Lawyers Of The Year 2006
MICHAEL L. ALTMAN
Boston
Born: Dec. 25, 1941; Boston
Education: Boston College Law School (1966); Harvard University, LLM (1968); Bowdoin College (1963)
Bar admission: 1966
Professional experience: Altman, Riley, Esher (2002-present); Rubin & Rudman (1990-2002); Silverglate, Gertner, Fine & Good (1987-1989); Boston College Law School (1986); tenured law professor, Arizona State in Tempe (1973-1986); professor, professor, University of Southampton, England (1979); assistant district attorney, Suffolk County (1978); legal services, Boston (1968-1973); assistant attorney general (1967); federal court law clerk, Southern District of New York (1966)
Professional affiliations: Massachusetts and Boston bar associations, board of directors of American Civil Liberties Union, board of directors of Paige Academy in Roxbury
It took more than a decade for attorney Michael L. Altman to get justice for his client, Marguerite Rafuse, the mother of murdered gynecologist Dr. Linda Goudey. It came not in the form of a criminal conviction, but rather in an extraordinary $15 million civil verdict for wrongful death against Goudey's boyfriend, Dr. Timothy Stryker.
The first case in the country in which a prosecutor was ordered to turn over files to a plaintiff's attorney, the Goudey case was wrought with legal hurdles, including several lengthy appeals and a protracted battle to gain access to those records. Additionally, Altman faced the challenge of not having any direct or forensic evidence, a confession or eyewitness testimony to prove that Stryker had strangled Goudey in 1993.
Wearing what sometimes felt like the hats of both criminal prosecutor and civil litigator, Altman had to rely on circumstantial evidence to show a pattern of abusive behavior between the two doctors and on what he refers to as his "silent witnesses." Working in his favor was also the fact that Stryker had skipped his girlfriend's memorial services and reinstated a trip to the Caribbean after her death.
After only one day of deliberating, the jury returned this year's third-largest verdict in Massachusetts, an award that Altman says is fully deserved, even though a criminal conviction was the family's hope.
* * *
Q. Why do you think the verdict in this case was so large?
A. This was a wrongful-death case growing out of a murder. It was the murder of an incredibly vibrant, talented woman, who was just getting into her career as an OB/GYN. She had her whole life in front of her, and it was squeezed out of her. When the jury heard what was done to her and how it was done, they clearly wanted to punish the defendant, and they did by awarding $8.9 million in punitive damages.
The context here was very dramatic. It had to do with a doctor strangling a doctor. There was an expert who testified that strangling someone is not so easy, and that she would have had to survive at least 10 to 12 minutes while he deprived her of oxygen. There was plenty of evidence of a struggle. There were wounds all over her face and upper body. The jury had to decide what is it like to have to face your lover and have him try to strangle you and have to fight back and resist; and the jury said $2.5 million.
Q. You referred to "silent witnesses," which were items of Goudey's found at Stryker's residence. Why were these so important in terms of evidence?
A. There were numerous witnesses who testified that she had a briefcase with her on the morning when she went to work. Then the next place it appears is in his apartment. He testified that he didn't see her from Wednesday on. This was Thursday morning. If he didn't see her, how did these items get to her apartment? I argued this was some of the circumstantial evidence pointing at him. There was also a jacket, which he tried to say was his, but there were numerous witnesses who indicated that that jacket in fact belonged to her.
Q. Did you hear comparisons to the O.J. Simpson case while working on this case?
A. There are some similarities. In arguing to the court why the verdict was not excessive, we referred to the $25 million verdict that was upheld in Goldman and Simpson. There are some similarities in the sense that there's a murder and then a wrongful-death case. One of the big differences that made our case a lot harder was there had been no prosecution. All of the evidence [in the Simpson case] was fully available to the plaintiffs from the District Attorney's Office in California. In Massachusetts, there was an open homicide case. We had to convince the court to allow us to have access to that. We couldn't have done the case without having access to that evidence.
Q. How does that work in an evidentiary matter when you have a civil and criminal proceeding taking place consecutively?
A. This doesn't happen very often. This case is the first case in the United States in which a prosecutor was ordered to turn over their investigative file to the plaintiff's lawyer. There is a lot of litigation, including some litigation in Massachusetts, under the Public Records Statute having to deal with cases which are already prosecuted. Prosecutors historically get anxious if anyone looks at what they have before they're ready to use it. The prosecutor was anxious in this case, but the court said our interest in having it outweighed the prosecutor's need to keep it, since 10 years had gone by and there had been no use of it.
Q. The case is also unique because of the timeline. Was it this protracted battle over access to the prosecution's files that took so long?
A. We didn't file this case until three or four days before the statute of limitations would have expired in 1996. In the beginning, [we] were hopeful that there would be a prosecution, and we were just trying to preserve our rights. There was no particular reason to push the case. As time went by, it became increasingly clear that it was unlikely there would be a prosecution. Of the 13 years involved, it was three years until we filed the case, there was about two years of going slow to try and see what the DA's Office would do, and the remaining 10 years were spent fighting it out in the Superior Court, the Appeals Court and the [Supreme Judicial Court] in order to get access to the records.
Q. What did the prosecution feel it was missing that you felt like you had?
A. They had two things: no statute of limitation, so they could wait until they thought it was the propitious moment to bring the case; and they did not want to bring it too early, because if they brought it too early and lost, that was the end. Double jeopardy would preclude later prosecution even if some more wonderful evidence had spilled out to them. It is clear that they thought there would be too much difficulty getting a jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt for them to bring their case. They hoped that someone would come forward with statements that Stryker made, or more forensic evidence would come out. The difficulty in the case was that it was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
Q. Do you see this case as setting a dangerous precedent?
A. No. I don't think it's a dangerous precedent at all. I think that, over the years, prosecutors have been much too anal about their need to control their files. I used to do a lot of criminal work and taught criminal law for a number of years. I can remember back when there was almost no discovery allowed in criminal cases. You used to have to go to court and just take the evidence as it came. And the argument was that if you gave copies of police reports or confessions or witness statements, that criminals would use that in order to manufacture excuses and avoid prosecution. The reality is that that has totally opened up, and for the most part, in criminal cases, you get an open file from the prosecutor and people are prosecuted. And I'm sure the success rate is just as high as it ever was.
Q. If Dr. Goudey's family receives less money — a lot less, perhaps — than this actual verdict, do you think they are happy simply to have had Dr. Stryker found responsible for her death?
A. I think that they feel the more responsible, the better. They lost their daughter and sister, and meanwhile Stryker has carried on his life, got married, had, I think, three kids. He has a medical practice out of the same building he practiced from. So his life is ongoing. If he has to pay a heavy price so that he can't benefit in any way from the fact that he has lived while she has died, I think the family would want that.
* * *
Michael Altman on ...
His most memorable moment at law school: Being drilled by my torts professor, Jim Smith
Highlight of his legal career: The Arizona Sanctuary case [United States v. Aguilar, in which Altman represented nuns, priests and ministers accused of smuggling Central Americans into the U.S.]; Stewart v. Phillips, a class-action suit challenging the special education system in Boston, which later led to G.L.c. 766
How he celebrates a big win: The big wins have all been celebrated by going to some place — like we went to the Sonesta and just sat around and kicked back and had a vodka martini and laughed.
How he deals with a big loss: I don't take losses well. I get very gloomy. I don't lose too often, thank goodness.
His role models: Tony Amsterdam, who was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and then went to Stanford. He was a wonderful civil rights advocate and helped me learn how to be a civil rights lawyer. I remember meeting Larry Shubow, who later became a judge. I was struck by his idealism and his willingness to take on forces that might seem larger.
One thing he would change about the practice of law: Make it a profession again, instead of a business
What he does to relax: Bicycle, travel, try to get to my house in Wellfleet
His all-time favorite film or book: Right now my favorite director is [Pedro] Almodovar. I read biographies much more than I read fiction. I've read numerous biographies of Lyndon Johnson, who I view as one of the more tragic and intriguing people in American culture.
One thing about him that might surprise other people: I still regard myself as a child of the '60s.
What has kept him in the practice of law: I love the intellectual challenge. I love the opportunity to contribute to achieve a modicum of justice for my clients. I'm 64 and people say, "When are you going to retire?" I don't have retirement on my radar screen.
The biggest challenge facing Massachusetts courts: The Massachusetts courts need to be staffed and run administratively in a way that uses up-to-date technology and serves the people who are the parties and lawyers much better than it does now.
The most important legal decision of the last 25 years: The recent decision of Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld, 2000], which rejects the Bush administration view of the role of executive power
Jeanne Greeley, formerly a reporter at Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, is a freelance writer.