Lawyers Of The Year 2006
KELLY M. BONNEVIE
Newton
Born: June 13, 1965; Portland, Maine
Education: Northeastern University School of Law (1992); Dartmouth College (1987)
Bar admission: 1992
Professional experience: Wilson, Marino & Bonnevie (1996-present); Beth Herr and Associates (1993-1996); Superior Court law clerk (1992-1993)
Professional affiliations: Massachusetts, Women’s and Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay bar associations; Dartmouth Lawyers Association
When Kelly M. Bonnevie took on a racial-discrimination case on behalf of four terminated public employees in 1994, she never could have predicted she'd still be eating, sleeping and breathing the case more than a decade later.
Yet 12 years on, she's still litigating the case, Trustees of Health and Hospitals of the City of Boston, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, et al. But while the litigation — in which Bonnevie's clients claim their employer discriminated against them not in the decision to lay them off, but in the manner in which it carried out the firings — plods on, she's secured two landmark rulings along the way.
In 2000, the MCAD ruled that the employer had, indeed, discriminated against the plaintiffs. This is the first time, to Bonnevie's knowledge, that a disparity in how an employer carries out its layoffs was recognized as a Chapter 151B violation (the ruling is currently on appeal before the Supreme Judicial Court).
This year, the Appeals Court ruled that the employees were entitled to prejudgment interest, shattering the long-held assumption that public employers were immune from such relief in Chapter 151B claims.
But the ongoing litigation isn't Bonnevie's only battle right now. She's also fighting breast cancer. She remains confident that she'll prevail in both arenas.
"[The cancer is] in the early stages and very treatable," she says. "Plus, I have terrific law partners and great support from the broader legal community. And, of course, I have great family support. I couldn't do it without my spouse, Karen Kaufman, and my kids, Matt and Abby."
* * *
Q. The issue decided this year, that public employers found liable for discrimination are no longer immune from prejudgment interest awards, has been described as "monumental." Why is it so significant?
A. It's monumental because, until this point, if employees who worked for public employers and brought a discrimination claim won an award of damages, there was little incentive for the employer to resolve it with them either before or after trial — especially if the damages were modest. Just look at this case, which was originally filed in 1994. … To have a case drag out more than 12 years is really untenable. I absolutely think that if there had been this concern that the clock was ticking and interest was accruing, people would have sat down and looked at this much more closely.
Q. Do you think this ruling could open the door for prejudgment interest awards in other types of cases against public entities?
A. I think it depends on the wording of the statute and what that statute's purpose was. I can speak best about this statute, because it was very clear that 151B was really designed to be read broadly and interpreted in a way that would allow MCAD and the courts to get rid of discrimination in employment. … I think there might be analogies with other statutes. But it would depend on what the broad remedial intent of whatever the statute was.
Q. What was the key to success for you in this case?
A. Without question the key was [Boston] attorney Marc Breakstone, who represents one of the plaintiffs. I represent the other four. Marc conducted a masterful cross-examination at the public hearings that turned the case in our direction. He really did an outstanding job with the witnesses. … It was Marc's work at the trial level that got us to the Appeals Court, where I had the privilege of briefing and arguing the issue of prejudgment interest.
On top of that, in September I was diagnosed with breast cancer at the time briefs were due on another part of the case. Marc said, "Don't worry. We'll get the briefs done. You just concentrate on your health and we'll get the legal work done." And that's exactly what happened. Plus, for the SJC appeal, we've added Anne Josephson to our team as co-counsel and she's phenomenal. We've also received great input from some of the top plaintiff-side employment lawyers like Nancy Shilepsky, Patty Washienko and Rebecca Pontikes. They've been invaluable.
Q. What, for you, was the most challenging aspect of working on this case?
A. The most challenging aspect was how long it's taken. I was a young lawyer when it began. I had just started a practice in Newton and I was looking for work. I was eager for employment cases and I took on this case on a contingency-fee basis. If you told me at the time that I'd be involved for over a decade, I'd have laughed and not believed you.
Q. What is the most important thing you've learned from working on this case?
A. That you should trust your gut when screening cases and deciding whether or not to take them. And whether you believe your clients, feel a rapport with them and feel confident in handling the legal aspects. You'll live with these clients for a while, so you have to feel this is something you'll want to be involved in. This case had compelling facts, I liked the clients, I felt they were believable, and felt what happened was wrong.
Q. You have been battling breast cancer while maintaining a very busy practice. How have you managed to stay focused on your career while dealing with such a serious illness?
A. Well, the cancer was caught early and I expect to be fine. I'm in the middle of treatments now. But the legal community has been phenomenally supportive. When I've had to reschedule with opposing counsel, people have been very supportive and professional. We read so much about the lack of civility in the legal profession. But that has not been my experience around this cancer diagnosis, that's for sure.
Q. You are very active in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. What are some of the challenges that gay and lesbian lawyers face in Massachusetts today?
A. I think the big issue right now, of course, is the opposition to same-sex marriage and the ballot initiative. It means a lot of folks have to put their energy into trying to preserve Goodridge [v. Department of Public Health]. That's energy that could be spent on other things.
Q. How has the situation for gay and lesbian lawyers changed over the past 15 to 20 years that you've been in practice?
A. I don't think anybody could have envisioned that we would have the right to marry in 2004. If you had asked me in 1989 when I started law school, the big issues facing our community were AIDS and HIV and basic employment discrimination and how to protect people's partners from families that might not be accepting. These were basic human rights issues we were dealing with in our community. To now be at the point where we have the right to marry, and that's the level of discourse, is amazing to me.
* * *
Kelly Bonnevie on ...
Her most memorable moment at law school: In Contracts class first year, [we studied a case where] a judge mentioned the plaintiff's race in a decision [that had nothing to do with race]. That's something most of us skipped over when reading the case. But Professor David Hall spoke eloquently about how the person's race had no bearing on the outcome, yet the judge felt compelled to mention it.
Highlight of her legal career: In terms of litigation cases, this certainly ranks up there. Also, early in my career I did a lot of work involving victims of sex abuse. We resolved and handled them in a way that validated these people and made them feel like someone was listening to them in a time where it was very tough to come forward with these cases.
How she celebrates a big win: Ordering takeout food from Lam's Restaurant in Newton. It's right around the corner from our office.
How she deals with a big loss: You try to look at what happened and see if there's something you could have dome differently and try to work on it. But you end that discussion by ordering from Lam's.
Her role models: My parents. My father never finished high school. My mother worked nights and my father worked days. I was first in my family to go to college. They really pushed education and are definitely my role models.
One thing she would change about the practice of law: One thing I would change is the reliance on BlackBerries. I think it's really changed the way people negotiate and talk to each other.
What she does to relax: I spend time with my family. I have a spouse and two young kids. I like to read fiction, too.
Her all-time favorite film or book: My favorite film — at the risk of being a cliché — is "To Kill a Mockingbird." As for books, anything by Wally Lamb.
One thing about her that might surprise other people [I am] the first in my family to go to college. With a father who definitely wanted his kids to go to college and with immigrant grandparents, having a lawyer in the family is a big deal.
What has kept her in the practice of law: I have two outstanding partners who are terrific to work with. And I've had great clients. So it's the people I've been surrounded by who have kept me in it.
The biggest challenge facing Massachusetts courts: Dealing with limited resources
The most important legal decision of the last 25 years: For me both professionally and personally, I'd have to say Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. It was a courageous decision and beautifully written. It's an amazing decision and it's had a huge impact.
Eric T. Berkman, formerly a reporter at Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, is a freelance writer.