Remembering Paul Sugarman

By John Carroll
Originally published in the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys (MATA) Journal, May 2025, Vol. 15, No. 8

The Truly Great “The names of those who in their lives fought for life, Who wore at their hearts the fire’s centre. Born of the sun, they travelled a short while toward the sun And left the vivid air signed with their honour” (Spender, Stephen)

Paul Sugarman was born in Dorchester in 1931. Over the years of their marriage, his wife Susan would often describe him, endearingly, as that “damn nice guy from Dorchester”. He was that, and so much more.

After attending the Boston public schools, Paul crossed town to Boston University. There he graduated with honors in 1951. He went on to Boston University Law School. There he graduated Cum Laude and as an Editor to the Law Review.

Paul was commissioned an officer in the Army and served three years as a Judge Advocate. There he was infected with the trial bug. Like so many of us, he did not recover from this lifelong malady.

Returning to Boston, Paul gravitated to trial work. He fell in with workers’ compensation attorneys and personal injury plaintiff trial lawyers. He formed lasting friendships with Nate Fink and Alan Chapman, soon forming the firm of Fink, Sugarman, and Chapman. That little firm became a force in the trial bar.

In the early sixties, Paul, Nate and others (notably Abner Sisson, Newt Esdaille, “Chickie” Sheff and Larry Locke (author of the Mass Practice series on workmen’s compensation), formed the local chapter of the National Compensation and Casualty Attorneys (“NACCA”). This organization morphed into the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (“ATLA”), which is now called the American Association for Justice (“AAJ”).

ATLA’s first headquarters was located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In 1965, ATLA relocated its headquarters to Washington. It has since become truly national in scope and influence. Paul was present at its inception and was one of its creators.

Meanwhile, his presence on the Boston trial scene was gaining prominence. In the late sixties he was joined by his brother Neil. Together they formed Sugarman and Sugarman, a preeminent law firm to this day.

Two developments in the late sixties forever altered trial practice in the Commonwealth. They also created an opportunity for Paul to ascend to the front rank. First, the SJC promulgated Rule 15. This rule allowed for expansive discovery, such as had never been allowed before (in 1974, the SJC codified Rule 15, created the so–called “new Rules of Discovery”).

Prior to this rule, trials were spontaneous, “think on your feet” affairs. There was little preparation, as the only discovery allowed was 30 interrogatories. This was great for quick thinking and spur of the moment trial tactics, but useless in complex cases that required in depth exploration of facts. Rule 15 addressed this superficiality. Paul took full advantage of it. His penetrating intellect and diligent preparation opened the doors to sophisticated presentations at trial.

The second major change was the introduction of “no-fault” insurance in the Commonwealth in 1971. No-Fault eliminated much of the high volume, low value cases that were clogging the courts, but provided a steady stream of income for the average general practitioner. These changes made education paramount for the average practitioner. One could no longer try a case “by the seat of your pants.”

Thus, the birth of the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys (“MATA”). From the outset, MATA’s primary purpose was education. With a seasoned gallery of trial attorneys, it became the statewide forum for learning how to effectively try cases, whether the cases were simple or complex. Starting in 1971, MATA was a voluntary collection of seasoned trial lawyers. Almost by consensus, Paul was recognized as the first President of MATA, starting in 1971 and serving for four years. In 1975, MATA became a formal entity. Among those present at the beginning were such luminaries as Jim Reardon (Worcester), John J.C. Herlihy, Jim Meehan, Camille Sarrouf and Charlie Barrett; all titans of the trial bar who live on in the memory of many of us today

Paul’s generous genius was not restricted to MATA. In 1977, Paul was elected President of the Massachusetts Bar Association. In that capacity he acted with courage and vision. In “Res Geste”, which is the President’s message in the MBA Journal, Paul fired a broadside at the administration of justice by directly criticizing the ancient and inefficient administration of the Trial Court and the Legislature that allowed it to fester.

At the time Paul authored the article, the trial courts consisted of more than 400 departments, each with its own enablers in the legislature so that funding was a patchwork of political influence. He spearheaded a movement to streamline the structure of the courts. This resulted in the major Court Reorganization Act of 1978. This was all the more courageous because he derived his livelihood from the very institution he criticized. A profile in courage.

Possibly a greater profile in courage was Paul’s representation of then Chief Justice of the Superior Court, Robert Bonin. Chief Justice Bonin became the center of public controversy when he, quite visibly, attended a rally for 21 persons who were indicted for lewd conduct. The featured speaker at the rally was Gore Vidal. Bonin was photographed chatting with him.

The SJC suspended Chief Justice Bonin. He challenged the suspension. A hearing before the full panel of the Supreme Judicial Court ensued. Paul took on the representation of Chief Judge Bonin. This was the modernday equivalent of John Adams representing the British soldiers in the “Boston Massacre”.

The hearing lasted for ten days. The SJC ultimately publicly censured Chief Justice Bonin. However, Paul’s vigorous and honorable defense earned him the tacit admiration of the Supreme Judicial Court and the open respect and admiration of the trial Bar.

To those who knew Paul well, such moral courage was not a surprise. Paul’s younger brother Neil tells a little known story that best illustrates Paul’s unpretentious integrity in “doing the right thing” in spite of the personal cost.

Neil joined Paul in 1967. Neil was a rookie lawyer, having just completed a tour of duty in Vietnam after law school. In Vietnam, Neil was a Signal Officer attached to the First Infantry Division. During that tour, he became close friends with a career Army officer (for the purpose of this story, his name was “Matt”). Matt was in command of an advanced unit which often engaged long range reconnaissance patrols. Such patrols were among the most dangerous missions of the war in that they were immersed deep into enemy territory, where telling friend from foe was nearly impossible.

Two years later, in 1969, the Army charged Matt with the murder of two civilians in connection with one of these patrols. The evidence was sketchy, but Matt could not afford private counsel to defend himself against the full force of the Government.

When Paul learned of this, his sense of “doing the right thing”, even at great personal cost, compelled him to act. He had been an Army lawyer after law school and had tried many cases before Military Tribunals. He offered to take on Matt’s first-degree murder case, pro bono.

The Military Tribunal convened in Ft. Benning, Georgia. For months, Paul and Neil worked on the case, gathering evidence from soldiers, active duty or discharged, around the country. They also had to deal with evidence from Vietnamese witnesses. All the while they were managing a three–person law firm in Boston, Paul and Neil being two of the three.

Ultimately, Paul obtained a dismissal of all charges. Neil’s friend Matt went on to have a distinguished career, retiring at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.

One of Paul’s greatest legal achievements occurred not in the courtroom, but in the legislature. For years, he had been trying wrongful death cases, which were governed by a timeworn statute that did not allow for compensatory damages or even full punitive damages. “Compensatory damages for the conscious pain and suffering of the decedent before death continue to be brought as part of the wrongful death lawsuit; these damages go into the estate rather than to a designated next of kin. This portion of the law regarding conscious pain and suffering of the decedent was not changed by the 1973 amendments.”1 Wrongful death damages at the time had been limited to $200,000.00 and were based upon the defendant’s degree of culpability. Paul’s sense of fairness to those subject to this restrictive statute compelled him to become the driving force in having the statute broadened. Ultimately, the legislature yielded to his perseverance and amended the statute to include the expanded measure of damages. “For the first time in Massachusetts, both types of damages (compensatory and punitive) were available in egregious cases where the defendant’s gross negligence or recklessness had caused a fatality. This revolutionized the way that wrongful death cases were tried in Massachusetts…”1

A recitation of Paul’s honors, awards, distinctions and noteworthy achievements is listed in Endnote 2. A recitation of Paul’s recorded cases is listed in Endnote 3. Many of these cases were groundbreaking and expanded the right of injured plaintiffs. Among the most notable are: doCanto v. Ametek (admissibility of subsequent remedial measures); Carey v. GM (defining the law regarding the admissibility of expert testimony); Griffin v. GM (rules regarding the admissibility of loss of future earnings); Diaz v. Eli Lilly (spousal right of loss of consortium); and Franklin v. Albert (established the “discovery rule” in medical malpractice claims).

These concrete examples of his greatness do not capture his essence. Paul’s ethics always pointed true north, as reliable as a compass. His legal mind was photographic. Even in his nineties, as Judge Yarashus said in her eulogy, “Paul knew the case law and statutes inside and out. Many of us will be lucky to remember any case names at all if we reach his age, but even in his 80’s and 90’s, Paul could recite language and dicta by memory, and then have a breathtaking analysis of how it was a preview to future case law.”

Nor do these examples capture his self-deprecating humor. When Ben Zimmerman of Paul’s firm was asking Paul to list all his reported cases, Paul demurred. He said that such a list would show the world that he lost more than he won. Ben responded that that was the true mark of a fearless trial lawyer.

Few, if any, have attained the moral, intellectual and statesmanlike stature as did this “damn good guy from Dorchester”. Yet, he left us with a bountiful inheritance. Paul was not only one of us, but he also assisted in the creation of the brotherhood and sisterhood we now cherish. And he was a community treasure to all who valued the rule of law. His loss is great, but his legacy is greater. It is an ongoing blessing that inspires us to be the best we can be.

Paul is now singing in the invisible choir, along with all the other titans of his time. He was the last of that illustrious band (other than Charlie Barrett). May we hope to join them when our time comes.

The Choir Invisible

“O May I join the choir invisible
Of those immortal dead who live again
In minds made better by their
presence: live In pulses stirr’d
to generosity,

In deeds of daring rectitude, in scorn
For miserable aims that end in self,
In thoughts sublime that pierce the
night like stars, And with their mild
persistence urge man’s search To
vaster issues.”

(Eliot, George -nee Mary Ann Evans)

John Carroll is on the Board of Governors of MATA. He is also a senior attorney at the firm of Meehan, Boyle, Black and Bogdanow, P.C.

Author’s Note:
The author is indebted to several Sugarman law partners (current and former), including Neil Sugarman, Ben Zimmerman and The Honorable Valerie Yarashus (formerly of Sugarman) and Darlene Kelly, my senior litigation assistant, for her editorial and technical support.

Endnote 1
Yarashus, V., Approaching 50 Years of Modern Day Wrongful Death Litigation in Massachusetts, 103 Mass. Law Review, vol. 1, p. 1, 6, 7 (2022).

Endnote 2
Best Lawyers in America; Lawyers Weekly Hall of Fame; Chair, Board of Bar Overseers; Dean, Suffolk Law School; Honorary J.D, Suffolk Law School; Gold Medal, Massachusetts Bar Association; Civil Justice Award, American Board of Trial Attorneys; MATA Excellent Achievement Award; Trustee, Massachusetts Bar Foundation; Board of Governors, MATA; AAJ Special Master (Appointed by the SJC) to Investigate Alleged Irregularities at Boston Municipal Court; Co-Author (with Judge Valerie Yarashus) of the chapters on Personal Injury and Wrongful Death in multiple editions of MCLE’s Model Jury Instructions.

Endnote 3
In the Matter of Ring, 427 Mass. 186, 692 N.E.2d 35 (Mass. 1998) (bar discipline for lawyer who had violated divorce orders)
Lang v. Edward J. Lamothe Col., 20 Mass. App. Ct. 231, 479 N.E.2d 208 (1985) (comp immunity only applies if defendant is both the employer and the provider of comp insurance)
Smith v. Steinberg, 395 Mass. 666, 481 N.E.2d 1344 (1985) (material issue of fact as to whether member of state university medical group practice was a public employee (Judge Young had denied SJ)
Zeller v. Am. Safety Razor Corp., 15 Mass. App. Ct. 919, 443 N.E.2d 1349 (1983) (verdict upheld where Dr. Cantu after surgical blades broke off in patient’s spine. Verdict was against manufacturer and Doctor!)
Kord v. Baystate Med. Ctr., Inc., 13 Mass. App. Ct. 909, 429 N.E.2d 1045 (1982) (appealing defense verdict in medmal case)
Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 14 Mass. App. Ct. 448, 440 N.E.2d 518 (1982) (appealing defense verdict when jury found defendant’s product did not cause blindness)
Franklin v. Albert, 381 Mass. 611, 411 N.E.2d 458 (1980) (establishing discovery rule in Massachusetts—cause of action does not accrue until patient learns or reasonably should have learned, of harm)
Griffin v. Gen. Motors Corp., 380 Mass. 362, 403 N.E.2d 402 (1980) (upholding verdict against GM for product defect after car caught fire—prejudgment interest applies to future damages)
Carey v. Gen. Motors Corp., 377 Mass. 736, 387 N.E.2d 583 (1979) (another verdict against GM for stuck accelerator pedal—as long as one of the three defects likely caused it, that is sufficient; recall letter admissible)
In the Matter of Bonin, 375 Mass. 680, 711, 378 N.E.2d 669 (1978) (representing Judge Bonin with David Sargent)
doCanto v. Ametek, Inc., 367 Mass. 776, 328 N.E.2d 873 (1975) (making subsequent remedial measures admissible, including to prove “practical possibility of making a safety improvement”)
Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 364 Mass. 153, 302 N.E.2d 555 (1973) (taking interlocutory appeal when wife’s consortium claim was dismissed and establishing such claims in Massachusetts)
Cellucci v. Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania, 368 Mass. 811, 331 N.E.2d 813 (1975) (defending an oil company in a specific performance real estate case)
Thomas Cook & Sons, Inc. v. Assembled Homes, Inc., 357 Mass. 425, 258 N.E.2d 310 (1970) (appealing dismissal of claim involving faulty workmanship against home seller)
Sawyer v. Hawkridge Bros. Co., 357 Mass. 779, 779, 260 N.E.2d 158, 158 (1970) (verdict in explosion upheld)
Brown v. Marr Equip. Corp., 355 Mass. 724, 247 N.E.2d 352 (1969) (arguing against common employment doctrine barring suit against other contractors)
Winer v. Winer, 356 Mass. 733, 254 N.E.2d 257 (1969) (divorce case arguing against sums awarded to wife)
Dimond v. Sacilotto, 353 Mass. 501, 233 N.E.2d 20 (1968) (directed verdicts in dram shop case upheld because they could not show that the bar knew the minors that were served had driven there) Shulton, Inc. v. Consumer Value Stores, Inc., 352 Mass. 605, 227 N.E.2d 482 (1967) (representing CVS in a fair trade case)
Harrigan v. Cape Cod Hosp., 349 Mass. 765, 208 N.E.2d 232 (1965) (challenging charitable immunity)
Moschella v. City of Quincy, 347 Mass. 80, 196 N.E.2d 616 (1964) (city was not an immune common employer in action by garbage man injured by defect in public way—maximum judgment of $4,000.00 entered)
Moffie v. Sharaf, 343 Mass. 775, 776, 178 N.E.2d 872, 872 (1961) (defending building owner in case by architect for services rendered)
Page v. Thomas Long Co., 342 Mass. 775, 173 N.E.2d 926 (1961) (Loss directed verdict)
Petition of Retailers Com. Agency, Inc., 342 Mass. 515, 174 N.E.2d 376 (1961) (defending a credit reporting company against libel claim for a bad credit report)