Attorney Murphy is a trial lawyer based in Boston, Massachusetts concentrating on civil litigation matters.
Attorney Murphy counsels individuals and small, local businesses on labor and employment law, civil rights-discrimination law, and landlord-tenant law.
Recently, Attorney Murphy secured a $100,992.00 judgment in favor of his client in a payment of wages case. At issue was whether the employer paid the client, a laborer, prevailing wages and wages due upon his termination. The evidence overwhelmingly favored Attorney Murphy’s client and the court granted treble damages, costs, and attorney fees. Superior Court docket no: 15-2056G.
Attorney Murphy represented his client in this private right of action case which allows payment of client’s attorneys fees to be paid by employers should they be found liable.
Recently, the unemployment office issued a decision upholding its initial determination that Attorney Murphy’s client was entitled to receive unemployment benefits. The client’s former employer appealed the determination stating the client quit her job by virtue of a “no-call, no show”. The client’s position was that her employer fired her. Attorney Murphy prepared his client for the hearing such that it was readily apparent she was a credible and honest individual; and cross-examined the employer at the hearing such that it was apparent the employer’s testimony and evidence failed to support their position. Indeed, the review examiner found the employer could not establish that Attorney Murphy’s client intentionally quit her job and applied Section 25(e)(2) rather than Section 25(e)(1) of the Massachusetts Unemployment Law.
Attorney Murphy notes that unless employers have an overwhelmingly amount of evidence to support that an employee quit through a “no-call, no show” employers face an uphill battle. Further, employers using agencies to handle these type of matters are not fairing any better; arguably, agencies are putting employers in worse positions which greatly helped Attorney Murphy’s client in this case.
Attorney For the Day table in Boston’s Housing Court.For the second consecutive year, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recognized The Law Office of Justin M. Murphy “for performing in the finest tradition of the Massachusetts bar by providing significant pro bono legal services during calendar year 2014.” Attorney Murphy celebrated by volunteering on October 29, 2015, at the Attorney For the Day table in Boston’s Housing Court. Providing individuals pro bono legal representation is paramount to Attorney Murphy’s law practice and benefits his clients, overall.
Massachusetts’ residential security deposit law contains strict requirements for landlords, including returning a tenant’s security deposit within 30 days of lease termination. As a landlord or tenant you should know your rights and options when dealing with General Laws: CHAPTER 186, Section 15B, the Massachusetts Security Deposit law. Remedies include double or treble damages, all costs, and payment of attorney fees should a tenant prevail. Attorney Murphy provides pro bono legal services to recover security deposits.
Recently, Attorney Murphy represented a landlord at trial in the Boston Housing Court. Attorney Murphy counseled the landlord through the eviction process and secured the landlord’s right to possession as well as back rent.
Originally, the landlord attempted to evict the tenant without knowing the requisite steps to do so. The landlord nearly caused the case to be dismissed, but Attorney Murphy quickly corrected the deficiencies without issue. Housing Court Docket no.: 15H84SP002142.
Recently, Attorney Murphy’s client, a former senior personal banker, received a favorable unemployment benefits decision. The unemployment office initially denied the claim because the former employer alleged the client committed misconduct. Attorney Murphy, however, established through direct and cross examination at the unemployment hearing that the employer could not prove the client actually committed the conduct at issue. The supervisor essentially admitted he did not take any immediate corrective action. Thus, Attorney Murphy harped on this lapse of disciplinary action to discredit the employer’s case such that the unemployment office found the client more credible, and ruled in favor of the client.
Attorney Murphy notes that micromanagement of employees can lead to unwarranted and unnecessary terminations because like in this case, the supervisor failed to understand the big picture: the company lost a loyal and hard-working employee.
On March 4, 2015, Attorney Murphy persuaded the Cambridge District Court to vacate its order issuing an “execution” against his client, a tenant, for violating an “agreement for judgment”. Prior to retaining Attorney Murphy, the client and her former landlord entered into an agreement for judgment in lieu of a costly eviction trial. The landlord then filed a motion for issuance of the execution alleging that the client breached the agreement for judgment. The court agreed with the landlord and found the client in breach of the agreement.
The client was dismayed by the process, particularly where she now had a judgment against her.
The client then retained Attorney Murphy. Attorney Murphy drafted a motion to reconsider the issuance of the execution. Typically, motions to reconsider are never granted. Attorney Murphy, however, persuaded the court that for purposes of justice and equity, the landlord’s motion should never have been issued in the first place. The court agreed.
Attorney Murphy’s understanding of the balance between law and equity was paramount to his client’s success in this matter. Attorney Murphy would urge any landlord or tenant to seek assistance of counsel when dealing with motions for reconsideration because courts will only reverse their orders when exceptional circumstances are present.