Litigation

Areas of Concentration

Anti-Trust and Trade Litigation.
Business Litigation.
Class Action Litigation.
Commercial Litigation.
Construction Litigation.
Criminal Defense Litigation.
E-Discovery and Document Retention Policies
Employment Litigation.
Environmental Litigation.
Health Care Litigation.
Higher Education Litigation.
Intellectual Property Litigation.
Product Liability/Toxic Tort Litigation.
Professional Negligence/Malpractice Litigation.
Securities Litigation.
Tax Litigation.

In an extremely diverse and broad-based litigation practice—the largest and most experienced in Southeastern New England—AP&S attorneys represent local, regional, national and international clients on wide-ranging issues: business litigation, antitrust and trade regulations, intellectual property litigation, securities litigation, tort claims (including product liability and negligence claims alleging injuries to property and person), construction, banking, defamation, employment discrimination, professional malpractice, director and officer liability, insurance, and health care issues. They also have substantial expertise in pre-claim evaluation and assessment, arbitration, mediation and other dispute-resolution processes and techniques.

The Litigation Group's philosophy is to counsel clients to avoid litigation if possible, but be prepared and aggressive when it becomes necessary. AP&S litigators—cited by The National Law Journal as among the best in the U. S. for service, quality and value—are admitted to practice in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, Maine, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and the United States Supreme Court, as well as other jurisdictions, and have represented clients in state and federal courts throughout the country.

Finally—and perhaps most important—AP&S attorneys focus on providing quality legal representation but on the most cost-effective basis.

Representative Matters

State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, et al. In the longest jury trial in Rhode Island history—the Attorney General’s landmark lead-litigation public-nuisance case—AP&S successfully defended Atlantic Richfield Company, the only defendant found not responsible by the jury at trial. We also represented Atlantic Richfield successfully on appeal, where the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the verdict in the company’s favor. (All defendants ultimately prevailed on appeal). AP&S also argued on behalf of all defendants with respect to their attacks on the Attorney General’s contingency-fee agreement with private counsel.
United States of America v. Textron. AP&S represents Textron Inc. in a matter of first impression in which the Federal District Court held that Textron’s accrual workpapers were protected by the work-product doctrine and therefore need not be produced in response to an IRS subpoena. The matter is currently on appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
In re Station Fire Litigation. AP&S represents New England Custom Alarm Company and its principal, Joseph LaFontaine, in an action by representatives of 100 deceased and hundreds of injured patrons of the Station Nightclub, for injuries sustained in the February 20, 2003 fire. This matter is subject to MDL-like processes to handle pleadings and procedures in the court, including the appointment of a special master charged with devising an acceptable allocation plan.
Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers, et al. v. R.I. Department of Environmental Management. AP&S represents the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers in a challenge to a regulation enacted by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management relating to Rhode Island motor vehicle greenhouse standards. Plaintiffs seek to establish that those standards are preempted by two statutes – the Federal Clean Air Act and the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
First Marblehead v. House. AP&S obtained a defense verdict for a publicly traded student-loan company in a case tried in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiff was a former employee who alleged that the company wrongfully denied him the right to exercise incentive stock options worth more than $8 million.
Tedeman et al. v. Boston Higashi, et al. In an eight-week jury trial that received national attention, AP&S defended a private school and 12 school employees pertaining to physical and sexual abuse allegations regarding a 17-year-old male autistic student. The case contained M.G.L. 93a counts which were handled at a separate trial before the judge. AP&S achieved a defense verdict for the school and all but four of the defendants. The case is currently on appeal.
Foley v. Cape Cod Mall, et al. In a two-and-a-half-week jury trial, AP&S defended a general contractor in a construction-site accident involving a subcontractor’s employee. The case involved allegations of permanent brain-injury and other serious physical injuries. AP&S achieved a defense verdict, and the case was listed among the year’s “Top 10 Defense Verdicts” by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
Bik v. Del Wes. In a three-week jury trial, AP&S defended a manufacturer in a products-liability case. The plaintiff alleged permanent disability and had incurred some $600,000 in medical expenses. AP&S achieved a defense verdict in a case listed as one of the year’s “Top 10 Defense Verdicts” by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

News & Media

Publications

Inside The Minds Series, Addressing A Client's Litigation Issues, "A Client's Guide To The Litigation Process
Rhode Island Section
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Despositions: But Your Client Could Not Afford to Research

Events

View Expanded Practice