Lawyers Of The Year 2006
SAMUEL PERKINS
Boston
Born: Dec. 16, 1948; Boston
Education: Boston University School of Law (1976); Harvard College (1970)
Bar admission: 1977
Professional experience: Brody, Hardoon, Perkins & Kesten (1995-present); Morrison, Mahoney & Miller (1983-1995); Welch, Graham, Perkins & Manby-Vermont (1978-1983); Vermont Attorney General’s Office (1976-1978)
Professional affiliations: Massachusetts and Boston bar associations; boards of directors for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, Hanover Consumer Cooperative Society and Milton Library Foundation; instructor for Harvard University Trial Advocacy Workshop and National Institute for Trial Advocacy Northeast Regional Program
When Samuel Perkins filed suit against Wal-Mart, he had no idea how quickly things would move.
The controversial litigation, which sought to require the store to stock an emergency "morning-after" contraceptive pill known as Plan B, was filed by three women who argued that Wal-Mart had violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by refusing to fill a legal prescription.
The suit, which drew the ire of controversial talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, was expected to drag on for years as Wal-Mart had steadfastly refused to stock the pills in any of its 44 Massachusetts stores. But less than a month after the complaint was filed, Wal-Mart surprised many — including Perkins — by agreeing in February to stock Plan B.
Then, as Perkins began gearing up to bring similar suits in other states, Wal-Mart announced it was changing its policy nationwide and would make the product available in all of its stores.
While the Wal-Mart win was a big one, it was not the only case of significance for Perkins in 2006.
In addition to a price-item victory in a class-action lawsuit against Staples, Perkins also moved forward in his representation of James Policastro — a case alleging that the Boston Redevelopment Authority broke the law when it awarded the Islamic Society of Boston land to build a mosque and cultural center in Roxbury.
* * *
Q. When you agreed to take the Wal-Mart case, did you have any idea it would have the wide-ranging impact it did?
A. We didn't expect it, but we certainly planned it. It was absolutely our goal to use Massachusetts as the tipping point for a national change and as a way to get Wal-Mart to change their policy.
Q. There aren't many lawyers who can say they handled a case of this magnitude. How much fun was it to be a part of something that has led to such a significant change?
A. What happened here, by any standard, resulted in a real change in the public health profile of the United States — and I thought that was pretty cool.
Q. After refusing for so long to stock the product in its stores, what was it that led Wal-Mart to change its mind within weeks of the filing of your lawsuit?
A. I'm hoping that someday the people who are the executives and decision-makers at Wal-Mart will give us more insight into that, because as of Feb. 1 they were saying that this was a decision that changed nothing. But by the end of the month, they respectfully decided to make a national change. The reason they gave was because they figured they were just going to keep being sued and keep having to change state by state, so they decided to cut to the chase and fix their mistake.
Q. If they hadn't made the changes in other parts of the country, did you expect your phone to ring with people in other states looking for similar results?
A. It was actually the other way around. We had already called the people in the other states. We had researched the pharmacy regulations and statutes in every state in the country before we brought the case here in Massachusetts, and identified six other states we would have gone [to] next.
Q. Were you at all concerned that the case might become more about religion and politics than about the underlying facts?
A. I actually enjoyed that concern. It's fun to be involved with cases that actually have social implications that deal with religion, consumer rights and other issues. It's nice to be involved in something that has an appreciable effect on people's behavior and rights.
Q. There has been a lot of speculation about why Wal-Mart refused to stock the product. Do you have any special insight into what the powers-that-be were thinking?
A. Your guess is as good as mine. We do know that they certainly weren't telling the truth about why they weren't stocking it. They were saying it was a business decision, but it had been years since every other major chain had stocked it, so it clearly was no longer a business decision. It was something else.
Q. Many religious groups called Wal-Mart a traitor in the aftermath of the case. What did you hear from the critics?
A. It was remarkable how little hate mail we got. One of our plaintiffs got a very thoughtful letter from a Catholic guy challenging her, but it was nothing nasty. I personally got a bunch of e-mails from people who thought it was unfair that I would make Wal-Mart stock the drug.
Q. What was Rush Limbaugh's take?
A. He was saying things like the last place you want to be is between a liberal Massachusetts woman and her emergency contraceptive.
Q. An unrelated defamation case involving Fox-TV, the Boston Herald and other groups arose out of the Policastro case. It seems that the defamation suit has gone off in so many directions. What impact does that aspect of the case have on your case?
A. It's amazing some of the directions the case has gone. It has the huge potential of generating bad feelings in the case, which Jim Policastro is not interested in. He's really focused on the BRA and whether what they did was right. In some ways, if we can get the Jim Policastro case resolved and get the BRA back on track in terms of how it handles this piece of property, it may diffuse some of these other issues that have arisen.
Q. Why is the case so important?
A. It's a great opportunity to illustrate how you can make sure that public institutions like the BRA do it right without getting embroiled in the religious subtext of who are the groups in favor of the project and who are the groups against it. Jim Policastro has said over and over again that he just wants the people at the BRA to do their jobs right.
Q. You've been involved in item-pricing cases and other class-action litigation. Do you agree with some critics who say that it is too difficult to obtain class certification in Massachusetts?
A. I do think that class actions are very difficult instruments to use to get social change. I've got real doubt about how valuable they are, especially given how much time and effort gets spent on fighting over class certification. The entire enterprise gets diverted into procedural wrangling.
Q. You handle cases on both sides of the fence. With such a public victory in the Wal-Mart case and your work in the Staples item-pricing matter and the Policastro litigation, are you concerned that people may typecast you as a lawyer who only handles these types of plaintiffs' cases?
A. (Laughs) What a tragic typecasting that would be. You'd be doing me a great favor if that's what you say people think when they hear my name. That's exactly what I'd love to achieve.
* * *
Samuel Perkins on ...
His most memorable moment at law school: The simple one was sitting down next to my partner Rick Brody on the first day of law school. The other one was actually taking a year off from law school and working with Nancy Gertner, Harvey Silverglate and Tom Shapiro at their firm.
Highlight of his legal career: Suing Wal-Mart on Feb. 1 and by mid-March having 3,700 Wal-Mart stores carrying emergency contraception that never carried it before
How he celebrates a big win: I celebrate a big win by trying to figure out why it worked.
How he deals with a big loss: Exactly the same as a big win, except I try to figure out why it didn't work
His role models: My current role model is a guy named Richard Dawkins, who is an Oxford professor who teaches evolution and also criticizes intelligent design.
One thing he would change about the practice of law: I'd do everything except major hearings by telephone conference call in the judge's chambers so parties didn't have to appear in court, except where they really needed to be there for oral argument.
What he does to relax: I work in the woods and cut down trees. I do a lot of welding —things like sculptures and tables.
His all-time favorite film or book: My current favorite is a book called "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.
One thing about him that might surprise other people: [My] cousin, Jennifer Coolidge, played the manicurist for Reese Witherspoon in the movie "Legally Blonde." She's been in almost every Christopher Guest movie there is.
What has kept him in the practice of law: The longer you hang around, the more interesting cases you can do. The cases I'm doing now are really fun.
The biggest challenge facing Massachusetts courts: Litigants like big corporations with a lot of money should be paying their own way. They should be paying for adjudications so the courts can actually do their business with people who aren't capable of paying. It would move the court docket quicker.
The most important legal decision of the last 25 years: A Pennsylvania federal District Court decision on intelligent design that came out last year.