and making threats from issuing against their client.

On March 28, 2013, the firm sued the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Governor’s Office, the Executive Office for Public Safety and Security, and the Department of Correction in federal court on behalf of Anne Manning-Martin, a Department of Correction employee. The complaint alleges that the government promoted Ms. Manning-Martin to the position of Deputy Superintendent of one of its facilities, refused to pay her the salary it promised her for 21 months, and then demoted her after she expressed her political support for her sister, Mary-Ellen Manning, a member of the Governor’s Council and critic of the Patrick administration. The complaint also alleges that Ms. Manning-Martin was demoted because she notified the Department of Correction that she required medical leave for cancer treatment, and because she complained about the Commonwealth’s failure to pay her upon her promotion. During the nearly two years Ms. Manning-Martin served as the Deputy Superintendent she was paid a salary approximately $35,000 less per year than the man the Commonwealth hired to replace her.

The plaintiff’s complaint is available here: Manning v. Commonwealth Amended Complaint

For media reports on the lawsuit see:

In March 2013, David Duncan and Zoraida Fernandez won a dismissal of a case charging their client with assault and battery on a police officer.

In January 2013, David Duncan litigated the nature of the drugs in question at sentencing in a drug case, and succeeded in avoiding a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for his client, who was sentenced to one year and one day.

In November 2012, as trial approached, Inga Bernstein and Rachel Stroup negotiated a substantial settlement for a client in a case against a state entity for discrimination on the basis of national origin and religion, and retaliation.