Pro Bono Team
mintz
pro bono portfolio
//
2023
With guidance from Andy Nathanson and assistance from Danielle Dillon, Katharine and Edmund Daley filed a single justice petition with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). After an initial ruling in Drew’s favor, the defense quickly sought a hearing before the full SJC, where Katharine presented arguments about the importance of protecting victims’ privacy rights.
© 2024 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. P.C.
Collaborating to Improve
Lives and Communities
Pro bono service is at the heart of Mintz's culture and identity. Together, we provide individuals with life-changing assistance and support the nonprofit organizations that care for our communities.
Learn More
After telling his parents that his elementary school teacher had touched him inappropriately, “Drew” was less open about his experiences during the formal investigatory process. To explore his reluctance, Drew’s parents sent him for counseling with a licensed clinical social worker, during which Drew made more detailed allegations, including claiming the teacher had sexually abused him numerous times.
When the teacher was ultimately indicted on criminal charges involving these claims, his counsel requested to examine the social worker’s privileged treatment records. Although the request was approved, the parties learned that the records had been inadvertently shredded when the social worker closed her private practice, further complicating the process.
DANIELLE DILLON
Associate
ANDREW N. NATHANSON
Special Counsel
Katharine k. foote
Associate and a Lead Attorney
edmund p. daley
Associate and a Lead Attorney
Protecting Victims’ Privacy in Sensitive Criminal Cases
For future cases that have strange evidentiary issues, the
decision protects survivors, and it safeguards the privileged records. This will prevent a treating therapist or other potential witness protected by privilege from being deposed in many,
many future criminal cases.
Associate
katharine k. foote
In September 2022, Katharine was honored with the Shining Star award by the VRLC for her work on this case.
Although the SJC’s December 2022 ruling allows a very limited deposition of the social worker in this case, the court emphasized that such depositions are not supported by the applicable rules of criminal procedure, establishing important precedent about the privacy of treatment records and victims’ rights.
Mintz continues to serve on the legal team representing Drew in matters involving the deposition of the social worker and other fallout from the SJC decision.
Read more.
learn more about this Important work
View the 2022
Pro Bono Portfolio
Victim Rights Law Center (VRLC)
Volunteer Spotlight
Throughout much of 2020, the court held a series of hearings about possible remedies for the defendant in light of the records destruction. When the court ordered the social worker to produce a written summary of Drew’s treatment, his counsel at the Victim Rights Law Center (VRLC) reached out to Mintz and attorney Katharine Foote for support.
A few months later, the case took another unusual turn after the defense, dissatisfied with the written information, asked the court to choose between two extraordinary options — to allow his counsel to depose the social worker or to bar allegations Drew made in an initial interview from use at trial. When the court agreed to allow the requested deposition, the VRLC and Katharine pursued an appeal with the state’s highest court.
View the 2022
Pro Bono Portfolio
© 2024 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Collaborating to Improve Lives and Communities
Pro bono service is at the heart of Mintz's culture and identity. Together, we provide individuals with life-changing assistance and support the nonprofit organizations that care for our communities.
Learn More
Victim
Pro Bono Team
A few months later, the case took another unusual turn after the defense, dissatisfied with the written information, asked the court to choose between two extraordinary options — to allow his counsel to depose the social worker or to bar allegations Drew made in an initial interview from use at trial. When the court agreed to allow the requested deposition, the VRLC and Katharine pursued an appeal with the state’s highest court.
With guidance from Andy Nathanson and assistance from Danielle Dillon, Katharine and Edmund Daley filed a single justice petition with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). After an initial ruling in Drew’s favor, the defense quickly sought a hearing before the full SJC, where Katharine presented arguments about the importance of protecting victims’ privacy rights.
Although the SJC’s December 2022 ruling allows a very limited deposition of the social worker in this case, the court emphasized that such depositions are not supported by the applicable rules of criminal procedure, establishing important precedent about the privacy of treatment records and victims’ rights.
Mintz continues to serve on the legal team representing Drew in matters involving the deposition of the social worker and other fallout from the SJC decision.
When the teacher was ultimately indicted on criminal charges involving these claims, his counsel requested to examine the social worker’s privileged treatment records. Although the request was approved, the parties learned that the records had been inadvertently shredded when the social worker closed her private practice, further complicating the process.
Throughout much of 2020, the court held a series of hearings about possible remedies for the defendant in light of the records destruction. When the court ordered the social worker to produce a written summary of Drew’s treatment, his counsel at the Victim Rights Law Center (VRLC) reached out to Mintz and attorney Katharine Foote for support.