Timothy J. Perry | Attorney

Timothy J. Perry, a founding partner of Perry, Krumsiek & Jack, LLP, received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Harvard University in 1990, where he also earned four varsity letters and quarterbacked the varsity football team.  Mr. Perry was named a 1990 Harvard University Winthrop Scholar for academic and athletic excellence.  Mr. Perry received his Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from Suffolk University Law School in 1995.

Most recently, Mr. Perry was the Boston managing partner of Preti Flaherty LLP, a nationally known law firm with offices throughout New England.  Mr. Perry was previously a founding member of Perry, Krumsiek & Wayland, LLP and an associate at Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP in the commercial litigation department.  At those firms, Mr. Perry's practice ranged from corporate litigation, to securities arbitrations, to the prosecution and defense of catastrophic personal injury cases.  These experiences afforded Mr. Perry the opportunity to provide sophisticated, practical legal strategies for large public corporations and small businesses as well as individuals. 

Mr. Perry has conducted many jury trials at all levels of the state and federal court systems as well as arbitrations before the NASD and American Arbitration Association.  He has represented clients in federal district courts in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, Washington, D.C., California and North Carolina.  Mr. Perry has successfully briefed and argued several cases before the Massachusetts Appeals Court and United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Mr. Perry's practice now focuses on complex corporate and personal litigation, including contract and employment disputes, restrictive employment covenants, intellectual property rights, products and premises liability, and wrongful death.  In resolving these complex matters, Mr. Perry utilizes his unique legal experiences, including having represented both plaintiffs and defendants in such matters. 

In 2006, Mr. Perry received Martindale-Hubbell's prestigious AV peer review rating.  Martindale Hubbell's rating system reflects the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and Judiciary in order to evaluate a lawyer's legal ability and professional ethics.  The AV rating is the highest rating an attorney can attain.  Martindale describes the rating as follows:  An AV rating is a significant accomplishment - a testament to the fact that a lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence. A lawyer must be admitted to the bar for 10 years or more to receive an AV rating.

Reported Cases

In Humphey v. Pietryka, 25 Mass. L. Rep. 169 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2009), Mr. Perry defended a lawsuit brought against his client by owners of adjoining land.  Mr. Perry filed and won a Special Motion to Dismiss under G.L. c. 231, Sec. 59H and the Court awarded his client attorneys fees under the statute.

In BG Strategic Advisors, Inc. v. Gemini Investors, Inc., 74 Mass. App. Ct. 1121 (2009) (Unpublished), Mr. Perry represented a business consultant in commercial contract claims.  The case was argued before a panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court and decided on June 26, 2009. 

In Shammas v. Acclinet Corporation et al., 2009 Mass. App. Unpub. Lexis 603 (Mass. App. Ct. July 10, 2009) (Unpublished), Mr. Perry successfully defended a $12 million lawsuit brought by a corporation and business trust against former employees and their new employer.  Mr. Perry won the appeal and the case was dismissed against his clients. 

In Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications L.P., et al., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83435 (D. Mass. Sept. 10, 2009), Mr. Perry represented a class member in a class action arising out of the installation of fiber optic cable on railroad rights of way by four of the nation's largest telecommunications companies.  Mr. Perry's client objected to the purported class settlement and argued that the Court in Massachusetts lacked jurisdiction to confirm the settlement.  The Court agreed and dismissed the case, the precise result sought by the firm's client.  

In Bates v. Kender et al., 537 F. Supp.2d 281 (D. Mass. 2008), Mr. Perry prosecuted a federal jury trial in which Mr. Perry's client alleged devastating injuries resulting from gunshot wounds to his back.  The claim was for excessive use of force by police officers during an arrest that violated the plaintiff's Constitutional rights. 

In Pietryka v. Humphrey et al, (2008WL1851045) (Mass. Land Court 2008) (Unpublished/Reported only on Westlaw), Mr. Perry represented a landowner regarding easement rights and a lot line dispute.  Mr. Perry successfully defended a claim for additional land by his client's opponent at trial before a judge of the Massachusetts Land Court.

In Courtemanche v. Beijing Restaurant et al., 490 F. Supp.2d 107 (D. Mass. 2007), Mr. Perry prosecuted a wrongful death case in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  In this case, the Plaintiff's decedent was struck and killed by a drunk driver after leaving a bar.  The defendants included the bar at which both the driver and victim had their last drink.

In Gav-Stra Donuts, Inc. v. Dunkin' Donuts, Gavriel et al., 450 Mass. 1109 (2007) and Gav-Stra Donuts, Inc. v. Dunkin' Donuts, Gavriel et al., 70 Mass. App. Ct. 1114 (2007), Mr. Perry represented a shareholder in a Dunkin' Donut franchise in a close corporation freeze-out claim.  Mr. Perry's six figure judgment in favor of his client after trial was upheld by both the Massachusetts Appeals Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. 

In Harden Manufacturing Corp. et al. v. Pfizer, Inc. et al., 433 F. Supp.2d 172 (D. Mass. 2006), Mr. Perry represents a plaintiff in multi-district litigation involving product liability claims stemming from the sale of the drug Neurontin.  Prior to this civil suit, Warner Lambert pleaded guilty to criminal health care fraud charges regarding Neurontin that were brought by the United States Attorney in Boston.  Warner Lambert was sentenced to pay a $240 million criminal fine at the time, the second largest criminal fine ever imposed in a health care fraud prosecution.

In Bjorgolffson v. Destination Boston Hotel, Inc. et al, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 419, 2006 WL 2623925 (Mass.Super. 2006), Mr. Perry represented a rape victim in a case against a hotel and bar.  Mr. Perry successfully defeated a motion for summary judgment brought by the hotel, arguing that the hotel was vicariously liable for the criminal acts of its employee. 

In Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. et al. v. First Trident Construction Corp. et al., 2005 WL 2461972 (Mass. Super. 2005) (Unpublished/Reported only on Westlaw), Mr. Perry defended a trustee of a business trust who signed certain promissory notes in his capacity as trustee, but had judgments entered against him in his personal capacity.  Mr. Perry successfully overturned the Court's prior orders and the judgment entered against the trustee in his individual capacity was vacated.

In Micro Signal Research, Inc. v. Otus et al., 417 F.3d 28 (1st Cir 2005), Mr. Perry successfully prosecuted claims in United States federal court in Massachusetts involving an internet scam operated out of California.  After obtaining an injunction, a real estate attachment and a bank attachment for his client in federal court in Boston, Mr. Perry won the appeal of the decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

In Rooney v. Walt Disney World Co., 2003 WL 22937728 (D. Mass. November 25 2003) (Unpublished/Reported only on Westlaw), Mr. Perry defeated Disney's efforts to dismiss and/or remove litigation brought against it in Massachusetts to a friendlier forum in Orlando, Florida.  The underlying claim involved a serious accident at one of Disney's Orlando properties.

In Coakley Landfill Group v. IT Corporation, 116 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D.N.H. 2002)(trial counsel only), Mr. Perry was on a jury trial team that successfully defeated claims brought against the client regarding the building of a multi-million dollar landfill project in New Hampshire. 

In CCBN.COM v. C-CALL.COM, 73 F. Supp.2d 106 (D. Mass. 1999), Mr. Perry represented a domain name and service mark holder that provided on-line stock market information and financial services to investment professionals.  The dispute involved claims of consumer confusion in violation of the federal Lanham Act.

In Haggard v. Capital One Financial Corporation, 201 F.3d 427 (Table/Unpublished Disposition), 1999 WL 1319003 (1st Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the dismissal of a claim under the Fair Credit Billing Act that Mr. Perry had won for his client, Capital One, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.