Reflections of a Boston Lawyer

Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's unexpected announcement yesterday that she will retire within the next three months, four years earlier than state law requires, stunned many of us in the legal community.  For many years, the Chief Justice has worked steadfastly as a devoted public servant and as the chief executive officer of the state's judicial branch.  Although the public knows her primarily for some of her high profile and controversial decisions, behind the scenes she has been a strong, good-willed and effective manager, laboring tirelessly to improve the delivery of justice and the accessibility of our courts to the sea of humanity that walks through their doors on a daily basis.  When I have time, I hope to post a lengthier blog in tribute to the tremendous work the Chief Justice has done over the years.  For now, though, here is a link to a rare television interview she gave to New England Cable News after her announcement yesterday, and here is a link

I have often said that class actions make strange bedfellows.  I had my first personal experience of this phenomenon 11 years ago, when I appeared at a six-day, evidentiary fairness hearing involving a proposed limited fund class settlement (months before the Supreme Court decided Ortiz v. Fibreboard ).  I was there on behalf of a group of defendants to present objections to the settlement that would have allowed a co-defendant to avoid any third-party contribution claims.  One group of plaintiffs' lawyers also objected to the settlement negotiated by a different plaintiff group, and led the charge throughout the hearings.  Although I cross-examined one witness, I mostly watched the evidence come in and saved my piece for closing argument.  The hearing had not gone very well for either group of plaintiffs, but it seemed likely that the judge would approve the settlement that was being proposed.  After the evidence was in, the court heard oral argument, and I argued last.  My client

Complex litigation is not what it used to be. There was a time when it consisted mostly of working with rooms filled with file cabinets which in turn were filled with paper documents, marking our places with paper clips before post-its were invented, using hard cover reporters to conduct legal research, and drafting briefs and preparing witness examinations with legal pads, pen and ink. We were hired because of reputations for excellence, and cost was at best a secondary consideration. Not only were we paid for all of our time and expenses, without discounts, but if we got a great result in a particularly important case, we might even get a premium above our hourly rates. While the hours were long, those of us who strive for excellence were in perfect heaven. How things have changed. The raw materials of litigation are now electronic and data-driven. Teams of contract attorneys or paralegals are hired to pour over thousands upon thousands of emails and other electronic document

If anyone out there hasn't seen the film "The Graduate" and still intends to (is that even possible?), I am giving you a spoiler alert, so stop reading.  For the rest of you, please read on. At the end of the film, Dustin Hoffman's and Katharine Ross's characters triumphantly run away from the wedding her parents had planned for her to a man she did not love, only to end up on a bus with the most uncertain, dazed and confused looks on their faces.  To my mind, the change in their expressions as the bus pulls away has always connoted the growing realization that, while they may have struck a blow for their independence from the overbearing generation that came before them, they had no idea where they were going to go, what they were going to do, or why they were going to do it.  You could almost read their thoughts:  "Oh my God, what have I done, and what in the world am I going to do now?"  (Forgive me reader for that clumsy prose.  I need to work on my