Leader in the Law

“The No. 1 lawyer in the City.”
                                                                      — Howie Carr, Boston Herald, 6-16-11 (following Vitale acquittal)

“Peerless” “Elegant”
                                       — Peter Gelzenis, Boston Herald, 5-6-11, in its coverage of his successful defense of

                     Richard Vitale, who was charged with Speaker Salvatore DiMasi with honest services fraud

“Known for his savvy handling of high-profile, white-collar crime and
tax cases.”
        — Boston Globe, 5-29-04 (upon Weinberg joining Martha Stewart appellate team)

“Whether it was his surgical cross-examination of co-defendant-turned cooperating-witness Joseph Lally or his home run closing argument, the Boston lawyer established that the evidence against Vitale simply was not there.”
                                                                                      — David Frank, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 1-3-12

“Marty Weinberg…[part of a] Fourth Amendment dream team [who] understands the Constitution and the Bill of Rights still reign as the supreme law of the land.”
                                                    — NACDL President Jim Lavine, 12-15-10, upon the 6th Circuit Court ruling
                                                                        that protected emails from warrantless government surveillance

“Eloquence, grace and mastery of command emanate from Weinberg like rays of light glinting off his crown.”                                                              — WBUR report by David Boeri, 6-13-11 

 

Martin G. Weinberg is “one of the deans of the defense bar.
                                                      — David Frank, Managing Editor, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly 10-21-13

“…veteran criminal defense attorney.” — Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 3-21-11

“… a criminal defense lawyer of remarkable skill and persistence.”
                                        — Harvey A. Silverglate, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

… nationally renowned criminal defense attorney”
                                                                       — RICO Report, Champion magazine, Nov. 1999

“… among the nation’s best defense lawyers” — Miami Herald (regarding representation
                                    of a criminal defense lawyer acquitted on most counts with a hung jury on others)

 

On the Warshak Opinion:

“The extension of the Fourth Amendment to emails is a groundbreaking opinion that is of pivotal importance in terms of protecting privacy in the Internet Age.”

—Weinberg quoted by AP following
Warshak decision in which
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote:

“The Fourth Amendment must keep pace with inexorable march of technological progress or its guarantees will wither and perish.”

“Today’s decision is the only federal appellate decision currently on the books that squarely rules on this critically important privacy issue, an issue made all the more important by the fact that current federal law — in particular, the Stored Communication Act — allows the government to secretly obtain emails without a warrant in many situations.” Kevin Bankston of Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

Professor Orin Kerr, 12-14-10:
“This is a very important opinion.”

Professor Paul Ohm (Paul Ohm’s Blog, 12-14-10):
“This is the opinion privacy activists and many legal scholars, myself included, have been waiting and calling for, for more than a decade. It may someday be seen as a watershed moment in the extension of our Constitutional rights to the Internet.”

David E. Frank, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 3-27-12 (in an article about
the seizure of emails and issues raised in
Commonwealth v. Kishore):

Martin G. Weinberg of Boston, who argued a seminal 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision prohibiting prosecutors from seizing emails without a warrant, said it is no coincidence that privilege issues are being litigated with more frequency nowadays. As prosecutors use warrants to get at the content of emails, he said, courts will be asked to address alleged attorney-client privilege violations.

“ ‘We’re in the technology age where courts are tackling for the first time the new instruments of communication,’ [Weinberg] said. ‘When mistakes are made, the question that more and more judges will continue to deal with is: Where does the prejudice fall?’ ”