Full Service Law Firm
In Worcester, MA

At GSK&G, the Focus is Always on You

Every law firm has a set of principles that guides its practice, but at Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski, ours are integrated into the fabric of our work. We take our ethical duties to clients very seriously, always making certain that we bring our years of experience to bear in advocating for our clients’ best interests. In addition to our high ethical standards, we recognize that every case is unique, so we work hard to communicate with our clients clearly to ensure a positive experience. For more than 50 years, our clients have come to rely on this philosophy and the dedication and experience of our attorneys.  

Criminal Law

Protecting Your Rights

Representing Victims

Knowledge Matters

Lawyers You Can Trust

Focused Lawyers


A Philosophy of Putting Your Legal Concerns Above All Else

When you enter a relationship with our firm, you'll quickly discover that your legal goals are our highest priority, every step of the way. We never lose track of the simple fact that a portion of your life is in our hands. That's why your concerns are placed above all else, so that we can move together toward a swift and satisfying resolution of your case.

A Legacy of Commitment to Individuals, Families, and Businesses

The client relationships we've developed in the past half century speak to our commitment to our principles. Backing up our commitment to our clients is a well-rounded, nationally-recognized legal team that will provide strong, informed advocacy for all types of legal issues.

We're a general practice firm, which means whatever your case demands, we've got a team to represent you anywhere in Massachusetts.
how we fight for you

Over 50 Years of Serving the Legal Needs of Central Massachusetts

For over half a century, the attorneys at Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski have been there for residents of Worcester and the surrounding cities and towns in Central Massachusetts. We're in your neighborhood, so you'll never have to go far to meet with your attorney. And if you just have a quick question about your case, we're always a phone call away, ready to work for you.
how can we serve you ?

A Team of Recognized Leaders in Worcester


David

Sugarman

David

Kneeland

James

Gribouski

Our peers in the legal world have repeatedly recognized the outstanding, personalized service that our attorneys provide.

The attorneys at Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski have earned accolades for service, ethics, and excellence. Peer Review Ratings by Martindale-Hubbell®, considered the gold standard of peer reviews in the legal world, awarded a number of GSK&G attorneys with the top AV® Preeminent™ ratings. In addition, our attorneys have been recognized in the Best Lawyers of America, Massachusetts Super Lawyers, and New England Super Lawyers publications and have been selected as fellows in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers. GSK&G attorneys are also active members of the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Worcester Bar Association and belong to numerous professional associations that help keep them up to speed on the latest developments in the law.

Transparency Designed to Keep You in the Loop at All Times

One way we ensure our clients receive the full benefit of our service philosophy is to provide transparency throughout the entire legal process. We won't leave you wondering about your case or where the next step will take you. Over 50 years of practicing law have shown that communication is a key building block of a good attorney-client relationship.

It All Starts With a Conversation

All of our work on your behalf begins with a meeting to better understand your legal needs. That's why we offer free consultations for most cases in our Worcester offices. Call us at 508-756-6206 or contact us online to schedule your visit, and let us take charge of your legal matters today.
start a conversation

Legal News

Read about the recent case results of our attorneys and stay up to date with the latest legal resources and news 

email-subscription

GSK&G Legal News

By Darren Griffis 29 Dec, 2017
While dogs may be referred to as “man’s best friend” with good reason, they are, at their core, still animals. So although they generally make us laugh with their hilarious antics and fill us with joy with their unrequited love and devotion, it’s important to remember that they can be unpredictable and even downright dangerous. A healthy, well-behaved dog requires countless hours of training and patience from its owner. Unfortunately, some owners simply do not provide this sort of discipline, while others abuse their dogs, which potentially creates insecurity and aggression. Sadly, innocent people can end up on the receiving end of this aggression. If you or someone in your family is bitten by a dog, you need to know what to do and what your rights are as a victim.  

The laws regarding liability when someone is bitten or hurt by a dog vary from state to state in the U.S. Here in Massachusetts, our law is what’s referred to as a “strict liability” statute. This means that a dog owner can be held responsible for an injury caused by his or her pet, even if the owner did not know – or had no reason to know – that the dog might bite or injure someone. The law provides that a dog's "owner or keeper" is liable if the dog causes an injury or property damage, provided that the injured person was not otherwise at fault (by, for example, provoking the dog or trespassing on property). In other words, someone who has been injured by a dog does not need to show the dog owner was necessarily aware that their dog might hurt someone. The injured party just needs to show that the dog caused the injury and that they were not engaged in any unlawful or wrongful conduct at the time of incident.

The other important fact to keep in mind if you or someone in your family has been injured by a dog is that there is a time limit that applies if you are considering bringing a legal claim against a dog’s owner. This restriction, called a “statute of limitations,” basically sets out that if you don’t file a lawsuit within the time provided by law, you cannot file suit at all. In Massachusetts, the law requires that you bring a claim within three years from when you are injured. For that reason, it’s of critical importance that you seek legal advice as soon as possible after an injury occurs.  

For over 50 years, our firm provided our clients with guidance on all types of legal matters. Though the above content shouldn’t be considered legal advice, you can contact the team at Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski to discuss your options together.

By Darren Griffis 01 Dec, 2017

In a recent decision that promises to have substantial implications for Massachusetts criminal procedure, the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) limited the discretion given to judges in framing jury instructions in cases in which defendants have been charged with drunk driving (known as “OUI” in Massachusetts).

The decision in Commonwealth v. Wolfe overturns a 2001 Massachusetts Appeals Court case in which the lower court held that a jury instruction directing jurors to disregard the absence of evidence of a breathalyzer test did not violate the defendant’s Constitutional rights against self-incrimination. In Wolfe , the SJC held that a such an instruction should only be given if requested by the Defendant.

According to the SJC’s reasoning, the standard instruction that informs jurors that they should only consider evidence presented at trial provides a sufficient safeguard that will ensure that jurors do not dwell on the absence of certain testimony or evidence. The court also concluded that instructions that specifically mention absent evidence actually risk drawing jurors’ attention to evidence that has not been presented. Following this decision, trial court judges must now refrain from giving any instruction that specifically mentions the absence of breathalyzer or other alcohol test evidence unless the defendant specifically requests it or other facts are presented at trial that would draw attention to the lack of breathalyzer evidence.

This case resulted from a 2015 traffic stop in which the defendant, Michael Wolfe, was pulled over by a police officer after being observed driving with a broken taillight and crossing the double yellow line twice in a short amount of time. The officer arrested Wolfe for driving under the influence based on his observations of Wolfe's driving and based on Wolfe's bloodshot eyes and slurred speech and his use of his car to balance as he walked back to the police cruiser. However, the defendant declined to take a breathalyzer test back at the station.

In the lower court, despite Wolfe’s objections, a judge instructed the jury to not consider the absence of breathalyzer or other alcohol test evidence in reaching its decision. After the jury returned a guilty verdict, Wolfe appealed, claiming that the instruction unduly focused the jury’s attention on the absent evidence, violating his rights against self-incrimination. Wolfe claimed that the instruction must have significantly impacted the jury’s consideration because the other evidence presented by the prosecution was fairly weak. The defendant attributed crossing the yellow lines to avoiding a snow bank and to his tires slipping when he was turning and explained his use of his car for balance as a standard precaution on a cold, icy February night.

On appeal, the SJC found that, when the evidence of a defendant’s impairment is scant, jurors may be more likely to engage in speculation, and jury instructions about specific evidence that was not presented may actually draw jurors’ attention to the lack of breathalyzer evidence, thereby encroaching upon a defendant’s rights against self-incrimination. The court decided that the “simpler and safer approach [in such cases] is to leave such an instruction to the defendant’s choice” and to rely on a more general instruction that tells jurors to only consider the evidence presented at trial.

If you are facing criminal charges, you need an attorney who knows how to use legal developments like this case to reach the best possible result. Please contact James Gribouski and Darren Griffis at Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski for more information about how they can put their experience to work for you.
More Posts
ALL POSTS
Share by: