Marc Laredo and Mark Smith have been named to the New England edition of the 2016 Super Lawyers listing again this year. Marc is recognized in the area of business litigation and Mark Smith has been recognized for his work with white collar crime. Both attorneys are long-standing Super Lawyers for New England and Massachusetts.
Laredo & Smith is pleased to announce that Marc Laredo, Mark Smith and Matthew Kane have been named to the 2016 Massachusetts Super Lawyers. Marc Laredo was named to the Business Litigation list, Mark Smith has been recognized for his work in the White Collar Crime category and Matt Kane was honored as a Rising Star in Business Litigation.
Super Lawyers is a rating service for lawyers from more than 70 practice areas. To be included in the list, attorneys must attain a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Rising Stars are selected using the same criteria as Super Lawyers, but each attorney must be either 40 years old or younger, or in practice for 10 years or less. This recognition is awarded to no more than 5% of lawyers in the state.
Arbitration – the private means of resolving a dispute – is a well- accepted and often encouraged alternative to the court system. Whether arbitration is the right choice for your business contract, however, is a more nuanced question. As a starting point, all contracts should contain language regarding the resolution of disputes, including which state and/or country’s law will apply, where disputes will be resolved (a particularly important issue when parties are located in different states or countries) and whether arbitration or the court system will be used. It is this last choice that is the focus of this article.
A recent ruling of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, while reaching the fair and just result, serves as a cautionary tale of the importance of written agreements and a reminder of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. Learn more about this case study: A couple lent money to their son-in-law’s business after the son-in-law promised to provide personal guarantees for the loans. Despite his promises, he never signed written personal guarantees and never repaid his in-laws. Was the promise enforceable? Barrie-Chivian v. Lepler, 87 Mass. App. Ct 683 (2015).
Following a sharp increase in mortgage foreclosures, in the wake of a steep decline in the housing market, growing numbers of defaulted mortgage borrowers (typically homeowners) and their attorneys seized on the so-called “try-title statute,” G.L. c. 240, §§1-5, as a simple and low-cost way of forestalling foreclosure.
While healthcare providers may have felt some relief after a recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision regarding “worthless services,” this ruling does not eliminate the risk associated with such claims. In United States ex rel. Absher, et al. v. Momence Meadows Nursing Center, Inc., 764 F. 3d 699 (7th Cir. 2014), the Court overturned a $9 million verditct awarded to two whistleblowers under the federal False Claims Act (FCA).
The American Bar Association Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division’s magazine, GPSolo, will feature the article “Is Confidentiality Really Forever?” by Partner Marc Laredo and Anne Klinefelter, associate professor and director of the University of North Carolina law library. The article will be part of their “The Best of ABA Sections,” a compilation in their September/October 2014 issue of some of the best articles published by the ABA’s sections, forums, and divisions. This article was originally published in the ABA’s journal Litigation.
The Supreme Judicial Court recently issued an important ruling concerning the rights of individuals testifying before a grand jury. In Commonwealth v. Woods, 466 Mass. 707 (2014), the court announced a prospective rule requiring self-incrimination warnings to be given to all grand jury witnesses who, at the time of their testimony are, or are likely to become, a target of that grand jury investigation.
Regular check-ups are important – for you, your house, your car and your business. The start of a new year is a good time to review your company’s legal needs. Each year, as a courtesy and an important part of our client relationships, we ask our business clients a series of detailed questions about their companies.
What happens when important principles of corporate governance—the right of a company to unfettered, confidential legal advice and the responsibilities of a director of a corporation—clash? This is the dilemma addressed by the Supreme Judicial Court in Chambers v. Gold Medal Bakery, Inc.
View Article (PDF)
This article first appeared in Massachusetts Law Review Vol. 95, No. 3, a publication of the Massachusetts Bar Association.
Laredo & Smith offers clients big-firm expertise with the client-centered, cost-effective strategy that only a small firm can offer.
Laredo & Smith, LLP
101 Federal Street
Suite 650
Boston, MA 02110
617.443.1100 (Tel)
617.443.1174 (Fax)