Justia Legal Services & Lawyers Directory

Some might call me a licensing attorney. I have extensive business and legal experience advising and empowering business innovators. My passion is for advising & empowering clients in a variety of brand-focused industries, including eCommerce, LOHAS-related consumer products, & publishing, with their corporate, IP & licensing matters.

My ongoing mission is to use my diverse professional and personal interests to not only empathize with individuals, but also holistically and genuinely anticipate ways that I can provide them with additional value.

Jay Marshall Wolman is a Senior Associate Attorney with the law firm of D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC. At D'Angelo & Hashem, Mr. Wolman has concentrated his practice in civil litigation, with an emphasis on labor and employment matters. Mr. Wolman regularly handles cases involving claims for unemployment benefits, wrongful termination, racial discrimination, rights of individuals with disabilities, sexual harassment, and workplace safety. He practices before the Municipal, District, and Superior Courts of Massachusetts, the Division of Unemployment Assistance, the Department of Industrial Accidents, and the Commission Against Discrimination, as well as before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Social Security Administration.

Prior to joining D'Angelo & Hashem, Mr. Wolman worked for the D.C. firm of ADR Associates/ADR Partners. There, he learned and honed skills in conflict management and dispute resolution. He participated in the implementation of the largest class-action settlement with the U.S. government, the landmark civil rights matter of Pigford v. Glickman (the Black Farmers Settlement), serving as counsel to the Office of the Arbitrator. Mr. Wolman has arbitrated or mediated hundreds of cases on behalf of private entities, non-profit organizations and government entities. He was also appointed an Instructor of Alternative Dispute Resolution at Georgetown University Law Center.

I am an attorney licensed to practice in Massachusetts and before its state and federal courts.
My specialties are; litigation, labor and employment law, collective bargaining, personal injury, automobile accidents, premises liability, real estate law including foreclosure defense, land use and zoning, administrative law, business law and corporate & LLC formation, wills, trusts & estates and municipal law.
My practice includes serving in the roles of mediator and arbitrator.
I also provide Courtroom Appearance Services for law-firms.

I am a trial lawyer and handle civil cases throughout Massachusetts. I have tried over over 100 cases to a jury verdict. I am experienced in the defense handling of insurance claims in Massachusetts state and federal courts, as well as administrative agencies and appeals.

Significant cases I have defended include:

PRODUCTS LIABILITY. Burgos v. Danly Machine, U.S. District Ct., D.Mass., 17 Verdicts, Settlement and Tactics 361-362, 1997 WL 33345564, Natl. Jury Verdict Rptr. 10:15. Defense verdict for manufacturer of 50 ton power press sued by injured worker struck by metal blanks. Roberge v. Roberge, U.S. District Ct., D.Mass., 1999 WL 33488789, 15 New England Jury Verdict Rptr. 7:C8. Verdict of no defect in defendant's bicycle operated by boy whose jaw was fractured in accident. In DaConceicao v. Tru-Grit, U.S. Dist. Ct., D.Mass. 4/02), a jury returned a verdict of no liability for breach of warranty or negligence against the supplier of a knife-making machine. Summary judgment was granted for the manufacturer in Witte v. Thermold (Worc. Dist. Ct. 7/07) for an injury caused when a shower handle broke.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION. Tuper v. North Adams Ambulance Service, Inc., 428 Mass. 132 (1998). After summary judgment on defamation and tortious interference claims, defense verdict was returned in wrongful termination case. On appeal Mass. Supreme Judicial Court upheld trial ruling that unemployment hearing decision finding employee was discharged without just cause was inadmissible and not binding in later breach of contract suit. Weissman v. Altra Marine Products (U.S. District Court, D.Mass), 1995 WL 1933839, 10 New England Jury Verdict Rptr. 12:6. Favorable verdict against manufacturer sued by representative for breach of agreement, fraud, tortious interference with advantageous relations with customer.

DEFENSE VERDICTS IN REAR-END COLLISIONS. In Rouvellat v. Guarco, 187 F.3d 622 (1st Cir. 1999), a federal jury found a defendant motorist not negligent where plaintiff claimed over $100,000 in medical and wage losses, following refusal of a generous settlement offer at mediation. In Martin v. McKenna, 2005 WL 4397793 (Hampden Super. Ct.), a jury found no negligence despite the admission in evidence that the case was previously tried to a judge who awarded $30,000 and that award was Aprima facie@ evidence in favor of the plaintiff. Similarly, in Mulvey v. Roy, 2006 WL 4654733 (Hampden Super. Ct.), the jury found no negligence on the part of a motorist who rear-ended another vehicle starting a four-car chain collision.

DEFENSE VERDICTS FOR INSURANCE AGENTS/ERRORS & OMISSIONS. In Capozza v. Johnson, 6 Western Mass. Law Trib. 4, 1 (April 2005), 2005 WL 115548 (Hampden Super. Ct.), a jury found the agency did not err in obtaining insurance coverage on a Mercedes, there was a $1.5 million verdict against the co-defendant motorist. Similarly in Greaves v. K-D Agency, 2006 WL 4654729 (Worc. Dist. Ct. 7/06), a jury returned a verdict of no negligence where an insured had reduced his coverages below his mortagage balance and was underinsured for a fire. In Chenevert v. Remillard, 1999 WL 3348883, following an uninsured theft claim a jury found no negligence, deceit or contract breach in the procurement of a homeowners policy. In Miller v. Moulton, (Palmer Dist. Ct. 3/98), a judge entered judgment for the defendant agency following trial on a claim an agent was responsible for an insured being uninsured for a restaurant fire. In Harder v. Cebula, (Palmer Dist Ct. 3/93), a defense finding was entered after trial exonerating an agent for uninsured damages for a boiler loss.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR AGENTS/E&O. In both Leger v. INA, 38 Mass. App. Ct. 1102 (1995), and Grey v. Finn, (Franklin Super. Ct. 11/1/00), an agent was granted summary judgment following an uninsured fire loss. In Lata v. Remillard (Norfolk Super. Ct. 10/29/04), summary judgment was granted on a claim an agent failed to procure sufficient underinsured motorist limits. In Sacadura v. Ideal (Springfield Dist. Ct. 7/04), a directed verdict was granted at trial where a homeowner sued his agent to cover an uninsured dog bite loss.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LEGAL MALPRACTICE CLAIM. In Bratcher v. Moriarty, Donoghue & Leja, P.C., 54 Mass. 111 (2002), the court found no duty existed between the lawyer for the widow in a wrongful death action and the co-administrator of the decedent=s estate.

FAVORABLE VERDICTS FOR AT-FAULT TRUCKING COMPANIES. In Fernandez v. May Trucking Co., 1993 WL 1466090, and Bird v. Lott Trucking, 2001 WL 1041973, jury verdicts were obtained in a nominal amount well below the last offer of settlement. In Digiovanni v. Borden and McCormick v. Borden (U.S. Dist. Ct. 10/92), a jury awarded nominal damages to a mother and daughter claiming injury from a rear-end collision. Similarly, in Gendron v. Waste Management, 2002 Mass. Super. LEXIS 32057895, a jury rejected a claim of permanent disability and awarded only special damages to a plaintiff.

DEFENSE VERDCTS WHERE MOTORIST STRUCK BICYCLIST/PEDESTRIAN. In Evans v. Devereaux Foundation, 1992 WL 1352918, a jury found a motorist who struck a pedestrian in a cross-walk not negligent. In Boyle v. Silluzio, 2005 WL 2148520, the jury found a negligent motorist who struck a bicyclist at an intersection cross-walk was not causally responsible for plaintiff=s damages. In Delmolino v. Doyle (34 Mass. Lawyers Weekly 593, Nov. 7, 2005), a pedestrian struck by a backing motorist in a parking lot was found not negligent.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR NURSING HOME IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION. In Fentross v. Geriatric Authority of Holyoke, 2002 Mass. Super. LEXIS 533, a dismissal was obtained for failure to make presentment under torts claims act.

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENFORCING DAMAGES CAP IN BRAIN INJURY CLAIM.In Reynolds v. Williston Northampton School, 2006 Mass. Super. LEXIS 46, court allowed motion for summary judgment enforcing charitable cap on claim of brain injury allegedly suffered by spectator due to premises defect at private school's hockey facility rented to outside group.

DIRECTED VERDICTS. In Roman v. Pulaski Club (Hampden Super. Ct. 10/92), a judge dismissed a negligent security claim against a private club where one patron assaulted another. In Ditto v. Town of Palmer, 1995 WL 1722613, a road defect claim alleged to have caused a motorcycle accident was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff=s evidence.

PREMISES DEFECT CLAIMS. In Lash v. Apollo, 1995 WL 1768599, 10 Nat'l. Jury Verdict Rptr. 7:26, a jury rendered a verdict of no negligence where a deliveryman was claiming $150,000 in special damages and permanent impairment from a fall at allegedly unsafe premises.

DEFENSE VERDICTS OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS. In Glabicki v. Sarad, 1991 WL 1063382, no negligence was found on the part of a truck driver for a broadside accident where plaintiff had significant special damages and permanency. In Antuna v. Bergollo, 2004 Mass. Super. LEXIS 2216614, a jury found no negligence on the part of a motorist who took a right on red and whose vehicle was then struck. In Reyes v. Florence Casket (Springfield Dist. Ct. 5/04), a jury found no negligence on the part of delivery truck alleged to have sideswiped a vehicle backing into a parking spot. In Meadows v. Travel Time, 7 New England Jury Verdict Rptr. 2:16, a bus company was found not negligent by a jury for a disc injury allegedly caused when the bus went over a speed bump at an inappropriate speed.

APPEALS COURT REVERSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S VERDICT. In Gibbons v. Nichols [Tenneco], 1994 Mass. App. Div. 28, the Appellate Court vacated a finding for the plaintiff in an intersection accident and granted a new trial due to judicial error against the defendant.

NEW TRIAL GRANTED IN $1.5M VERDICT. In CIGNA Fire Underwriters Ins. Co. v. MacDonald & Johnson, Inc., 86 F.3d 1260 (1996), a federal judge allowed judgment notwithstanding the verdict of $750,000 on tortious interference counterclaim against insurer, and new trial on breach of contract claim verdict of $500,000, which was reduced to $250,000 on re-trial.

From 1997 to early 2007, Craig J. Tiedemann was groomed and trained by 2 of Boston's large, and most prestigious "Big Firms," where he gained extensive, invaluable experience handling complex business disputes for sophisticated companies of all shapes and sizes, and individuals with important, complicated problems.

During his decade in the "Big Firms," Craig's practice emphasized construction litigation, involving projects ranging from Boston's infamous "Big Dig" and the Logan International Airport renovations, to routine public and private project construction disputes, both commercial and residential.

For four years running - 2005, 2006, 2007 & 2008 - Craig has been voted one of Boston's "Rising Stars" and "Super Lawyers" by Boston Magazine and Law & Politics, distinctions conferred on less than 2.5% of those eligible for the award. Voting was by other lawyers, judges, and others unaffiliated with those they nominate.

Craig has extensive civil case trial experience - lead trial counsel in all of them - including several lengthy Superior Court trials and one in District Court. Craig won his clients the full amount of damages they sought in every single trial but one. He recently did so again.

Craig has also tried several criminal cases, both as prosecutor during a brief stint when loaned to the Commonwealth by his former firm, and more recently in defense of clients.

Craig left the "Big Firm" behind to launch Tiedemann Law Firm, where he now provides clients the same thorough, sophisticated service he always has, but at far more reasonable rates. TLF is a niche litigation practice, offering clients the unique advantage of bringing "Big Firm" thinking and know-how to business and personal problems, both sophisticated and routine.

Tiedemann Law Firm is for those who see value in having a strategic litigation advantage and a highly experienced, well-rounded, hard-working and passionate advocate to carry it out. Craig Tiedemann and his firm provide clients thoughtful, effective solutions for the immediate need, but always with an eye toward the longer and larger view.