Massachusetts Sexual Assault: When a Teacher Is Charged With Child Rape — Your Rights, the School’s Liability, and the Evidence That Disappears Fastest
You are sitting in a kitchen or a living room in Massachusetts at an hour when nobody should be awake, and you have just learned that a teacher — someone you handed your child to every morning, someone the school told you to trust — has been charged with child rape. The teacher pleaded not guilty. The words keep replaying. Your child is somewhere in the house, maybe sleeping, maybe not, and the distance between what you thought was happening at that school and what was actually happening feels like the ground has opened under your family.
We are going to tell you what the law actually says, what the school’s own obligations were, what evidence exists right now and how fast it can legally disappear, and what the fight ahead looks like — not in vague reassurances, but in the specific, verifiable terms a trial lawyer uses when building this kind of case. We handle sexual assault and institutional negligence cases. Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court, and before he was a lawyer he was a journalist — he knows how to find the story the institution does not want told. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm, in the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours — and he now uses that knowledge for the families on the other side of the table. This page is written for you, at whatever hour you are reading it.
The Criminal Case and the Civil Case Are Two Separate Fights
The teacher pleaded not guilty. That is the criminal case — the Commonwealth of Massachusetts prosecuting the teacher on behalf of the state. The prosecutor must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest burden in the legal system, and the teacher is entitled to a presumption of innocence. That case belongs to the district attorney’s office, not to your family.
But the criminal case is not the only case. The civil case is yours. It is a separate lawsuit, in a separate courtroom (or negotiation), with a lower burden of proof — a preponderance of the evidence, meaning “more likely than not.” Your family does not have to wait for the criminal case to finish. The civil case can proceed even if the criminal case ends in an acquittal, because the two systems apply different standards to different questions. The criminal court asks whether the state proved the teacher committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil court asks whether the teacher caused your child harm and whether the school that employed the teacher failed in its duty to protect your child.
This distinction matters because the school — the institution that hired the teacher, supervised the teacher, and placed your child in that classroom — is almost never a defendant in the criminal case. The school is a defendant in the civil case. And the school’s own failures — in hiring, in supervision, in responding to warning signs — are what turn a terrible individual act into an institutional liability.
What Massachusetts Law Says About Sexual Assault and the Statute of Limitations
Massachusetts imposes a three-year statute of limitations on most personal injury claims, including sexual assault civil claims. That three-year clock generally starts running from the date the assault occurred — but the law recognizes that children cannot be expected to file lawsuits, and that the psychological injuries of sexual abuse often do not surface, or get connected to the abuse, until years later.
For children, Massachusetts applies principles that can extend the filing window. The discovery rule — a doctrine recognized across the United States — holds that the clock may not start on the date of the abuse but on the date the survivor discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that their injuries were caused by the sexual assault. For a child who was abused by a teacher, the connection between current psychological suffering and past abuse may not become clear until adolescence or adulthood. Massachusetts law recognizes this reality.
“More than 1 in 5 women and 1 in 31 men have experienced completed or attempted rape in their lifetimes.” — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
That CDC finding is not a statistic. It is a statement about how foreseeable this danger is — and foreseeability is the foundation of every institutional liability claim. A school cannot call sexual abuse by a teacher a freak event when the federal government’s own data identifies sexual violence as one of the most common crimes in the country.
If your child was the victim, the window to act may be longer than you fear — but it is not infinite, and the evidence that proves the case is dying on a much shorter clock than the statute of limitations. We will get to that.
The School’s Civil Liability: Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention
When a teacher sexually assaults a student, the teacher is the perpetrator — but the school that put that teacher in a classroom with children, and failed to supervise them adequately, has its own liability under Massachusetts law. This is not vicarious liability for every act an employee commits. This is direct negligence by the institution: the school itself failed to do what a reasonable school would have done to protect the children in its care.
Negligent hiring asks whether the school performed adequate background checks before hiring the teacher. Did it check references? Did it verify employment history? Did it look for gaps in the resume that might indicate a problem at a prior school? Did it conduct a criminal background check? In Massachusetts, schools are required to conduct CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) checks on employees who will have direct contact with children. A school that skipped or shortcutted this process is liable for the consequences.
Negligent supervision asks whether the school provided adequate oversight of the teacher once hired. Were there policies prohibiting teachers from being alone with students? Were those policies enforced? Was the teacher allowed to communicate with students through private channels — personal email, text messages, social media — without any monitoring? Were there complaints or warning signs that were ignored? A school that gave a teacher unrestricted, unmonitored access to children without adequate supervision policies has failed in its duty.
Negligent retention asks whether the school knew, or should have known, that the teacher posed a risk to students and kept the teacher employed anyway. Had another student or parent complained? Had a colleague raised concerns? Had the teacher been the subject of an internal investigation? A school that receives a warning sign and does not act — or acts with a whisper and a transfer instead of a full investigation — is choosing to keep a dangerous person in contact with children.
Title IX: The Federal Claim Against the School
If the school receives federal funding — which virtually every public school and many private schools do — Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 creates an additional federal claim. Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in education, and courts have held that sexual assault and sexual harassment by a teacher constitutes sex discrimination.
To hold the school liable under Title IX, the Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff generally must show that the school had actual knowledge of the harassment or assault and was deliberately indifferent to it — meaning the school’s response was clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances. This is a high bar, but it is a separate federal cause of action that can run alongside the state negligence claims, and it can reach the school district’s deeper pockets.
Massachusetts Mandatory Reporting: The Duty the School May Have Broken
Massachusetts law requires certain professionals — including teachers, school counselors, and administrators — to report suspected child abuse to the Department of Children and Families (DCF). The duty is immediate. A teacher or administrator who has reason to suspect a child is being abused by another staff member is legally required to report it. A school that learned of warning signs and did not report them — or conducted an internal “investigation” instead of notifying DCF — has broken a Massachusetts legal duty. That failure is itself evidence of negligence and can support both the civil claim and a claim for punitive damages.
Premises Liability and Negligent Security: When the Property Enables the Crime
Sexual assault cases often involve not just the perpetrator but the property where the assault occurred. In Massachusetts, property owners — including schools, hotels, apartment complexes, and parking lot operators — owe a duty of reasonable care to people lawfully on their premises. That duty extends to protecting against foreseeable criminal acts of third parties.
We see this principle at work in cases far beyond the classroom. In one documented case, a hotel faced a sexual assault lawsuit for negligent security after a guest was attacked on the property — the claim being that the hotel knew about prior incidents and failed to implement basic safety measures. The same legal framework applies to a school that failed to monitor its hallways, a landlord that ignored broken locks in a building where an assault occurred, or any property owner whose neglect created the conditions for a sexual assault to happen.
The news story that brought many readers to this page — a body found inside a donation box after a witness reported smelling a decompositional odor for weeks — is a devastating illustration of how institutional neglect allows harm to go undetected. Whoever owned, operated, or maintained that donation box failed to inspect it for weeks. That failure is the same type of failure we see in schools that ignore warning signs, in hotels that do not fix broken door locks, and in institutions that look away when a child is being harmed. The legal principle is the same: when an entity has a duty to maintain safe conditions and fails to do so, it is responsible for the harm that results.
Our firm handles premises liability and negligent security cases across the country, working with local counsel in Massachusetts where required. The principles do not change because the state line does — a school in Massachusetts has the same fundamental duty to protect children as a hotel in any other state has to protect its guests.
The Medicine of Sexual Assault Trauma: Why the Injury Is Real Even When It Is Invisible
One of the cruelest things about sexual assault cases is that the most devastating injuries are the ones that do not show up on an X-ray. The defense will exploit this. They will point to the absence of physical injury, the normal-appearing scan, the fact that the child “seems fine” at school — and they will argue the harm is exaggerated or fabricated.
The science says otherwise. Post-traumatic stress disorder is not a mood or a label. It is a formal psychiatric diagnosis with eight separate diagnostic criteria under the DSM-5, and a survivor must meet every one of them: the traumatic event, the intrusive memories and nightmares that will not stop, the avoidance of reminders, the negative changes in mood and thinking, the hyperarousal and reactivity, the duration of more than one month, the functional impairment, and the exclusion of other causes. This is a medical diagnosis, not a lawyer’s opinion.
Research has established that rape carries the highest conditional probability of producing PTSD of any traumatic event measured — more likely to cause lasting psychological injury than combat, than a car wreck, than a natural disaster. When a school ignores a danger and a child is sexually assaulted, the lifelong psychological harm that follows is the most predictable outcome in trauma medicine. It is not speculative. It is foreseeable.
One finding that matters in every case involving a child who “didn’t fight back”: tonic immobility. In clinical studies of sexual assault survivors, approximately 70% reported experiencing significant tonic immobility — an involuntary, brainstem-mediated paralysis where the body literally locks up and the voice will not come. It is a survival reflex, not consent. The children who froze were not cooperating. They were experiencing the most severe form of a documented trauma response, and survivors who experienced extreme tonic immobility go on to develop PTSD at nearly three times the rate of those who did not.
The Proof Problem: PTSD Is Invisible, and the Defense Knows It
Because PTSD has no blood test and no fracture to point to on a scan, the defense playbook in sexual assault cases relies on four attacks:
-
“She’s faking for money.” The counter is the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria plus validated clinical instruments — the CAPS-5 (Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale) and the PCL-5 (PTSD Checklist) — which create an objective, scored record of the injury that a treating clinician stands behind.
-
“She was already anxious / had prior trauma.” The eggshell-plaintiff doctrine, recognized across U.S. jurisdictions, holds that a defendant takes the victim as found. A pre-existing vulnerability that made the harm worse does not reduce the defendant’s liability — it can enlarge the damages.
-
“She didn’t report right away.” Delayed disclosure is the norm for child sexual abuse, not the exception. The DSM-5 expressly recognizes a “delayed expression” specifier — full PTSD criteria can first appear six months or more after the event. Delay is built into the diagnostic manual the defense’s own experts use.
-
“The timeline doesn’t add up.” Trauma can affect how memories are encoded and recalled. A survivor who remembers the smell of the room and the sound of the voice with brutal clarity but struggles to put the events in chronological order is describing a normal trauma-memory pattern, not a fabricated story.
Evidence Preservation: What Exists Right Now and How Fast It Disappears
This is the section that matters most if you are reading this page in the first days and weeks after learning what happened. The evidence that proves your case is on a clock, and some of it is dying faster than you think.
School personnel records and internal complaint files. The teacher’s employment file — application, references, background check results, prior complaints, internal investigation notes, performance evaluations — is the spine of a negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim. These records exist in the school’s HR system, but school districts routinely purge or archive employee files on fixed retention schedules. A preservation letter — a formal demand that the school freeze and preserve all records related to the teacher and the case — must go out immediately. Without it, records that show prior warning signs can be legally destroyed under routine retention policies.
Student records and school communications. Your child’s school records, emails between the teacher and your child, grades, behavioral notes, counselor records, and any disciplinary or incident reports involving the teacher are all evidence. School email systems may purge messages on 30, 60, or 90-day cycles. The school’s IT policies on email retention vary, and without a preservation demand, the emails that prove grooming behavior — the boundary-testing messages, the private communications, the requests to meet alone — can be gone before anyone asks for them.
DCF reports and investigative records. If a report was made to the Department of Children and Families, the investigative file is evidence. DCF records are subject to their own retention schedules and confidentiality rules. They must be requested through the proper legal channels.
Electronic communications. Text messages, social media messages, emails, and app-based communications between the teacher and your child (or between the teacher and other students) are critical evidence. These exist on devices, on platform servers, and in carrier records — each with its own retention window. Carrier records can be purged in as little as 90 days to one year. Platform data can be deleted by the user. Preservation letters should be sent to carriers and platforms immediately.
Witness statements. Other students, parents, teachers, and staff who noticed warning signs — a teacher who was alone with students too often, a colleague who raised concerns, a parent who complained about boundary violations — have memories that degrade. The specifics of what they saw and when they saw it become less precise within weeks. Sworn statements should be taken as early as possible.
Physical evidence. If a forensic examination was conducted — a SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) exam at a Massachusetts hospital — the physical evidence kit and the examination records are critical. The retention of untested kits varies, and the physical evidence window is narrow. If an exam was conducted, the records must be preserved.
The single most important thing: a preservation letter goes out the day you call us. Not after the criminal case. Not after the school finishes its internal investigation. Not after the insurance company calls. The day you call. Everything else is built on the evidence that survives, and evidence that was not preserved cannot be recovered.
The Insurance Adjuster’s Playbook: What They Will Try and How We Counter
When a school, a hotel, or any institution faces a sexual assault claim, an insurance adjuster goes to work — often within 48 hours of the incident being reported. Lupe Peña sat in those rooms. He knows the plays because he ran them. Here are the ones you will see:
Play 1: The friendly “just checking in” call. An adjuster or school representative calls the family, expresses sympathy, and asks the family to “just tell us what happened” — on a recording. The purpose is to lock in a statement before the family has counsel, before the full facts are known, and before the child has been evaluated by a trauma specialist. A statement taken without representation is built to be quoted against you later.
The counter: Do not give a recorded statement without counsel. You are not required to. The adjuster’s sympathy is genuine in the sense that they are a human being, but their job is to minimize the claim, and the recording is a tool for that job.
Play 2: The fast settlement offer. A check arrives quickly — sometimes within weeks — with a release attached. The amount may seem significant to a family facing medical bills and counseling costs, but it is a fraction of what the case is worth. The release, once signed, extinguishes all claims forever — including claims the family does not yet know they have, because the full extent of the child’s psychological injuries has not yet been diagnosed.
The counter: No settlement check should be signed before the child has been fully evaluated by a qualified trauma specialist, before the full scope of the school’s negligence has been investigated, and before a life-care plan or damages assessment has been prepared. A check that arrives before any of those things is not generosity. It is strategy.
Play 3: The “she’s at fault too” argument. The defense will look for any fact that can be twisted into comparative fault — the child did not tell anyone, the child “consented” (legally impossible for a minor in a statutory rape case, but the defense may try to muddy the waters), the child “led the teacher on.” In Massachusetts, modified comparative negligence applies: if the plaintiff is 51% or more at fault, recovery is barred; if 50% or less, recovery is reduced by that percentage. Every percentage point the defense pins on the child is money.
The counter: A child cannot be contributorily negligent for being sexually abused by a teacher. The power imbalance, the authority dynamic, the grooming process — these are not mutual decisions. The defense’s attempt to shift blame to a child is both morally repugnant and legally weak, but it must be anticipated and dismantled with the facts of the grooming dynamic and the law of authority-figure abuse.
Play 4: The “the school didn’t know” defense. The school will argue it had no notice of the teacher’s dangerousness — no prior complaints, no warning signs, no reason to suspect. This is almost never fully true. Grooming behavior leaves a trail: boundary violations observed by colleagues, excessive attention to one student, private communications, time spent alone with students behind closed doors.
The counter: The preservation letter and discovery process are designed to find that trail. Internal emails, personnel files, colleague statements, parent complaints, and prior DCF reports — the school’s own records are the evidence that the school knew or should have known.
What Your Case Is Worth: Honest Numbers, Not Promises
We will not tell you what your case is worth until we have reviewed the evidence, the school’s records, and your child’s medical and psychological evaluation. But we can tell you how the number is built and what the ranges look like.
The CDC has published peer-reviewed research estimating the lifetime economic cost of a single rape at more than $122,000 per survivor — and that figure, based on 2014 dollars, counts only medical care, lost productivity, and criminal-justice costs. It does not begin to measure the nightmares, the lost trust, the fractured family, the childhood that was stolen, or the years of therapy that may be needed. It is a floor, not a ceiling.
For sexual assault by a teacher in a school setting, the damages categories include:
- Medical and psychological treatment costs — past and future therapy, psychiatric care, medication, inpatient treatment if needed
- Lost earning capacity — if the trauma affects the child’s educational trajectory, career path, or ability to work
- Pain and suffering — the psychological injury, the PTSD, the loss of the childhood the child should have had
- Loss of consortium — the family’s loss of the relationship with the child as it was before
- Punitive damages — if the school’s conduct was grossly negligent, willful, or in conscious disregard of the child’s safety, Massachusetts law allows punitive damages in appropriate cases
In cases where the school had prior warning signs and ignored them — where a parent had complained, where a colleague had raised concerns, where the teacher had been the subject of an internal investigation — the case value rises dramatically. A school that knew and did nothing is not just negligent. It made a choice, and a jury will see that choice for what it was.
For cases involving wrongful death — where a sexual assault victim died as a result of the assault or its aftermath — Massachusetts provides a separate wrongful death claim with its own damages framework, including the full value of the life of the deceased, funeral and burial expenses, and the loss of the relationship to surviving family members.
In the donation box case that made headlines — where a body went undetected for weeks because no one inspected the bin — if the death is connected to a sexual assault, the premises liability claim against the property owner and donation box operator adds a separate layer of civil liability on top of any criminal prosecution. The weeks of detectable odor that the witness reported establish constructive notice: the condition existed long enough that a reasonable operator would have discovered it. That same principle — constructive notice — applies to a school that had weeks or months of warning signs and did not act.
Case value ranges for institutional sexual assault cases vary widely based on the severity of the harm, the extent of the institution’s negligence, the available insurance coverage, and the jurisdiction. Low-end cases where the institutional negligence is minimal and the child’s injuries are moderate may settle in the range of $150,000 to $400,000. Cases involving clear institutional negligence, severe psychological harm, and strong insurance coverage can reach $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 or more. Cases involving gross institutional negligence — prior complaints ignored, mandatory reporting violations, deliberate concealment — with catastrophic harm to the child can exceed those ranges significantly, particularly if punitive damages are available.
These are not predictions. They are the framework a life-care planner and a forensic economist use to build the actual number for your child’s specific case. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do and What Not to Do
Do:
– Get your child to a qualified trauma specialist — a psychologist or psychiatrist experienced in child sexual abuse. The medical and psychological record is the foundation of the injury proof.
– If a forensic exam has not been done, ask whether one should be. Massachusetts hospitals have SANE programs staffed by nurses trained in sexual assault evidence collection.
– Preserve every electronic communication — screenshots of text messages, emails, social media messages, app communications. Do not delete anything.
– Write down everything you remember about the timeline — when your child’s behavior changed, what the school told you, what teachers or other parents said, when you first suspected something was wrong.
– Contact us. The preservation letter goes out the day you call.
Do not:
– Do not give a recorded statement to the school’s insurance adjuster, the school’s attorney, or anyone representing the school without your own counsel present.
– Do not sign any release, settlement, or waiver from the school or its insurer without having it reviewed by an attorney.
– Do not post about the case on social media. The defense will mine every post, photo, and comment for material that can be twisted into “the child seems fine” or “the family is doing this for money.”
– Do not confront the teacher, the school administration, or anyone involved. That can compromise both the criminal investigation and the civil case.
– Do not wait. The evidence clock is already running.
Massachusetts Comparative Negligence: What It Means for Your Case
Massachusetts follows a modified comparative negligence rule. Under this rule, if the person bringing the claim is found to be 51% or more at fault for their own injuries, they cannot recover anything. If they are 50% or less at fault, their recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault.
In a child sexual assault case involving a teacher, the defense will try to assign some percentage of fault to the child — arguing the child did not report sooner, did not resist, or “participated” in the relationship. This is a grotesque argument in the context of an adult teacher and a minor student, where the power dynamic makes genuine consent legally impossible. But the defense will make it because every percentage point they assign to the child reduces the payout.
Our answer is direct: a child cannot be negligent for being sexually abused by an adult in a position of authority. The grooming process, the authority imbalance, the psychological manipulation — these are the mechanisms by which the teacher created the conditions for the abuse, and the child’s response to those mechanisms is not contributory fault. It is the foreseeable reaction of a child to an adult’s criminal conduct.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can we sue the school if the teacher pleaded not guilty?
Yes. The criminal case and the civil case are separate. The criminal case must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil case must prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence — more likely than not. The school’s civil liability for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention does not depend on a criminal conviction. It depends on whether the school failed in its own duty to protect your child.
How long do we have to file a claim in Massachusetts?
Massachusetts imposes a three-year statute of limitations on most personal injury and sexual assault civil claims. For children, the clock may be extended — the discovery rule can start the timer on the date the survivor connected the harm to the abuse, not the date of the abuse itself. But the evidence that proves the case — school records, electronic communications, witness memories — dies on a much shorter timeline than the statute of limitations. The deadline to sue and the deadline to save the evidence are two different clocks, and the evidence clock is the one that matters most in the first weeks.
What if the school says it had no idea the teacher was dangerous?
That is what the school will say. It is almost never the full truth. Grooming behavior leaves a trail — colleagues who noticed the teacher spending too much time alone with a student, parents who raised concerns, internal communications, prior complaints that were quietly handled. The preservation letter and the discovery process are designed to find that trail. A school that says “we had no idea” is a school that has not yet been required to produce its records.
Is my child going to have to testify?
That depends on the path the case takes. Many sexual assault civil cases settle before trial, in which case your child would not testify. If the case does go to trial, Massachusetts has provisions to protect child witnesses, and the decision about whether your child testifies is one we make with you, with your child’s therapist, and with a full understanding of the cost-benefit. Your child’s well-being is not secondary to the case — it is the reason the case exists.
What if the school is a public school — can we sue a government entity?
Yes, but claims against public entities in Massachusetts involve specific procedural requirements and notice deadlines that are shorter than the general statute of limitations. A claim against a public school district may require formal notice within a specific period — sometimes as short as a matter of months from the date you discovered the harm. This is one of the most important reasons to call a lawyer early: the government-claim notice deadline can pass before the general statute of limitations even becomes relevant.
Will the teacher’s criminal case affect our civil case?
The criminal case and the civil case are separate, but they interact. A criminal conviction is strong evidence in the civil case — it establishes that the assault occurred beyond a reasonable doubt, which exceeds the civil burden. A criminal acquittal does not prevent the civil case from proceeding, because the civil burden of proof is lower. The civil case can proceed regardless of the criminal outcome, but the timing and strategy may be affected by what happens in the criminal courtroom.
What if the assault happened months or years ago?
It may not be too late. The discovery rule — recognized in Massachusetts and across the country — can start the statute-of-limitations clock on the date the survivor discovered or reasonably should have discovered that their injuries were caused by the abuse, rather than the date of the abuse itself. For children who were sexually abused by a teacher, the connection between current suffering and past abuse may not become clear for years. Call us. We will tell you honestly whether the window is still open.
How much does it cost to hire Attorney911?
Nothing upfront. We work on contingency — 33.33% before trial, 40% if the case goes to trial. We do not get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. The first conversation costs you nothing and tells you whether you have a case, what the evidence clock looks like, and what the next steps are.
Why This Firm
We are Attorney911 — The Manginello Law Firm, PLLC. We are a trial firm that takes Massachusetts sexual assault and institutional negligence cases, working with local counsel and pro hac vice admission where required. We do not claim an office in Massachusetts, and we will not pretend to something we are not. What we bring is 27-plus years of trial experience, the insider knowledge of a former insurance-defense attorney who knows exactly how the other side prices and defends these claims, and the conviction that an institution that fails to protect a child should answer for that failure in full.
Ralph Manginello has been licensed in Texas since November 6, 1998, and is admitted to federal court — the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer, which means he knows how to find the story the school does not want told. He is currently lead counsel in the active $10 million-plus Bermudez v. Pi Kappa Phi / University of Houston hazing lawsuit — a case about institutional accountability for what happens to a young person when the institution looks away. That same principle drives the work we do in sexual assault cases.
Lupe Peña has been licensed since 2012 and spent his early career at a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue claims exactly like yours. He knows how the reserve is set in the first 48 hours. He knows how the recorded-statement call is engineered. He knows which doctors the insurer picks for independent medical exams and how the surveillance works. He now uses all of that knowledge for the families on the other side of the table. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter.
Our aggregate recoveries exceed $50 million. We have recovered $5 million-plus in a brain-injury settlement, $3.8 million-plus in an amputation settlement, $2.5 million-plus in a truck-crash recovery. These are not predictions for your case. They are proof that we know how to build a number and fight for it. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
If Your Child Was Sexually Assaulted by a Teacher in Massachusetts
The school that employed that teacher has a duty to answer for what happened. The evidence that proves the school knew — or should have known — is on a clock, and the clock is already running. The preservation letter goes out the day you call. The consultation is free. We do not get paid unless we win your case.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. That is 1-888-288-9911. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week — a live person, not an answering service.
Hablamos Español. Lupe Peña conducts full consultations in Spanish without an interpreter. If your family is more comfortable in Spanish, we will speak to you in your language.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case is different. Contacting the firm is free and confidential. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.