The world of personal injury law in the Northeast is seeing a flurry of developments, from high-stakes lawsuits to innovative client resources and evolving legal strategies. Recent events in Massachusetts and New York highlight the increasingly complex and competitive environment facing attorneys, clients, and law firms alike.
In Boston, one of the city’s most recognized personal injury firms, Sweeney Merrigan Law, is embroiled in a legal battle with a former associate, Mark A. Cashman. According to reporting by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Cashman alleges that the firm and its two lead partners, J. Tucker and Peter Merrigan, wrongfully terminated him in 2021 and retaliated against him to avoid paying substantial commissions and bonuses he claims he earned under his employment agreement. The case, which survived a key dismissal motion in December 2025, now moves forward with four of Cashman’s five claims intact—including those for wrongful termination and retaliation.
Cashman, who now leads his own firm in Salem, asserts that his compensation structure would have entitled him to a share of legal fees from cases he worked on—potentially over $1 million in addition to his $95,000 base salary. In his complaint, Cashman details a sequence of events beginning in November 2021, when partner Benjamin R. Novotny allegedly informed him that his compensation plan would change and that he would be expected to spend more time in the office. Then, in a December 22, 2021 Zoom meeting, Novotny informed Cashman that he would receive a flat salary of $120,000 per year, with no eligibility for commissions or bonuses.
Following that meeting, Novotny wrote a confidential memorandum recommending the firm "move on from Mark’s employment." The memo describes Cashman as having "lashed out" at the firm’s leadership, labeling the partnership as "Big Brother" and accusing Tucker and Peter Merrigan of avoiding him out of jealousy. Novotny also reported that Cashman disparaged a coworker, suggesting the individual "might have a traumatic brain injury." Cashman disputes the characterization, acknowledging he was upset but insisting the true source of his agitation was being denied commissions from years of work building his client base.
The situation quickly escalated. On December 26, 2021, Cashman emailed the Merrigans to offer to "sit down and talk through some issues," emphasizing, "My loyalty to both of you and [Sweeney Merrigan Law] has never wavered." However, at a meeting the next day, Peter Merrigan suggested they should "separate." The following days saw a flurry of emails: Tucker Merrigan outlined possible severance terms, and Peter Merrigan communicated plans to inform clients of Cashman’s departure. Cashman’s attorney intervened, reminding the firm of its ethical obligations regarding client communications. Despite these efforts, when Cashman did not immediately respond to a meeting offer, he was informed by the firm that he was "terminated effective immediately."
Cashman now claims he is owed more than $1.5 million in commissions for cases he worked on that the firm has since settled. Judge Debra A. Squires-Lee, in her December 2025 decision, found that Cashman had plausibly alleged he was terminated without good cause and that the firm acted to avoid paying him commissions he was owed or had "almost earned." While one of Cashman’s Wage Act claims was dismissed, his other claim for retaliation and his wrongful termination claim survived. As Judge Squires-Lee wrote, "These facts plausibly suggest that Cashman reasonably believed that Defendants were violating, or on the precipice of violating the Wage Act, and retaliated against him in response to his complaint."
Sweeney Merrigan Law, through attorney John T. Graff, issued a statement affirming that after Cashman’s termination, "there was clear and shared understanding that all client contact would proceed in full accordance with the governing rules," and that "no client was contacted outside of the agreed-upon process, and no communication occurred that violated the ethical rules or the parties’ express understandings." Cashman’s attorney, Joseph P. Musacchio, declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.
While Sweeney Merrigan Law faces a fight over its internal compensation practices and alleged retaliation, other personal injury firms in the region are making headlines for their efforts to improve client service and legal outcomes. On January 8, 2026, Sullivan Brill Personal Injury Attorneys announced enhancements to its medical malpractice representation in its New York practice, according to a press release distributed by PressAdvantage. The firm has updated its internal resources and case evaluation processes to better handle claims involving hospitals, physicians, and other licensed medical providers.
Attorney Steven Brill explained, "Medical malpractice cases often involve extensive records and detailed standards of professional conduct, and the firm has taken steps to improve how these matters are reviewed and prepared. The intent is to ensure that each claim is evaluated carefully and consistently within the applicable legal and medical frameworks." The enhancements include standardized workflows for intake, evaluation, organization of records, tracking timelines, and identifying issues requiring expert medical review. These changes are designed to improve coordination and preparation in complex healthcare-related litigation, ensuring that claims are handled efficiently and effectively. Sullivan Brill, which operates from its Ronkonkoma, New York office, has over a decade of experience handling personal injury and medical malpractice cases.
The legal landscape is also shifting in how attorneys connect with and educate the public. On the same day as Sullivan Brill’s announcement, personal injury attorney Joseph Miklos of Silberstein & Miklos, P.C. launched a new website aimed at serving as a comprehensive legal resource for clients in Garden City and Queens, New York, as reported by PR Newswire. The platform offers clear, practical information on a range of personal injury law areas, including automobile accidents, workplace injuries, and medical malpractice. It guides clients on immediate steps to take after an incident, evidence gathering, case evaluation, attorney-client communication, and the timelines for settlements or litigation.
Miklos, who has decades of experience serving clients in Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties, emphasizes accessibility and public understanding of legal processes. His new site aims to bridge the gap between legal knowledge and public need, highlighting the importance of preparation, documentation, and transparency. The website is structured to help clients navigate the legal process with confidence, providing resources that are easy to understand and act upon. Miklos’s approach reflects a broader trend among attorneys to prioritize community education and client empowerment, ensuring that individuals are well-informed before they even set foot in a lawyer’s office.
Taken together, these stories paint a vivid picture of a legal field in flux—one where traditional models of employment and compensation are being challenged in court, while client service and education are being elevated through technology and process innovation. Whether it’s a high-profile dispute over commissions in Boston or new tools for medical malpractice claimants in New York, the stakes for attorneys and clients have never been higher. As law firms adapt to shifting expectations and more demanding legal environments, the ability to combine rigorous legal strategy with transparency, organization, and public engagement may well define the next generation of personal injury practice in the Northeast.
