Lawyers Of The Year 2006
ELLYN H. LAZAR-MOORE
Worcester
Born: Aug. 21, 1967; Brooklyn, N.Y.
Education: Boston University School of Law (1993); Tufts University (1989)
Bar admission: 1993
Professional experience: Worcester County District Attorney’s Office (1998-present); Attorney General’s Office (1994-1998)
Professional affiliations: Massachusetts Bar Association, Massachusetts Law Review (associate editor)
By most attorneys' standards, Worcester County prosecutor Ellyn H. Lazar-Moore had herself a busy year in 2006.
An appellate lawyer responsible for handling challenges brought under the controversial sexually dangerous persons statute, she had her hands full arguing a number of cases before the Supreme Judicial Court — the results of which continue to shape the evolving SDP laws.
But Lazar-Moore also handled a series of other important cases before both the SJC and the Appeals Court this past year.
One of those cases was the motor-vehicle homicide appeal of Sandra Carlson, who was convicted of slamming her car into the passenger side of another car after failing to stop at a blinking red light.
The victim, Carol Suprenant, who suffered from a pre-existing disease, sustained chest and lung injuries in the collision, which only worsened her health problems. After consulting with doctors, she chose to be taken off a ventilator and died four days later.
When the defendant argued that the victim's decision to be removed from the machine — not the collision — caused her death, Lazar-Moore convinced the SJC otherwise.
Three months later, in the case of Commonwealth v. Bell, the Appeals Court agreed with her argument that a defendant could be found guilty of attempting to solicit sex from a child even though the defendant had been speaking with an undercover police officer and there was no actual child. Although the defendant argued that his crime required the presence of a victim, the court disagreed and found that the doctrine of impossibility did not negate the possibility of a conviction.
In a case of first impression, the court held "the nonexistence of the victim was a factual, not a legal impossibility."
* * *
Q. When we spoke earlier, you said you felt vindicated by being named one of the Lawyers of the Year. What did you mean by that?
A. I felt vindicated because two years ago, after I had my second child, I reduced my schedule to 80 percent, and it hasn't always been easy to work part time. I felt like it was a vindication for me and other women who are faced with choices about how to balance work and home. I think getting this honor helps show that you can work a reduced schedule and still do a great deal of work and do good quality work. It's tough dealing with the expectations of some people, and the way they feel about people working part time. Balancing home and work life is not easy, so I look at this like it was a win for all working moms who either choose or have to go part time.
Q. The SJC held in the Carlson case that a victim's decision to forego life support did not relieve a defendant of criminal responsibility. Why was the case so important?
A. The most important thing it did was to affirm prior cases dealing with issues of causation. It reaffirmed, in the context of this case, the idea that you take the victim as you find her. The fact that the victim was already in poor health and that a younger healthier person may not have died didn't relieve the defendant from liability. If the decision had gone the other way, it really could have caused an upheaval in this area of the law.
Q. The case got a lot of attention in the Worcester area as well as in the legal community. What was it about the case that drew so much interest?
A. On a human level, it was the kind of case that caught people's attention because you could really picture yourself in the shoes of either party. Sometimes in criminal cases, there are a lot of sordid facts underlying the crime, and so it seems very far removed from the average person. But in this case, it was just a defendant driving with her mother and kids who went through a stop sign and caused an accident. The next thing you know, she's charged with homicide. But on the other side, you have a woman driving in a car with her husband on a way to a barbeque, and the next thing she knows she's faced with this choice of whether to stay on a ventilator. She chooses not to, and then she's dead. I think that most people could really picture themselves in ether of those positions, and that's what attracted some of the attention in the case.
Q. When you're handling a case like that on appeal, do you try to keep the emotion out of the case or do you try to use it to your advantage?
A. Everybody has a different way of doing things, but I tend not to focus as much on the emotional level of things.
Q. Why is that?
A. I just think there's not as much of a place for that in the appellate courts. You're really trying to look at what the law is, and how it applies here. Although there are certain times when the emotion is part of the case, like in a first-degree murder case where extreme atrocity and cruelty is an issue, it doesn't play as much a role when you're asking the appellate courts to apply the law as you see it.
Q. You've been an assistant DA for more than 13 years. Do you consider yourself a career prosecutor at this point?
A. I think I do. I really enjoy it. I feel like I'm helping victims. I feel that, even though I'm a prosecutor, I'm doing something that promotes justice in cases, even for defendants.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. I mean that I'm not the kind of person who wants to win at all costs. I've had cases where I've confessed error, or I've agreed to a motion for new trial. I even had a case where I thought a very serious issue occurred that the defendant did not raise in his appeal. So I called his lawyer to alert him to it so he could raise it and the court could rectify it.
Q. Does doing something like that give you added credibility the next time you appear before the court?
A. It does. When you practice before the same courts all the time, it's important for your own credibility that the judges see that you're not going to go in there and defend something that is indefensible. If the judges realize that you'll admit when there was an error, you'll definitely have more credibility the next time you come in there.
Q. With the increase in stings and undercover operations where police target potential child abusers, do you think the Bell case will be cited in courtrooms throughout Massachusetts?
A. I think it will. We're certainly seeing more and more cases where this issue comes up — particularly in the area of soliciting over the Internet. One of the questions the justices asked the defendant at oral argument was, "If we rule against the commonwealth here, how could the police ever have a sting of any kind if you have to have an actual victim?" I felt that was the key question.
Q. Having handled SDP cases on appeal since the creation of the statute in 1999, did you think the law would create as much new litigation as it has?
A. I absolutely did think it would generate a lot of litigation, and it has. A lot of time has been spent in court trying to figure out what things mean, who is subject to possible commitment, what the different burdens are and who needs to prove what. It's been interesting to be involved with balancing all of these issues from the beginning.
Q. Joseph Early will be coming in as the new DA in January. What does that mean for you?
A. I have no idea. I personally have not heard anything about how he will be handling the transition or anything like that. People are nervous obviously. It's been the same administration for about 30 years, and we expect there will be a lot of changes, but we don't know what they'll be or how the transition will be handled at this point. Or at least I don't. I'd obviously like to stay.
* * *
Ellyn Lazar-Moore on ...
Her most memorable moment at law school: It was on graduation day. I knew I was going to graduate with some kind of honors but wasn't sure right up to the day of graduation if it would be cum laude or magna cum laude. I found out it was going to be magna cum laude when I was I waiting to walk out to get my diploma.
Highlight of her legal career: When I was at the Attorney General's Office I did a three-month stint as a U.S. Supreme Court fellow at the National Association of Attorneys General in Washington D.C. I attended every Supreme Court argument during those three months and wrote an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case about California's three-strike law. The side I supported later won.
How she celebrates a big win: I don't do anything very exciting. I tell my friends at work and call my husband.
How she deals with a big loss: The same way. I have a 2-year-old and a 5-year-old at home, so I kind of have to take it all in stride. Things happen at work, and you have to put them aside when you're home.
Her role models: In terms of how to live my life and conduct myself morally and ethically, it would definitely be by mom and dad. Legally, I had two very good mentors: Pamela Hunt, who was my supervisor at the Attorney General's Office, and Harry Quick, who was my supervisor when I came to Worcester. They both taught me a lot about trying to do justice.
One thing she would change about the practice of law: One of the reasons I like dong appeals is that, even though I'm a lawyer, I'm not really a confrontational person. So if there was a way to make some of the process less adversarial, I'd be in favor of that.
What she does to relax: I read a lot. I really don't watch much television unless there's something on like my kids' Disney movies. I try to run to the gym on my lunch hour — that's an important way for me to kind of blow off a little steam.
Her all-time favorite film or book: "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and "The Stand" by Stephen King
One thing about her that might surprise other people: I'm from New York, and my dad's office has always been in the Empire State Building, so as a kid I went there all the time to visit him. Also, I was a Mets fan growing up, but now I'm definitely more of a Red Sox fan.
What has kept her in the practice of law: I really like doing appeals. I'm one of the few people who thoroughly enjoyed law school from day one. I feel that I have really found the right place for me because doing criminal appellate law is one of the only jobs where you actually use exactly what you learned in law school.
The biggest challenge facing Massachusetts courts: Dealing with the caseload
The most important legal decision of the last 25 years: Roe v. Wade. It wasn't within the last 25 years, but I have to ask you to squeeze it in because it's one that definitely is important to me.