Practice Areas & Industries: Todd & Weld LLP

 





Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group
 

Practice/Industry Group Overview

From its inception, Todd & Weld has strongly emphasized the practice of law at the appellate level. We practice on a regular basis before the Supreme Judicial Court, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, and the United States Courts of Appeal for the First and Federal Circuits. We have represented clients before the United States Supreme Court, and many matters handled by this firm have become landmark cases or have clarified previously unsettled issues of law. In recognition of our expertise in this area, many of our appellate cases come to us through referral from attorneys who handled the cases at the trial court level.

Some of our representative cases

  • Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1996), further proceedings at 119 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1997), an intellectual property case clarifying inventorship issues and patent applications;
  • Pettingell v. Morrison, Mahoney & Miller, 426 Mass. 253 (1997), a nationally recognized case circumscribing the restrictions which a law firm can place upon a departing lawyer's ability to practice law;
  • Palmacci v. Umpierrez (In re Umpierrez), 121 F.3d 781 (1st Cir. 1997), a case which helped define the parameters of common law fraud and a non-dischargeable debt in this Circuit under the Bankruptcy Code;
  • First Enterprises v. Cooper, 425 Mass. 344 (1997), a case which resolved an issue of first impression in the Commonwealth concerning the potential scope of an attorney's liability to non-clients;
  • In re Reorganization of Elec. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 425 Mass. 419 (1997), further proceedings at 426 Mass. 1007 (1998) and 429 Mass. 795 (1999), a case in which we represented an insurance company in connection with its reorganization;
  • Rizika v. Donovan, 45 Mass. App. Ct. 159 (1998), in which we successfully restored a multi-million dollar jury verdict which the trial court had erroneously set aside;
  • R.R. v. M.H., 426 Mass. 501 (1998), in which Todd & Weld represented the biological mother in a case defining the enforceability of surrogate parenting agreements in Massachusetts;
  • E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 429 Mass. 824 (1999), (a widely-cited case which has been influential across the nation) in which we represented a biological mother in a case defining the rights of de facto parents in alternative family settings;
  • Greater Franklin Developers Assn. v. Town of Franklin, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 500 (2000), in which Todd & Weld represented developers who successfully set aside certain impact fees as an unlawful use of the taxing authority;
  • Bradstreet v. United States, 207 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2000), where we successfully defended a significant downward departure from federal sentencing guidelines which we had obtained for the accused in the district court;
  • Matter of F. Lee Bailey, 439 Mass. 134 (2002), one of the many professional discipline cases in which we have represented attorneys or other professionals before licensing boards and, ultimately, on appeal;
  • Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Wellesley v. Ardmore Apartments LP, 436 Mass. 811 (2002), in which Todd & Weld submitted a friend of the court brief on behalf of its client, the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, which resulted in the Supreme Judicial Court substantially accepting the Agency's position on an important issue related to the preservation affordable housing in the Commonwealth;
  • Anastos v. Sable, 443 Mass. 146 (2004), a case in which the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a substantial verdict in our client's favor and which resolved novel issues relating to the allocation of partnership assets at dissolution;
  • Subaru of New England, Inc. v. George Lussier Enters, 393 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2004), in which Todd & Weld successfully defended a summary judgment terminating a major class action.