Joseph J. Leghorn
Partner

Practice Areas

Experience

First and foremost, Joe Leghorn is a trial lawyer. Over his 30 years of practice, he has tried to successful resolution matters ranging from racial discrimination claims to business partnership and intellectual property licensing disputes, to products liability and toxic torts class actions. As a skilled writer and appellate advocate, he has preserved notable trial court victories on appeal.

Using his many years of trial and industry-specific experience, Joe assesses the strengths and weaknesses of his clients’ adversarial and negotiating positions and creates a plan to resolve clients’ problems consistent with their business objectives. Joe brings added value due to his degree in mathematics and deep experience across a broad spectrum of scientific issues. By quickly gathering the necessary facts and understanding the medical and scientific validity of the parties’ positions, he has been successful bringing matters to quick resolution either by way of compromise, dispositive motion, or trial.

Joe concentrates his practice on the representation of manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices, regionally and nationally. Additionally, he serves clients’ needs in the high-tech and consumer products industries. With a focus on providing legal counsel in the context of execution of business strategy, he is constantly abreast of marketplace, regulatory, and competitive forces faced by his clients. He also stays abreast of trends regarding decisions issued by various courts, jurisdictions, and judges, and brings those insights to clients in developing strategy to address a dispute. His clients perceive him as a strategic partner and thought leader.

For more than 25 years, Joe has been both an active writer and a litigator addressing the issue of federal preemption of state law. Among other cases, in 1992, Joe argued King v. Collagen Corporation before the First Circuit, which then established that federal regulation of medical devices preempted certain state tort law claims that seek to impose different or additional safety requirements. At the time, the Wall Street Journal described this decision as the single most important one for the medical device industry.

Representative Trial Experience

• Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc., et al. United States District Court of Massachusetts Civil Action No. 07-11944-GAO, April 2009. After a multiday evidentiary hearing in the matter, where both sides presented expert testimony on the issue of general causation (whether benzene is a recognized risk factor for this particular disease), Judge George A. O’Toole concluded in his opinion and order of July 31, 2009, that the plaintiffs’ proffered expert testimony was inadmissible because it did not meet the standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny. Joe was lead counsel for the defendants at the hearing, cross-examining both of the plaintiffs’ experts, as well as presenting the testimony of the defense epidemiologist, whose testimony was favorably noted by the court.
• Kyeremteng v. Avis Rent A Car Systems LLC, Worcester Superior Court, January 2009. Successful defense of the claim that the client engaged in racial discrimination when renting cars.
• In re Latex Glove Litigation in New Hampshire. Lead trial counsel for Smith & Nephew AHP in a seven-week trial, where he presented the medical causation defense on behalf of all manufacturers. The case resulted in a defense verdict that was summarily affirmed on appeal.
• Benedict v. Service Corporation International, Suffolk Superior Court, February 2007. Trial on damages resulting in a verdict well below the expected value and settlement demand. This case secured extensive press coverage.
• Butler v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., USDC Massachusetts, May 2006. Trial resulting in a defense verdict for the manufacturer of research reagents. The plaintiff claimed she developed a cross-species infection due to the use of an allegedly contaminated reagent.
• Boudreaux v. Cybex, Inc., Suffolk Superior Court, April 2006. Four-week trial resulting in a defense verdict. The plaintiff sought more than $4 million as compensation for injuries due to defective design of exercise equipment.
• Eisenstein v. Conlin. 444 Mass. 258 (2005), Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2005. Decision upholding a successful motion for summary judgment on behalf of clients in partner’s hip dispute.

Representative ADR Experience

• Mediation of Cost Recovery Claim for Product Recall, 2007. Seeking reimbursement of both indemnity and expense costs arising out of improperly manufactured components, resulting in recovery—before instituting an action—of an amount in excess of expectations.
• Illinois Union v. Viking Corporation, USDC Massachusetts. Successful mediation of a cost-recovery action for an amount below the expected value of the property damage claim for an alleged product failure.

Representative Reported Decisions

• Eisenstein v. Conlin, 444 Mass 258 (2005)
• Mills v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp., 174 F.Supp 2d 1 (Mass. 2001)
• Cortes v. Intermedics, Inc., 229 F.3d12.17 (1st Cir. 2000)
• Holland v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 100 F.Supp. 2053 (1999)
• King v. Collagen Corp. 983 F.2d. 1130 (1st Cir. 1993)
• Palmer v. Liggett Group, Inc., 825 F.2d 620 (1st Cir. 1987)
• Payton v. Abbott Labs, 386 Mass. 540 (1982)

Recent Publications

• “Moving Quickly to Endgame in Benzene Cases,” Products Liability Law 360, September 2009
• “Putting Nanotechnology Under the Microscope,” Products Liability Law 360, August 2009
• “Looking at the Further Preemption,” Products Liability Law 360, November 2008
• “A New Breed of Products-Based Litigation,” Products Liability Law 360, June 2007
• “Defending an Emergency Threat: Consumer Fraud Class Action Suit in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Products-Based Litigation,” Food and Drug Law Journal, Vol. 61, No. 3 (2006)
• “Gathering Storm: The Rise of the Consumer Fraud Class Action Suit and Its Impact on Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Products-Based Litigation,” For the Defense, Defense Research Institute, April 2006
• “The Scientific Method: How to Avoid Erroneous Conclusion, Vioxx Litigation Reporter,” Mealey’s Publications, January 27, 2006

Admissions

Joe Leghorn is admitted to practice in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Illinois, and before the U.S. District Court, districts of Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire; the Northern District of Illinois; the U.S. Court of Appeals, First and Seventh circuits; and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Education

Emory University School of Law, Order of the Coif, J.D., with distinction
Bowdoin College, Mathematics, A. B., cum laude

Affiliations

A member of the Defense Research Institute, Joe is an active member of its Drug and Medical Device Committee and Mass Tort Committee. In addition, he is an active member of the Product Liability Committee and Drug and Medical Device Subcommittee of the Litigation Section of the American Bar Association and the International Association of Defense Counsel. Joe is a sustaining member of the Product Liability Advisory Council. He was also on the Board of Directors of the Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council between 2001 and 2007. A recipient of the international Who’s Who Legal of Product Liability Defence, Joe was recently selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America 2010 (copyright 2009 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, SC). Inclusion in Best Lawyers is based on a peer-review survey. He has also been recognized as a “New England Super Lawyer” in Class Action and Mass Torts based on a peer-review survey by Boston Magazine (2005, 2006, and 2007).

Pro Bono Work

Joe has dedicated substantial time to pro bono matters. On October 10, 2006, he helped prepare and file an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents and the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, Inc. The brief urged the court to uphold the use of voluntary desegregation plans to further the compelling interest of achieving racially diverse schools, and it discussed the successful use of such desegregation efforts in Massachusetts. Currently, he is working with veterans who have served in Iraq and elsewhere, to help them obtain benefits for injuries that they suffered while in service.