A Fortune 500 pharmaceutical company in a grand jury investigation concerning alleged illegal payments to prescribing doctors;

A defendant in a multi-million dollar construction case in state court in which my client was granted summary judgment;

A hospital in a significant HHS False Claims Act Investigation which was favorably resolved;

A plaintiff who suffered serious injuries in a premises liability case which was settled favorably in the midst of complex out-of-state insurance coverage litigation;

A municipality under Federal criminal investigation for violations of the Clean Water Act;

A series of defendants in a variety of Federal tax evasion cases;

A number of physicians against whom complaints have been filed with the Massachusetts Board of Medicine;

A defendant in a dispute over a commercial lease which was tried to verdict in the Massachusetts Superior Court after two weeks of trial;

A plaintiff in an accounting malpractice case which, after a lengthy discovery process, was settled favorably;

A defendant in a Federal Court civil case involving a claim for over $1,000,000 in damages relating to a defective plastic extrusion machine;

A number of individuals and corporations who have been designated as "Targets" in different federal criminal investigations in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Florida and Pennsylvania involving allegations of white collar crime;

A plaintiff in a state court sexual harassment case that settled after extensive discovery practice for $400,000;

Both plaintiffs and defendants in a series of shareholder dispute cases in federal and state courts;

An Estate in a state court action involving allegations of undue influence that was resolved favorably on summary judgment and then upheld on appeal;

A multinational telecommunications company in a multi-million dollar fraud and breach of contract case filed in federal court;

A defendant in a two-day labor arbitration with the AAA concerning a claim of sexual harassment against my client on which I prevailed;

A plaintiff in a Federal Court sexual harassment case which settled after extensive discovery for more than $100,000;

The executor of an estate accused of fraud in a case which was ultimately dismissed against our client;

A company litigating in state court that one of its former founders breached his non-competition agreement;

A defendant in a two week federal criminal trial who was charged with violating federal wildlife protection laws;

A defendant in a significant property tax case with the Town of West Springfield on which I prevailed; and,

A substantial number of defendants charged with criminal offenses in the Massachusetts state courts.

The following is a more detailed listing of some of these and other matters which I have litigated during my time at Fierst, Pucci & Kane:

WLP v. MM, 3:07-CV-30171 (D. Mass. 2008) 

I defended a Fortune 100 company against one of its vendors who filed a complaint alleging various contract claims for nearly $1,000,000.  We asserted a number of counterclaims against the vendor for fraud.  Each side alleged that the other had engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices and sought triple damage awards.

The quantity of relevant documents was extensive because the relationship between the parties spanned a six-year period.  The initial document disclosures by the parties filled more than 30 boxes, and also included substantial electronic data.  The parties agreed to suspend the costly discovery process and mediate the case before a federal judge in Boston.  In connection with the mediation, I engaged an expert statistician to extrapolate the vendor’s damages based on a preliminary document review.  At the mediation, my client reached a comprehensive and quite favorable settlement which is subject to the terms of a confidentiality agreement. 

United States v. E.B., 07-30026 (D. Mass. 2007)

I represented my client in connection with a federal grand jury investigation, which ultimately led to his being charged with one count of felony tax evasion to which he pled guilty.  At sentencing, the government sought incarceration within the presumptive United States Sentencing Guidelines range of 18 to 24 months.  I argued that consideration of additional mitigating factors, including the nature and characteristics of my client, as well as his charitable activities and good works, merited a non-jail sentence.  Judge Michael Ponsor agreed and sentenced my client to nine months in a halfway house, allowing him to continue to run his own business while he served his time.

North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ryan et al., 2003-CVS-14984 (Raleigh NC Sup. Ct)

I represented Plaintiff, an 80 year-old woman, who had been severely injured in a fall from a deck under construction on Martha’s Vineyard.  The property involved was owned by a family trust and insured under a state insurance program which provided limited liability coverage.  The family members who had actually done the construction, however, had an excess liability policy on their North Carolina residence and a claim for coverage in addition to the Massachusetts policy was contested in an action for declaratory judgment by the North Carolina company.  Through mediation, I obtained a settlement of $700,000 for my client.

MSMl v. DOC v. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, C.A. No. 96-610 (Hampden Sup. Ct.)

I represented third party Defendant, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority ("MTA") in this complex construction case which was litigated in Hampden County Superior Court.  In essence, DOC alleged that the MTA had breached its contract by failing to pay for bridge reconstruction work DOC performed on three Turnpike bridges in Ludlow.  DOC claimed more than $1,000,000 in damages.

The case was vigorously litigated for four years.  During that time, I took 8-10 fact depositions, several lasting as long as 3 days, concerning the events which occurred during the reconstruction of the Ludlow bridges.  Thousands of documents came into play and numerous experts were employed on both sides.  Based on the record created in discovery, I filed a summary judgment motion that was granted by the Superior Court on May 31, 2000 dismissing all of DOC's claims against my client, the MTA.

Henderson v. CIGNA, No. 98-40121-NMG (D. Mass. 2001); No. 99-2164
(1st Cir. 2000)

I represented CIGNA in this employment case in which Plaintiff contended that CIGNA breached its obligations under a severance agreement with Plaintiff and violated the Family and Medical Leave Act.  Plaintiff originally filed the case in Worcester Superior Court.  I removed the case to Federal District Court in Worcester and then sought to compel arbitration of the case pursuant to CIGNA's mandatory arbitration policy for employment disputes. 

Plaintiff fought vigorously against arbitration, seeking instead to present his claims to a jury.  I prevailed on that issue, however, in both the Federal District Court and in the First Circuit Court of Appeals where I wrote all the briefs and argued CIGNA's case.  On February 1, 2000 the First Circuit ruled in CIGNA's favor and remanded the case for an arbitration. 

Pursuant to that remand, I defended CIGNA in a three day arbitration conducted before an AAA Arbitrator.  On February 16, 2001, the Arbitrator rendered a decision in favor of CIGNA, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims against the Company.  On May 21, 2001, Judge Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the Massachusetts District issued an Order in favor of CIGNA, affirming the Arbitrator's award and entering judgment against the Plaintiff.  Plaintiff did not appeal this decision.

Schultz v. Aubrey, C.A. No. 98-1027 (Hampden Sup. Ct.)

I served as the chair of a three member arbitration panel that held evidentiary hearings in this complex civil action involving a dispute between partners in the breakup of a certified public accounting firm.

In Re Grand Jury Subpoena, 123 F.3d 695 (1st Cir. 1997)

In this case, I represented a law firm whose billing records were subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in Massachusetts.  I resisted production of the billing records asserting the attorney-client privilege held by the non-party former client.  After the law firm's claims of privilege were initially denied by the Federal District Court, I appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

In that appeal, I persuaded the First Circuit to reverse a decision it made some 25 years ago, and which it had affirmed as precedent several times since, which precluded a party who has a privilege from asserting it as to documents subpoenaed from a third party, in this case, my client law firm.  After reversing their prior precedent, the First Circuit considered the substantive issues at hand, reversed the District Court's ruling on privilege and remanded the case to him for additional consideration.

After another round of briefing and arguments, the District Court  reversed its own prior ruling and held that the substance of the billing records indeed were privileged and quashed the substantive portions of the government's subpoena effectively ending the government's investigation of my client.

Klaus v. Town of Amherst, MCAD No. 94-SEM-0431-HP

I represented Plaintiff, an Amherst Firefighter and EMT, in this handicap discrimination case before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.  In this case, Plaintiff alleged that the Town of Amherst had violated Plaintiff's rights under the state statutes precluding handicap discrimination by refusing to accommodate him appropriately on its promotional examinations.

In November 1998, I tried the case for three days before a MCAD Hearing Commissioner.  On June 28, 2000, the MCAD Commissioner ruled in favor of my client, the Plaintiff, on both liability and damages.  The Defendant appealed the decision to the entire Board of the MCAD.  Before the appeal was decided, the parties reached a confidential settlement favorable to my client.

Rini v. United Van Lines, 104 F.3d 502 (1st Cir. 1997)

I represented the Plaintiff in this civil case in which we alleged that United Van Lines had lost more than $150,000 in art work United Van Lines was supposed to have transported for Plaintiff from South Carolina to Massachusetts.  I also brought a Chapter 93A count relating to United's fraudulent claims practices.

After an extensive discovery process, I tried the case for two weeks before Judge Michael Ponsor in Federal District Court in Springfield.  The jury returned a substantial verdict for Plaintiff.  Judge Ponsor trebled that verdict under 93A and awarded Plaintiff 100% of my attorney's fees, bringing Plaintiff's total verdict to more than $600,000.

The First Circuit ultimately reduced Plaintiff's verdict, ruling that some of Plaintiff's claims were preempted by federal law.  Besides trying the case, I wrote Plaintiff's brief and made the oral argument on Plaintiff's behalf in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

R. B. v. J & W Co., C.A. No. 96-00355 (Hampshire Sup. Ct. 1999)

I represented Plaintiff in this Hampshire County Superior Court action.  Plaintiff was a doctor (internist) working full-time at the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Northampton.  While working there, Plaintiff was exposed to extensive fumes and dust from an in-house construction site at the Hospital which caused him to contract occupational asthma.  As a result, Plaintiff was completely and permanently disabled from working as a physician in a hospital environment.

We sued the company which performed the construction work whose contract made it specifically responsible for controlling the fumes and dust created by the construction.  The case became a battle of experts with Plaintiff asserting that his condition was caused by the dust and fumes and Defendant insisting that Plaintiff's medical difficulties were largely the product of a pre-existing condition for which it was not responsible.

After extensive document discovery, motions practice and depositions of fact and expert witnesses, on the eve of trial, I secured a substantial settlement for Plaintiff subject to the terms of a confidentiality agreement.

United States v. Garrity, Cr. No. 98-30019-MAP (D. Mass. 1999)

Together with co-counsel, I represented the Defendant, a physician, in this federal criminal case in which Defendant was charged with three counts of tax evasion.  The case was tried over a two week period in November 1999 before Judge Michael Ponsor in Federal District Court in Springfield.  We persuaded the Court to dismiss one count of tax evasion, but Defendant was convicted by the jury of the remaining two counts.  In March 2000, the Court sentenced Defendant to 21 months in federal prison.  The Defendant chose not to appeal.

Sokoloski et al. v. LaBossiere, C.A. No. 2000-E-0001-GC (Hampshire Prob. Ct.)

In this case, I defended an Estate against a claim brought by some of the decedent’s siblings that its Executor had exercised undue influence over the decedent which interfered with her purported desire to change her Will to favor them.  After an extended discovery process, I prevailed on summary judgment and the Plaintiffs’ claims of undue influence were dismissed.  The Plaintiffs appealed, but after briefing their appeal was dismissed without a hearing.

United States v. E. B., No. 98-30033-MAP (D. Mass. 2000)

I represented my client through an involved federal grand jury investigation and later a lengthy federal criminal trial.  Although my client ultimately pled guilty, we obtained a favorable non-jail sentence for him from Judge Michael Ponsor in Federal District Court in Springfield.

WBI v. Fleet Bank et al., C.A. No. 97-213 (Hampshire Sup. Ct. 2000)

In this litigation, I represented Plaintiff, a substantial residential and commercial builder in Northampton, Massachusetts.  Over a period of almost ten years, Plaintiff's in-house bookkeeper had engaged in a very extensive embezzlement scheme on Plaintiff by cashing checks payable to herself and using company checks to pay her personal credit cards.  In the lawsuit, we sued Plaintiff's outside accounting firm for malpractice alleging that it had failed to conduct its accounting engagement according to professional accounting standards which permitted the embezzlement to occur.  We also sued Fleet Bank for cashing a substantial number of forged checks.

I pursued the case aggressively through a litigation process that lasted three years and involved a substantial battle of accounting experts.  In the end, both Defendants settled the case for substantial sums under confidential settlement agreements.

The Sawmill Park Partnership et al. v. A. I., Inc. et al., C.A. No. 00-313 (Hampden Superior Court)

In this case, I represented the Plaintiffs who had signed a management and acquisition agreement with the developers of a large assisted living facility in Western Massachusetts.  In this action, we claimed that defendants breached the contract in a variety of material ways, including non-performance of the transfer of real estate and a failure to make payments to my clients required by their Contract.

We pursued possible remedies through arbitration and then filed suit in state court in Massachusetts and Connecticut to enforce Plaintiffs' rights under the agreement with Defendant.  After an extensive discovery process involving a vast array of documents and multiple depositions, I secured a substantial settlement for my clients.

1984 TO 1994 -- LITIGATION AS ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

Between 1984 and 1994, while an Assistant United States Attorney, I represented the government in hundreds of cases including at least 25 of which went to verdict.  In the cases that went to trial, I supervised the grand jury process, handled all pre-trial motions and hearings, tried the cases, which varied from 3 days to 11 weeks, and personally wrote and argued all the appeals.  What follows is a sampling of those cases.

United States v. Procopio, 88 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 1996)

As an Assistant United States Attorney in Massachusetts, I tried this case together with C. Jeffrey Kinder, Esquire, formerly a partner here at Fierst, Pucci & Kane.  In this case, three Defendants were charged with orchestrating an armored car robbery in Pittsfield, Massachusetts which yielded more than $1,000,000, and with various tax and money laundering offenses.

The case was tried over a four week period in 1994 before the Honorable Frank H. Freedman, Sr. in Federal District Court in Springfield.  The government's case was hampered by the murder of its key witness shortly before the trial.  Nonetheless, the three Defendants were convicted on all counts and sentenced to lengthy terms of federal incarceration.  All the convictions were upheld on appeal. 

United States v. Berthoff, Cr. No. 94-1714 (D. Mass. 1993)

I was the lead prosecutor in this federal criminal case in which five Defendants were charged in a decade-long conspiracy to distribute thousands of pounds of marijuana, 5,000 pounds of hashish and tax evasion. 

I tried this case with co-counsel from the Department of Justice before the Honorable William G. Young in Federal District Court in Boston in 1993.  After a trial which lasted more than two weeks, all Defendants were convicted and ultimately sentenced by Judge Young.  Thereafter their convictions were affirmed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

United States v. Ryan, Cr. No. 87-112 (E.D. Pa. 1987)

This was the first of two cases which arose from a three year grand jury investigation of corruption among Philadelphia Police Department narcotics officers which I conducted as an Assistant United States Attorney in Philadelphia.  By way of background, in the 1980's, there was an elite narcotics squad in the Philadelphia Police Department named "5 Squad" which had responsibility for investigating the City's largest drug dealers.  Rumors were rampant in law enforcement circles that these narcotics officers were engaged in criminal activities, specifically, stealing money found while executing narcotics searches and taking bribes from drug dealers.  In 1986, I was assigned as lead prosecutor to investigate these allegations.

Initially the investigation centered on one 5 Squad member named Leo Ryan.  In 1986, the federal grand jury indicted Ryan on charges relating to his illegal 5 Squad activities and some unrelated tax fraud.  In 1987, I tried this case alone in Federal District Court in Philadelphia for three weeks.  Defendant was convicted on all counts and shortly thereafter began cooperating with the government's probe of corruption among narcotics officers.

United States v. Wilson, 742 F. Supp. 905 (E.D. Pa. 1989), aff'd, 909 F.2d 1478 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1016 (1990)

Based on evidence gathered during the grand jury investigation which led to the prosecution of United States v. Ryan referenced above, and the cooperation of the Defendant from that case, I then broadened the grand jury investigation into the criminal activities of other narcotics officers in the Philadelphia Police Department.  
That investigation led to the indictment of six additional narcotics officers for racketeering and multiple counts of drug dealing, robbery, bribery, tax evasion, perjury and obstruction of justice.  This case originally was tried in January, 1989, in Federal District Court in Philadelphia.  I was the lead prosecutor at that trial which lasted eleven weeks and ended with a deadlocked jury. 

The case was re-tried in November, 1989 in that same Court.  Prior to retrial, Defendants sought to dismiss the case based on double jeopardy grounds via an interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  I wrote the government's brief and argued its position in that Court.  The Third Circuit refused to dismiss the prosecution and remanded the case for a re-trial.

I was lead counsel for the government in that re-trial which lasted six weeks and resulted in convictions of four of the six Defendants on most counts.  Defendants subsequently were sentenced to federal incarceration and their convictions were affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990 based upon an appellate brief which I co-wrote and argued before that Court. 

United States v. Balagula, Cr. No. 85-492 (E.D. Pa. 1985)

In this case, six Russian immigrants, including the leader of New York City's "Russian Mob," were charged with orchestrating a scheme with corrupt Philadelphia merchants in which Merrill Lynch was defrauded of approximately $400,000 through the use of counterfeit debit cards. 

I was the sole prosecutor in this case.  As such, I supervised the grand jury investigation, litigated all pre-trial motions and tried the case for the government during a four-week trial in Federal District Court in Philadelphia.  The jury convicted all six Defendants on virtually all counts.  I also wrote the government's brief and argued the appeal before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  That Court affirmed all the convictions.