Reviews

Known for his savvy handling of high-profile, white-collar crime and tax cases. (Upon Weinberg joining Martha Stewart appellate team)

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. (Upon the 6th Circuit Court ruling that protected emails from warrantless government surveillance.)

Some lawyers have been gifted with extraordinary intellects, others prodigious trial skills, and still others a relentless work ethic. Marty has the rare combination of all three, and that is what truly sets him apart within the defense bar.

God forbid I ever have a problem, he’d be my lawyer.

Marty is the go-to lawyer for those with complex legal and trial issues – there is no one better. Most importantly, he is an all-around terrific person.

Marty is a lawyer’s lawyer – an unparalleled legal technician with a philosopher’s vision. Marty sees the nuances in the shadows in the edges of the furthest reaches of the law and brings it all back to first principles and fundamental values.

One of the deans of the criminal defense bar!

Among the nation’s best defense lawyers. (Regarding the representation of a criminal defense lawyer acquitted on most counts with a hung jury on others.)

A nationally prominent criminal defense lawyer. (Martin G. Weinberg, a nationally prominent criminal defense lawyer based in Boston, is ranked among the nation's best litigators and appellate advocates by many within the legal community. A 1971 Harvard Law School graduate, he has been recognized repeatedly for his accomplishments as a trial and appellate attorney, educator and legal expert. Since 1988, he's been selected by his peers for The Best Lawyers —Best criminal and white-collar defense lawyer — including the 2019 edition. Weinberg was named One of the Top 10 Lawyers in Massachusetts in 2011. He has represented accused defendants in over 20 federal district courts, eight U.S. Courts of Appeal, and in the U.S. Supreme Court, where he successfully argued the landmark Fourth Amendment case of United States v. Chadwick. He is the former director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.)

A criminal defense lawyer of remarkable skill and persistence. (Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent)

The No. 1 lawyer in the City. (Following Vitale Acquittal)

Eloquence, grace and mastery of command emanate from Weinberg like rays of light glinting off his crown.

Peerless. Elegant. (In its coverage of his successful defense of Richard Vitale, who was charged with Speaker Salvatore DiMasi with honest services fraud.)

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. In an article about the seizure of emails and issues raised in Commonwealth v. Kishore.)

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. (Paul Ohm’s Blog)

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.)

Martin G. Weinberg is one of the deans of the defense bar.

Nationally renowned criminal defense attorney.

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.

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?

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

[Warshak] … may someday be seen as a watershed moment in the extension of our Constitutional rights to the Internet.

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)