Michael Hanley

Michael has practiced law in northern New England since 1976. At this time, he primarily represents patients in medical malpractice cases and parties to complex commercial litigation. However, over the years, he has tried almost every kind of case. He has a demonstrated record of obtaining fair and just outcomes for his clients.

A large portion of his practice arises from other lawyers who refer complex or difficult matters.

His clients have recovered from some of the largest corporations in the world, such as Ulm v. Ford Motor Company, 750 A. 2d 981, 170 Vt. 281 (2000), and many large insurance companies, financial institutions and hospitals.

Michael was the lead attorney in a number of cases that significantly changed the law. He represented the plaintiffs in:

• Russo v. Griffin, 147 Vt. 20 (1986), which made it significantly easier to recover for legal malpractice;

• Crump v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 154 Vt. 284 (1990), which allowed employees to recover for significant emotional distress arising from wrongful termination; and

which expanded the group of persons entitled to recover from persons who sell alcoholic beverages in dram shop actions.

Michael is particularly proud of a series of cases where he increased the ability of persons to recover for childhood sexual abuse, including:

• Earle v. State of Vermont, 170 Vt. 183 (1999), which made it significantly harder for defendants to assert the statute of limitations as a defense; and

• Doe v. Raymond, et al, No. 07-C-048 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, Grafton County, 2008), which significantly expanded the group of persons who have a duty to protect children from this devastating conduct.

Other notable cases of Michael's include Robinson v. Springfield Hospital, et al, No. 1:09-cv-75, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10160, 2010 WL 503096 (D. Vt.), and

Newland v. North Country Health Care, No. 16-cv-547, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205522, 2017 WL 6397723 (D. N. H.), two cases in the federal courts of Vermont and New Hampshire that significantly reduced the ability of defendants to avoid the discovery of facts in medical malpractice cases by asserting the so-called "peer-review privilege".

$2.0 million, medical malpractice wrongful death - failure to diagnose bleeding ulcer