Alternative Dispute Resolution can help parties resolve legal disputes without resort to the courts. It is quicker and less expensive, but sometimes a courtroom is the only place to bring the dispute to a conclusion. Joe has litigated more than 100 cases, both jury and non-jury, from the initial complaint to final judgment. He is equally at home in both state and federal courts. He understands that a trial lawyer must master the facts of the case as well as the law and then present them understandably, succinctly, and persuasively.
Here are examples of cases Joe has handled.
In April of 2017, Joe represented the purchasers of a manufacturing and sales business in a dispute with the sellers. The case involved issues under the purchase and sale agreement, employment agreements, intellectual property issues, ownership of personal property, and a lease. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of filing suit, an outcome that enabled Joe’s clients to avoid the expense, delay, distraction, and uncertainty of litigation. The parties essentially engaged in “mediation without a mediator.”
On August 25, 2016, Joe appeared in Cheshire Superior Court in Keene. The issue in the case is whether the plaintiffs, owners of lakeside homes in Stoddard, have the right to use a private road located on the property of Joe’s clients, a group of homeowners. On September 6, the court (Judge Kissinger) denied the plaintiffs’ request for injunction, ruling that they had not shown that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their various claims.
Joe represented the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in a high-profile case in which an organization claimed that the MBTA’s rejection of its ads dealing with the Israel-Palestinian conflict was unconstitutional. The federal district court and First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Joe’s client, and in January 2016, the Supreme Court declined to review the case.
He represented the three founding members of a financial services firm in an arbitration dealing with the sale of their partnership interests. The case involved complex accounting and contract interpretation issues. In April 2016 the case concluded with Joe’s clients receiving full payment for their shares.
He represented a major league baseball player in a federal case in Florida and continues to represent him in a contract dispute in Massachusetts.
He represented family members in a successful challenge to a will and trust based on lack of capacity and undue influence.
He recently represented a major Boston law firm in connection with an internal dispute involving one of its partners.
He represented a nationally known personal trainer and television personality in trademark litigation.
He served as principal counsel in an intellectual property case involving patent, trademark, and copyright issues.
A large university engaged Joe to investigate problems in one of the school’s academic departments. He conducted interviews of faculty members, met with senior administrative officials, and submitted a detailed report detailing his findings and conclusions. As a result, the university restructured the department.
He was lead counsel in the New Hampshire “Impeachment Case,” serving as special counsel to the state legislature’s judiciary committee. He conducted an investigation into the conduct of three members of the state supreme court and then served as prosecutor in the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice.
He represented a New Hampshire newspaper in a case involving the New Hampshire “Right to Know” law, prevailing in both the superior court and on appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision adopted procedures that simplify public access to government documents in New Hampshire.
He represented the plaintiff in a breach of contract and deceptive practices case against a Boston law firm. The jury found in favor of Joe’s client, and the verdict was affirmed on appeal. Joe’s client recovered in excess of $2.4 million, including recovery of all attorneys’ fees.
From 2003 to 2010, he served as lead counsel in a lawsuit against two Insurance Commissioners in Puerto Rico. The case included constitutional, defamation, civil rights, and claims under Puerto Rico law. Following a multi-week trial, the jury returned a multi-million dollar verdict in favor of Joe’s clients on all counts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that verdict.
Joe represented the University of Puerto Rico in a political discrimination case brought by the Chancellor of its Mayaguez campus. At the conclusion of lengthy discovery, he persuaded the Puerto Rico federal court to dismiss the case.
He represented Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Rosselló in a case brought against him by the largest newspaper in San Juan. He was also one of Governor Rosselló’s lawyers in litigation over ballots cast in the 2004 election.
He represented the Massachusetts State Democratic Party in its challenge to Mitt Romney’s eligibility to run for Governor.
He has been retained several times as an expert witness, submitting expert reports and testifying in court.
“Litigation is the pursuit of practical ends, not a game of chess.”
Supreme Court Justice
Joe cross-examines Mitt Romney before the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission.