Direct: (781) 308-2554

Attorney Landry is a 1981 graduate of The Johns Hopkins University and a 1984 cum laude graduate of Suffolk University Law School. Attorney Landry served as an Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from 1985 through 1987. Upon entering private practice in 1987, Attorney Landry focused his practice on the representation of clients before the state and federal trial and appellate courts in a wide range of disputes, including personal injury and wrongful death actions, liquor liability claims, premises liability claims, product liability claims, civil rights actions, professional liability litigation, employment discrimination actions, foreclosure defense proceedings, public and private construction litigation, and criminal defense. Attorney Landry served as a Special Assistant Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and as Special Counsel to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Mental Health and the Department of Corrections, in the defense of civil rights actions. Attorney Landry has extensive trial and appellate experience at all levels of the state and federal court systems.


Reported Cases

Thomas v. EDI Specialists, Inc., 437 Mass. 536 (2002)
In a decision ranked by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly as one of the five most important decisions in 2002, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected an employer’s argument that a company accused of gender and pregnancy discrimination had a right to bring a claim for contribution against an employee the company accused of participating in the acts of discrimination.

Lemire v. Silva, 104 F. Supp. 3d 80 (D. Mass. 2000)
In an action for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, for disability discrimination under Massachusetts law, and for invasion of privacy and other state law tort claims, the United States District Court held that a high school coach had presented a prima facie case of discrimination, ruling that the coach had proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she was disabled within the meaning of the law, that she was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job, and that the school district’s stated reason for her termination was pretextual and discriminatory.

Mohr v. Commonwealth, 421 Mass. 147 (1995)
In a landmark case, the Supreme Judicial Court first recognized the right of adoptive parents to assert a claim for wrongful adoption, but found no liability on the part of the social worker who handled the adoption for the Department of Public Welfare, the predecessor state agency to the Department of Social Services.

Dobos v. Driscoll, 404 Mass. 634 (1989), cert den. 493 U.S. 850, 110 S. Ct. 149 (1989)
Defense of supervisory Massachusetts State Police officials on claims brought under both the federal civil rights acts and the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act.

Fitzgerald v. Expressway Sewerage, 177 F. 3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999)
Evidentiary implications of the Massachusetts collateral source in a federal diversity action.

McCoy v. Town of Kingston, 68 Mass.App.Ct. 819 (2007)
Interpreting a municipal official’s right to indemnification under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act.