Areas of Practice

Appellate Law

Attorney Barry Bachrach has over thirty years of appellate law experience in both state appellate courts and many federal appeals courts throughout the United States. This is a very specialized practice area whereby he gained experience by initially working with Supreme Court judges in the States of Maine and Minnesota and then using that experience to pursue appeals in all the courts he was admitted to throughout his distinguished career, including Massachusetts.

Appellate Law is very complex. As such, you should make sure your attorney is well versed in this area of law. Bachrach & Bachrach has handled, and continues to handle, not only civil appeals, but criminal appeals, as well as other post-conviction remedies.

Attorney Bachrach's Cases of Interest

Peterborough Oil Co. v. Great American Ins. Co., 397 F.Supp.2d 230 (2005).
This is a federal case wherein Attorney Bachrach filed suit on behalf of Plaintiff, Peterborough Oil Co., against Defendant Great American Ins. Co. (“Great American”)., seeking the insurance coverage to which it was due but which the insurer failed to provide. At a very early stage of the case, The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that Great American had wrongfully denied coverage and that it must defend and indemnify Plaintiff.

Asiala v. City of Fitchburg, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 13 (1987).
Attorney Bachrach originally tried this case in the Worcester Superior Court, ultimately having the decision affirmed on appeal. The City of Fitchburg had poorly constructed a retaining wall that injured Plaintiff’s property

Reiersen & Another v. Commissioner of Revenue, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 124 (1988).
This case was an appeal from the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board. The appellant resided in another country for three years, yet the Commissioner of Revenue, and then the Appellate Tax Board decided he was still a resident of Massachusetts, thus owing taxes. Attorney Bachrach appealed these decisions to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, ultimately winning.

O’Rourke, Jr. v. Hunter, 848 N.E.2d 382 (2006), 64 Mass. App. Ct. 1103 (2005).
In a landmark Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision, Attorney Bachrach established the right to bypass certain procedural processes and move directly for summary judgment in will contest cases that have no merit, thus ultimately saving the client time and money.

Sasseville v. Uncle Sam’s of Worcester, Inc., 86 Mass.App.Ct. 1101 (2014).
This case was an appeal from the Worcester Superior Court. The trial court found for the Plaintiff in the instant matter. However, upon appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court stated that “based on the "entire evidence [we are] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Consequently, the trial court decision was allowed in part, but reversed in part; a decision which ultimately meant that the Defendants owed Plaintiff no money.

Commonwealth v. Gaetjens, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 336 (2015).
This case was on appeal from the Brockton District Court. A prosecutor improperly remarked in closing argument during Mr. Gaetjens’ criminal trial that he had the opportunity to lie and tailor his testimony because, unlike other trial witnesses, he had not been sequestered during trial. This warranted a new trial, where, regardless whether there was prejudicial error or whether any error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, because 1) there was no evidence to support the prosecutor's statement, 2) the error went to the heart of the case, and 3) the trial judge's curative instruction compounded the original error.