Rhode Island’s 2026 Anti-Hazing Law: What It Means for Your Child’s Safety — and What to Do Now
If you are reading this at 2 a.m., you already know something happened to your child. Maybe your son came home from football practice with bruises he cannot explain. Maybe your daughter stopped eating after a team “initiation.” Maybe a coach called it “tradition,” or a principal asked you to “let the school handle it internally.” You are here because your gut is telling you that what happened was not an accident — it was hazing — and you need to know whether the law is finally on your side. It is. On June 24, 2026, Rhode Island’s governor signed a statewide anti-hazing law that changes what schools owe every student who puts on a uniform. That law does not just create a policy — it creates a standard of care your school district must meet, and a paper trail you can use when they fail. We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm. We litigate hazing cases. Right now, we are lead counsel in an active $10M hazing lawsuit against the University of Houston and Pi Kappa Phi fraternity, and the experience we earned in that fight is directly transferable to what Rhode Island families now face. This page tells you everything: what the new law does, who is responsible, how much time you have, what the case is worth, what evidence is already disappearing, and what to do in the next 72 hours.
Can I Sue a Rhode Island School for Hazing? Your Questions Answered Directly
Yes — you can sue. The new 2026 law does not just give schools a policy to write; it creates a mandatory standard of care that, when violated, becomes the backbone of a negligence claim. Rhode Island already permits personal injury lawsuits against school districts under its Tort Claims Act. What the new law adds is a specific, zero-tolerance rule the school had to follow — and if they did not, their failure is no longer a “judgment call.” It is a statutory violation.
How long do you have to file? Rhode Island’s personal injury statute of limitations is three years from the date of the injury, under Rhode Island General Law. That clock is generous compared to some states, but the evidence that wins these cases does not last three years — it lasts weeks.
What is the case worth? That depends on injuries, the school’s notice of prior hazing, and whether the $100,000 Tort Claims Act cap applies or can be bypassed. Honest range: $100,000 at the low end (capped claims against the district alone) to $750,000 or more (where individual actors, private organizations, or insurance waivers expand the recovery pool). We explain exactly how that cap works — and how to get past it — below.
What should you not do? Do not let your child sit for a school-led “informal interview” without a lawyer. Do not sign anything the school puts in front of you. Do not post about the incident on social media. Do not wait to see if your child “gets over it” before calling a lawyer — because by the time you decide to act, the text messages and GroupMe logs that prove the case may be gone.
What the New Rhode Island Anti-Hazing Law Actually Does
The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Joseph McNamara — the House Education Committee chair and a retired educator, coach, and former student athlete — and Sen. Matthew LaMountain, the Senate Judiciary Committee chair, compels the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) to develop a statewide anti-hazing policy in conjunction with the Rhode Island Interscholastic League (RIIL). That partnership matters more than most people realize. RIDE regulates the state’s 36 school districts from Providence. The RIIL governs high school sports. By writing the policy together, the legislature signaled that hazing in athletics is no longer a school-level disciplinary issue — it is a regulatory compliance issue with the force of state mandate behind it.
The law establishes zero tolerance for hazing, bullying, and harassment in educational and athletic environments. It targets the culture of trauma and humiliation that has defined too many student-athlete “initiations” — the forced drinking, the physical beatings, the sexualized degradation, the sleep deprivation, the coerced servitude — and it requires that disciplinary actions be transparent, consistent, and strictly enforced across all Rhode Island districts.
“As a retired educator, coach and former student athlete, I can state without reservation that hazing is degrading, abusive and dangerous. Athletics should not be an exception to that rule. Regardless of what form it takes, hazing creates an environment of trauma and humiliation, and we have to take it more seriously.”
That is not a plaintiff’s lawyer talking. That is the legislator who wrote the bill. When the sponsor says hazing creates “an environment of trauma and humiliation,” he is giving you the exact language a jury needs to hear — and he is admitting, on the public record, that what your child experienced was not a prank. Sen. LaMountain’s companion statement is equally direct:
“School sports and other activities are designed to build self-esteem in young people, not tear it down. This will go a long way toward establishing a firm, anti-hazing culture in our schools.”
The practical effect of this law is a shift from discretionary discipline to mandatory safety compliance. Before 2026, a school that responded to hazing with a “stern talking-to” or a one-game suspension could argue it exercised reasonable discretion. After 2026, zero tolerance is the floor — and anything less than zero tolerance is a breach of the state’s own mandate.
How the 2026 Law Changes School Liability in Rhode Island
The new anti-hazing law does not exist in a vacuum. It plugs into a legal framework that Rhode Island has been building for years — and understanding how these statutes interlock is the difference between a case that survives and one that gets dismissed.
The Rhode Island Safe Schools Act already governs bullying and cyberbullying in schools. The 2026 anti-hazing law supplements that framework, extending the same zero-tolerance approach to the specific, organized ritual abuse that hazing represents — abuse that often occurs in athletic settings the anti-bullying statute was not designed to reach.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 applies when hazing has sexualized elements — and a disturbing share of hazing incidents do. Forced undressing, simulated or actual sexual acts, degrading “traditions” targeting a student’s body — all of these trigger federal protections that exist independent of the new state law. A school that ignores sexualized hazing is violating not just Rhode Island’s new statute but federal civil rights law.
Rhode Island’s pure comparative negligence system is a powerful tool for hazing plaintiffs. Under this rule, even if your child “chose to participate” — the defense every school runs — your recovery is only reduced by your child’s percentage of fault. It is never eliminated entirely. If a jury finds your son 30% responsible for going along with the hazing, the school still owes 70% of the damages. The school’s insurance lawyer knows this. Now you do too.
The three-year statute of limitations gives you time to build a case — but the evidence does not wait three years. More on that below.
Who Can Be Held Responsible When a Student Is Hazed in Rhode Island
A hazing case is rarely one defendant. The harm flows through a chain of people and institutions, each of which had a duty and each of which failed it.
Rhode Island School Districts. Rhode Island’s public school system is centrally regulated by RIDE but operationally decentralized across 36 districts — Providence, Warwick, and Cranston represent the largest student populations. Each district is responsible for implementing the zero-tolerance policy the new law requires. If a district fails to adopt, communicate, or enforce the policy, and a student is harmed as a result, the district bears direct liability. Litigation in these jurisdictions is typically handled in Providence County Superior Court.
The Rhode Island Department of Education. RIDE is the entity the new law directly tasks with developing the statewide anti-hazing policy. If RIDE fails to establish the standards the statute requires, and that failure leads to student injury, the department itself may face liability — though claims against the state entity run squarely into the $100,000 Tort Claims Act cap.
School Coaches and Administrators. Under the “special relationship” doctrine, school personnel owe students a heightened duty of care — higher than what a stranger owes on the street. A coach who knew about hazing rituals and looked the other way, an athletic director who received complaints and buried them, a principal who treated a parent’s report as a “personnel matter” rather than a safety emergency — each may be individually liable for negligent supervision, breach of fiduciary duty, or even intentional infliction of emotional distress. Individual actors are where punitive damages become possible, because the Tort Claims Act cap does not shield them the way it shields the governmental entity.
Private Educational Institutions. Although the 2026 law focuses on public schools, it establishes a new statewide standard of care that applies to all Rhode Island educational environments. A private school that allows hazing while the state has mandated zero tolerance is falling below the standard the legislature just set — and private schools do not enjoy the Tort Claims Act cap. Their insurance towers, not the government’s liability ceiling, govern the recovery.
Understanding the Rhode Island Tort Claims Act: The $100,000 Cap and How to Get Past It
Here is the hardest truth in a Rhode Island school-hazing case, and we tell you early so you can plan around it: the Rhode Island Tort Claims Act limits the liability of the state and its political subdivisions — cities, towns, and school districts — to $100,000 per claim. That is the statutory ceiling on what you can recover from a public school district itself, no matter how egregious the hazing was.
But that cap is not the end of the story. It is the beginning of the strategy.
First: the cap does not apply if the entity has waived it through insurance. Many school districts carry liability insurance that exceeds the $100,000 floor. When a district purchases insurance, it can effectively waive the cap — meaning the insurance tower, not the statute, controls the recovery ceiling. Discovering whether the district’s insurance waives the cap is one of the first things we investigate.
Second: the cap does not apply to individual actors. A coach who knowingly permitted hazing, an administrator who ignored reports, a teacher who participated — these individuals are not shielded by the Tort Claims Act. Claims against them run directly, and punitive damages may be available for conduct that is willful, wanton, or reckless. The $100,000 cap does not touch a punitive award against a coach who let your child be beaten in a locker room.
Third: the cap does not apply to private entities. If a private sports organization, a club team, or a third-party program was involved in the hazing, that entity’s insurance — not the state’s liability cap — controls what is recoverable.
Fourth: joint and several liability. Where multiple defendants share responsibility, we pursue the full recovery from the defendants with the deepest pockets and the least protection. The cap is a shield for the school district; it is not a shield for everyone involved.
Fifth: the “special duty” doctrine. The Public Duty Doctrine often shields municipalities by arguing the government owes a duty to the public generally, not to any specific individual. But when a school has a special relationship with a specific student — and the special relationship between a school and its athletes is well-established — that doctrine’s shield cracks. If the school had specific notice of hazing targeting your child and failed to act, the “special duty” argument can pierce the Public Duty Doctrine and open the door to recovery.
The Evidence That Proves a Hazing Case — and How Fast It Disappears
Every hazing case is an evidence race. The law gives you three years to file. The proof gives you weeks.
Digital communications — HIGH URGENCY. Text messages, GroupMe logs, Snapchat screenshots, Instagram posts — these are where hazing is planned, documented, and sometimes live-streamed. Teenagers record everything. But they also delete everything — and the moment word gets out that a parent is asking questions, the deletion begins. The teammates’ phones are the first evidence to disappear. If your child has screenshots, texts, or videos on their phone, preserve them now. Do not let your child “confront” anyone online — anything they post can be used against them.
School district policy records — MEDIUM URGENCY. Under the new law, every district must adopt and communicate the zero-tolerance policy. Whether your district actually did that — whether the policy was distributed to students, parents, and coaches — is discoverable. These records are subject to subpoena but may carry FERPA privacy redactions. The school’s own discipline records, prior hazing complaints, and athletic department communications are where the “notice” evidence lives: proof the school knew hazing was happening before it reached your child.
Staff training logs — LOWER URGENCY but decisive. The 2026 law will require districts to train coaches and staff on the new zero-tolerance standards. Whether the coach in your child’s program actually received that training — or whether the district skipped it — is a record that formal HR files generally preserve for several years. A coach who was never trained on the policy the law requires is a district failure, not a coach’s excuse.
The preservation letter. The day you call us, a preservation letter goes out. It is a written demand, sent to the school district, the athletic department, and any other entity that may hold evidence, ordering them to freeze all relevant records — digital, paper, and electronic — until the legal process can secure them. If the school lets evidence die after receiving that letter, a judge can instruct the jury to assume the missing evidence would have helped your case. That is called an adverse-inference instruction, and it is one of the most powerful tools in a trial lawyer’s arsenal.
How the School’s Insurance Adjuster Will Try to Defeat Your Claim
If your child was hazed, you should expect a call from someone friendly. They will say they are “just checking on your child” and ask you to “tell us what happened.” That call is recorded. Every word you say will be transcribed and used to build the school’s defense. Here is the playbook the school’s insurer will run — and here is how we counter each play.
Play 1: “Your child chose to participate.” The adjuster will frame hazing as voluntary participation, shifting blame to the student. The counter: Rhode Island’s pure comparative negligence system means even partial fault does not bar recovery — it only reduces it. More importantly, “choosing” to submit to peer pressure under threat of social exile is not genuine consent. The law recognizes the power imbalance between upperclassmen and new team members. The “special relationship” between a school and its student-athletes creates a duty the school cannot delegate to a teenager.
Play 2: The fast, low settlement check. Within weeks, a check may arrive — $10,000, $25,000 — with a release buried in the paperwork, before your child has seen a psychologist or a doctor has documented the full injury. The counter: never sign a release before the medical picture is complete. PTSD from hazing often does not fully declare itself for months. A settlement signed in week three, before the diagnosis exists, is a settlement that undervalues a lifetime of harm. We refuse these offers and build the full medical record first.
Play 3: The $100,000 cap as leverage. The insurer will tell you that the Tort Claims Act limits recovery to $100,000, so you should accept that number and move on. The counter: as we explained above, the cap does not apply to individual actors, private entities, or districts that have waived the cap through insurance. We identify every defendant the cap does not protect before we ever discuss settlement numbers.
Play 4: The “informal” school investigation. The school will offer to “handle this internally” — convene a committee, interview students, issue a report. The counter: never let your child sit for a school-led interview without legal representation. Those interviews are designed to elicit statements that can be used to shift blame to the student. The school’s investigation serves the school’s interests, not your child’s. Our insurance carrier interview simulator walks you through exactly what these conversations sound like and how to handle them.
Play 5: Social media surveillance. The adjuster will monitor your social media accounts and your child’s accounts for anything that can be used to minimize the claim — a photo of your child smiling at a party, a post about a normal activity, anything that suggests “they seem fine.” The counter: assume you are being watched. Post nothing about the incident. If your child’s attorney is doing the job, the adjuster’s surveillance becomes a tool we use against them — because a healthy moment does not erase a traumatic one.
What a Hazing Case Is Actually Worth in Rhode Island
Honest numbers, honestly framed. Rhode Island’s case-value range for school hazing claims runs from approximately $100,000 at the low end to $750,000 or more at the high end. Here is why that range is so wide — and what pushes a case toward the top.
At the low end: a claim against a public school district alone, where the $100,000 Tort Claims Act cap applies and no insurance waiver or individual defendant expands the pool. The injuries are real but the recovery is statutorily capped.
At the high end: a case where the school had prior notice of hazing in the specific athletic program and ignored it, where the coach participated or facilitated, where the child suffered documented PTSD requiring long-term psychiatric care, and where individual defendants or private organizations open recovery channels beyond the $100,000 cap. Punitive damages against individual actors, loss of educational opportunity, and the full economic stream of counseling and medical care can push the total well past the cap.
Economic damages include costs for psychological counseling, psychiatric care, medication, and medical expenses for physical trauma — traumatic brain injuries from beatings, soft tissue injuries, fractures, and the long-term treatment those require. Non-economic damages focus on PTSD, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem, and the loss of educational and athletic opportunities the hazing caused. In extreme cases of physical hazing leading to death, survival and wrongful death damages apply.
Punitive damages are generally prohibited against Rhode Island governmental entities but may be sought against individual staff members or private organizations whose conduct was willful, wanton, or reckless. A coach who knew about hazing, facilitated it, or actively participated is the kind of defendant punitive damages are designed to punish.
Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. Every figure we discuss is grounded in the specific facts of your child’s situation, not borrowed from someone else’s verdict.
The Medicine of Hazing: What the Trauma Looks Like and How It’s Proven
Hazing injuries come in two forms — the ones you can see and the ones you cannot. The visible injuries are easier to prove but often less damaging long-term. The invisible injuries are harder to prove but are where the lifelong harm lives.
Physical injuries. Beatings, forced consumption of alcohol or dangerous substances, sleep deprivation, exposure to elements, restraint — these produce bruises, fractures, concussions, and in severe cases, organ damage or traumatic brain injury. A “mild” traumatic brain injury can come with a perfectly normal CT scan — the damage is microscopic tearing of nerve fibers that a standard scan was never built to see. Roughly one in seven people with a so-called “mild” brain injury never fully recovers. The headaches, the memory gaps, the personality changes, the short fuse — those are the symptoms a family sees across the dinner table before any scan confirms them.
Psychological trauma. The legislation’s own sponsor called hazing “degrading, abusive, and dangerous” and said it creates “an environment of trauma and humiliation.” That is not a political talking point — it is a clinical description. Post-traumatic stress disorder is diagnosed through an eight-part clinical checklist, not a feeling. The nightmares, the avoidance of reminders, the hyper-vigilance, the inability to concentrate, the detachment from friends and family — those are diagnostic criteria, not vague complaints. And the condition can worsen for days or weeks after the event through delayed neuronal death, meaning a child who “seemed fine” at the ER can be deeply injured by the time anyone recognizes it.
The proof problem. The defense will say your child “looks fine.” They will point to a clean CT, a day your child laughed with friends, a teacher who says the student seems “normal.” The counter is the medical record built from the moment of injury forward: the neuropsychological testing that documents cognitive deficits, the therapist’s notes that track the PTSD symptoms over time, the testimony of people who knew your child before and can describe the change. The injury is invisible by nature, not absent. Proving it takes the right experts and a careful record — and it takes a lawyer who knows that “invisible” does not mean “uncompensable.”
How We Build a Hazing Case: From Preservation Letter to Resolution
Here is what the arc of a hazing case actually looks like — the work, not the brochure.
Week one. The preservation letter goes out to the school district, the athletic department, the RIIL if applicable, and any other entity holding evidence. Every text, every GroupMe log, every surveillance camera in the locker room hallway, every discipline record, every staff-training file — all of it is frozen. Your child’s medical evaluation begins: a full psychological workup, a physical examination, and the start of a treatment record that will become the spine of the damages case.
Discovery. We subpoena the school district’s policy records — did they adopt the zero-tolerance mandate the new law requires? We demand the coach’s personnel file and training records. We pull prior hazing complaints the school received, because a pattern of ignored complaints is the “notice” that defeats the school’s “we didn’t know” defense. We take depositions: the coach under oath, the athletic director under oath, the students who participated, the parents who complained before you.
Expert witnesses. A school safety specialist testifies about the standard of care the new law establishes and how the school fell below it. A child psychologist testifies about the long-term impact of humiliation-based trauma — the PTSD, the depression, the substance use, the academic decline. If there is a physical injury, a life-care planner builds the lifetime cost of treatment in today’s dollars.
Mediation and trial. Rhode Island hazing cases against school districts are fought in Providence County Superior Court, where a jury of the community’s peers decides what the harm was worth. Mediation comes first — and at mediation, the PR risk to the school board and the clear violation of the 2026 legislative intent are leverage. The school district does not want a public trial where a jury hears what happened in that locker room. That leverage, combined with a fully developed medical record and a documented pattern of ignored warnings, is what moves a case from a $100,000 capped offer to a real recovery.
The First 72 Hours: A Practical Roadmap for Rhode Island Families
Hour 1 to 12: Medical first. Get your child to a doctor or an emergency room. Even if the injuries seem “minor,” the medical record starts here. Tell the doctor what happened — the specifics, not just “he got hurt at practice.” The ER note is the first independent document of the injury. If your child has a concussion, a fracture, or any sign of sexual assault, the hospital’s protocol will generate forensic evidence that cannot be recreated later.
Hour 12 to 24: Secure the phone. Your child’s phone is the single most important piece of evidence. Screenshots of GroupMe conversations, text messages from teammates, videos of the hazing itself — all of it lives on that device. Do not let your child delete anything. Do not let your child confront anyone online. Back up the phone’s contents to a secure location. If the phone is damaged or lost, contact the carrier immediately to preserve text and call records.
Hour 24 to 48: Do not talk to the school alone. The school will call. They will want to “meet” with you and your child. They may frame it as a “welfare check” or an “investigation.” Do not go without a lawyer. Anything your child says in that meeting can and will be used to shift blame. Politely decline: “We are getting legal advice and will be in touch.” Then call us at 1-888-ATTY-911.
Hour 48 to 72: The preservation letter. This is where a lawyer earns their keep. The preservation demand goes out — to the school district, the athletic department, the coach, and any other entity holding evidence. That letter freezes the evidence. If the school lets anything die after receiving it, the jury gets to assume the worst. The letter is the difference between a case built on proof and a case built on hearsay.
What not to do in the first 72 hours:
– Do not sign anything the school puts in front of you.
– Do not let your child give a recorded statement to anyone.
– Do not post about the incident on any social media platform.
– Do not confront the coach, the teammates, or the parents of the students who hazed your child.
– Do not wait “to see if it gets better” before seeking legal help — the evidence clock is already running.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue a Rhode Island public school district if my child was hazed?
Yes. The 2026 anti-hazing law creates a mandatory standard of care that school districts must meet. When a district fails to implement, communicate, or enforce the zero-tolerance policy the law requires, that failure is the foundation of a negligence claim. Rhode Island’s Tort Claims Act permits lawsuits against governmental entities, though recovery against the district itself is capped at $100,000 per claim unless the district has waived the cap through insurance or individual defendants expand the recovery pool.
How long do I have to file a hazing lawsuit in Rhode Island?
Rhode Island’s personal injury statute of limitations is three years from the date of the injury. For wrongful death, the same three-year window applies from the date of death. However, the evidence that wins hazing cases — text messages, social media posts, surveillance footage, and witness memories — degrades in weeks, not years. The legal deadline is generous; the evidence deadline is not. Contact a lawyer as soon as you suspect hazing occurred, not when you are certain.
What if the school says my child “volunteered” for the hazing?
Rhode Island follows a pure comparative negligence system, which means your child’s own participation does not bar recovery — it only reduces the award by the percentage of fault a jury assigns. More importantly, “volunteering” under peer pressure, social threat, or the power imbalance between upperclassmen and new team members is not genuine consent. The law recognizes that a 14-year-old who “agrees” to be hazed because the alternative is being ostracized from the team is not making a free choice. The school’s duty to protect students from hazing exists regardless of whether the student submitted to it.
Does the $100,000 Tort Claims Act cap apply to coaches and individual school employees?
Generally, no. The Rhode Island Tort Claims Act caps recovery against the state and its political subdivisions — including school districts. But individual employees — coaches, teachers, administrators — are not political subdivisions. Claims against them for their own negligent or intentional conduct may exceed the $100,000 cap, and punitive damages may be available for willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. A coach who knowingly permitted or facilitated hazing is an individual defendant the cap does not protect.
What if the hazing happened at a private school or club team in Rhode Island?
The 2026 law focuses on public schools, but it establishes a statewide standard of care that applies to all Rhode Island educational environments. Private schools do not enjoy the Tort Claims Act cap — their insurance coverage, not the government’s liability ceiling, governs what is recoverable. If your child was hazed at a private school, a club sports team, or a third-party athletic program, the recovery potential may be significantly higher than against a public school district alone.
What evidence should I preserve if my child was hazed?
Everything — but prioritize in this order: (1) your child’s phone (screenshots, texts, GroupMe logs, social media posts, videos), (2) medical records from any ER or doctor visit, (3) photographs of any physical injuries, (4) the names and contact information of any witnesses or other parents who reported similar incidents, (5) any written communication from the school about the incident. Do not delete anything from your child’s phone, and do not let your child confront anyone online. A preservation letter from a lawyer freezes the school’s evidence before it can disappear.
Can I sue if the hazing happened before the 2026 law was passed?
That depends on the specific facts and whether the prior conduct violated existing Rhode Island law — including the Safe Schools Act, which already governs bullying and cyberbullying. The new law strengthens the standard of care going forward, but hazing that occurred before its passage may still be actionable under pre-existing negligence, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress theories. The three-year statute of limitations means conduct from the past three years may still be within the filing window. Call us to discuss the specific timeline.
What if the school wants to “handle it internally” — should I let them?
No. School-led internal investigations serve the school’s interests, not your child’s. The school’s investigator is not neutral — they work for the institution that may be liable. Statements your child gives in those interviews can be used to shift blame. Always have legal representation before your child sits for any school interview. A lawyer ensures the process is fair, the questions are appropriate, and your child’s rights are protected.
What does it cost to hire a hazing lawyer?
Our firm works on contingency. That means we do not get paid unless we win your case. The fee is 33.33% of the recovery before trial and 40% if the case goes to trial. The consultation is free. You pay nothing out of pocket — we front the costs of investigation, expert witnesses, and litigation, and those costs are recovered from the settlement or verdict. If we do not win, you owe us nothing for our time. Learn how contingency fees work in this short video.
Is what happened to my child actually “hazing” under Rhode Island law?
Hazing is any act that endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation or admission into, or affiliation with, any school-sponsored group — including athletic teams. It includes forced consumption of food, alcohol, or drugs; physical beatings or paddling; sleep deprivation; forced servitude; public humiliation; sexualized acts; and any ritual that a reasonable person would find degrading, abusive, or dangerous. If what happened to your child fits this description — and if the sponsor of the new law calls it “degrading, abusive, and dangerous” — it is hazing. Call us and we will help you confirm it.
Why Our Firm: The People Who Will Fight for Your Child
Ralph Manginello has spent 27 years in courtrooms, including federal court. He is a journalist by training — he knows how to investigate, how to build a story from evidence, and how to tell it to a jury so they feel what your family felt. Ralph is lead counsel in the active $10M hazing lawsuit against the University of Houston and Pi Kappa Phi fraternity — a case that has put him inside the machinery of hazing litigation at the highest level. That experience — the discovery fights, the expert witnesses, the institutional resistance — transfers directly to what Rhode Island families now face under the new law. Read more about Ralph.
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their lawyers decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He sat at the other table. He knows how they set reserves in the first 48 hours, how they engineer the “friendly” recorded statement, how they use valuation software to discount pain they cannot see. Now he sits on your side of the table, and he uses that inside knowledge to build cases the insurance company cannot lowball. Lupe conducts full client consultations in Spanish — without an interpreter. Read more about Lupe.
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are Legal Emergency Lawyers. The hotline is 1-888-ATTY-911 (1-888-288-9911). We have live staff 24 hours a day — not an answering service, not a voicemail, a person. The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless we win your case. We have recovered more than $50 million for injured clients over 24 years of practice. Hablamos Español.
If your child was hazed in a Rhode Island school — public or private, on a team or in a club — the law just changed in your favor. The school has a new duty it cannot escape. The evidence is on a clock. And the first call you make determines whether that evidence survives long enough to matter. Contact us today. We will tell you, honestly, whether you have a case — and if we are not the right fit for your family, we will tell you that too.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its specific facts. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. Nothing on this page creates an attorney-client relationship. Contacting the firm is free and confidential.