Glynn, Landry, & Rice, LLP

Attorneys at law

Attorney John B. Glynn

Direct: (781) 356-1399 ext. 11

Fax: (781) 356-3393

Email:  john.glynn@glhrlaw.com

TRIAL EXPERIENCE - CIVIL

            Practice consists of representation of individual and corporate clients as plaintiffs and defendants.

75-80% of trial work representing defendants

20-25% of trial work representing plaintiffs

            Clients included, but not limited to:

Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority

Insureds of First State Management Group (subsidiary of The Hartford)

Insureds of Arbella Mutual Insurance Company

Insureds of John Hancock Insurance Company

Insureds of United American Surety Company, Ltd.

TRIAL EXPERIENCE – CRIMINAL

            Attorney Glynn has and continues to represent clients charged with criminal felonies and/or misdemeanors in both Superior and District Court.  Historically, Attorney Glynn was an Assistant District Attorney in Suffolk County where he prosecuted criminal offenses, including but not limited to first degree murder, rape, armed robbery, drug cases, and also misdemeanors.  As a criminal defense attorney for a period of ten (10) years, Attorney Glynn was approved by the Committee for Public Services to represent indigent defendants indicted for first degree murder. 

PROBATE COURT

            Attorney Glynn has represented clients in divorce/modification and M.G.L. C.209A proceedings.  Attorney Glynn has also represented clients in estate/trust litigation in the Probate Court. 

EDUCATIONAL / PROFESSIONAL

PROFILE

Attorney Glynn is a 1970 graduate of Boston College with a B.S. in Accounting and a 1975 graduate of Suffolk University Law School.  Attorney Glynn has been licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since December 1975; he has also been admitted to the United States District Court (D.Mass) and the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

            From February 1976 to June 1979, Attorney Glynn was an Assistant District Attorney in Suffolk County prosecuting a variety of criminal cases ranging from simple misdemeanors to first degree murder.

            From June 1979 to December 1980, Attorney Glynn was an Assistant General Counsel with the M.B.T.A. Law Department.  Attorney Glynn was counsel on matters that included defending tort cases, construction contract disputes, and assisting the M.B.T.A. Police Department in internal investigations, including but not limited to preparing Affidavits in Support of a Court-approved Warrant.

            From December 1980 through August 1987, Attorney Glynn was a practitioner where he actively practiced in both criminal and civil litigation.  During this period of time Attorney Glynn represented clients in District Court who had been accused of assault and battery, operating under the influence of liquor, unlawful carrying of firearms, various drug offenses.  In Superior Court, Attorney Glynn’s clients were charged with unarmed robbery, rape, kidnapping, illegal drugs, and murder.  For a period of ten years, Attorney Glynn was approved to represent indigent criminal defendants who had been indicted for first degree murder.

            From 1987 to present, Attorney Glynn’s practice continued with trial work, with a greater emphasis in civil litigation which included representing the M.B.T.A. and representing the insureds of various insurance companies.  These matters included legal malpractice defense, liquor liability (dram shop), construction site accidents, general liability, and automobile defense.  He also represents plaintiffs in personal injury cases, both at trial and/or in pursuing a claim.  Attorney Glynn will represent clients in real estate transactions, as well as provide his clients with basic estate planning, such as Wills, Durable Powers of Attorney, and Health Care Proxies.

            Attorney Glynn has also been approved as a Certified Mediator under M.G.L. Chapter 233, Section 23.  Additionally, he is also available to serve as an Arbitrator.  For more information as to Attorney Glynn’s services as a Mediator/Arbitrator, please go to Attorney Glynn’s mediation website, www.glynnmediation.com.

Boards/Committees:

            Board of Directors, United Casualty and Surety Insurance Company, February 2006 - Present

            Audit Committee, United Casualty and Surety Insurance Company, February 2006 - Present

            Board of Public Accountancy, member-at-large, December 2005 – December 2006

Bar Association Memberships:

            Massachusetts Bar Association

            Boston Bar Association

            Norfolk County Bar Association

            Plymouth County Bar Association    

            Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys

Reported Cases:

David J. Spellman, Sr. et al v. Shawmut Woodwork & Supply, Inc. d/b/a Shawmut Design & Construction v. East Coast Fireproofing, Inc.,. 445 Mass. 675, 840 N.E. 2d 47 (2006)

Issues of this Supreme Judicial Court decision focused upon assignment, indemnification and/or contribution. Furthermore, there were issues addressing Workers Compensation, exclusivity provision, M.G.L. c 152 § 23. The Massachusetts Supreme Court, in responding to Special Questions presented to it by the Trial Court, revisited the earlier decision Campion v. Wilson, 422 Mass. 185, 51 N.E. 2d 68 (1996) and re-emphasized the importance that any agreements for judgment should be absent of collusion and fraud. This Supreme Judicial Court decision was very important for sub-contractors and the Associated Sub-Contractors of Massachusetts submitted an amicus curiae brief. The Supreme Judicial Court stated that a General Contractor who assigned its indemnification rights to a Plaintiff in return for an Agreement for Judgment and a further agreement not to execute on that judgment would not allow a Plaintiff to be exempt from all of their evidentiary burdens against the General Contractor who had been released. The Plaintiff was still required to establish liability and damages against the General Contractor. The Plaintiff as assignee could then pursue indemnification through the assignment against the Third Party Defendant and Sub-Contractor, East Coast Fireproofing, Inc.


Missett v. Cardinal Cushing High School, 43 Mass. Appeals Court 5 (1997)

Case was noted not only in Massachusetts but also in other jurisdictions. Missett, the primary Plaintiff, was stabbed at a high school dance in 1990 and had alleged negligent security against Cardinal Cushing High School and the Archdiocese of Boston for failure to maintain a safe premise. The high school, through the Student Counsel with a faculty Moderator, hired a police detail; the detail did not appear as agreed to and the high school decided to proceed with the dance which resulted in the stabbing of Mr. Missett. A favorable verdict was returned by a jury and the Trial Court ruled that M.G.L. C.231 §85K did not apply since the revenues realized from the dance could be used for any purpose by the Student Council who managed and sponsored the dance. The Appeals Court made a very broad interpretation of M.G.L. C.231 §85K and reversed the Trial Court’s decision stating that the dance was considered to be an event within the educational purpose of the Statute; therefore, M.G.L. C.231 §85K applied. It should be noted that the Courts had historically encouraged a literal and dogmatic interpretation primarily on medical malpractice cases, yet the Appeals Court in assessing the Trial Court ruling and the applicability of M.G.L. C.231 §85K made a very broad interpretation of the Statute.


Commonwealth v. Guttierez, 26 Mass. Appeals Court 42 (1988)

Constitutionality of a search of the Defendant at an airport. Defendant Guttierez filed a Motion to Suppress the warrantless search based upon observations made by State Police Detectives. Although cocaine was found on the person, in the Defendant’s pants, the Trial Court suppressed the search; the Commonwealth appealed. The Appeals Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, suppressing the search.
 

Commonwealth v. Almeida, 373 Mass. 266 (1977)

The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision on the constitutionality of a warrantless search of an automobile made by a Boston Police Officer who made certain observations of the Defendant while sitting in an automobile, lights out and engine running, in a high crime rate area. The Police Officer became suspicious during the threshold inquiry and search which resulted in the discovery of a loaded firearm in the console of the automobile and the Defendant was placed under arrest. The Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress in the Trial Court; Motion to Suppress was denied. An Interlocutory Appeal was taken; the Petition was allowed and the matter was referred to a hearing before the Supreme Judicial Court, full bench. At the time, Attorney Glynn was an Assistant District Attorney representing the Commonwealth and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Trial Court’s decision, citing amongst its reasons, the high crime rate area where the threshold search was conducted.
 

Send mail to admin@glhrlaw.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2007 Glynn, Landry, & Rice, LLP

DISCLAIMER

Any communications, correspondence, responses, inquiries to the firm and its services as stated and described on its website does not create an attorney/client relationship between the Limited Liability Partnership and any members of the Limited Liability Partnership, individually, with the individual and/or entity making the inquiry and/or obtaining information from the website.