Massachusetts AttorneysHomeCareersSearchContact Us
Donovan HatemMassachusetts Counselors at Law
Massachusetts Business LitigatorsAbout UsPractice AreasAttorneysRoundtablesIn the NewsNewslettersMassachusetts Business Litigators
Donovan HatemAttorneys
Massachusetts Lawyer
Attorneys

View Alphabetically

View by
Practice Area

 

Douglas M. Marrano
Douglas M. Marrano practices in:
Business Litigation
Professional Practices
Printable Bio

Douglas M. Marrano

Associate

617-406-4584 Direct Telephone
617-406-4501 Facsimile

Experience

Douglas M. Marrano is a litigation associate in Donovan Hatem's professional practices group and business litigation group. He concentrates his practice in the defense of business professionals such as attorneys, architects, engineers, and accountants.

Prior to joining Donovan Hatem, Douglas was a litigation associate at the boutique litigation firm The McCabe Group in Boston, and a telecommunications associate at Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman in Washington, DC (now Bingham McCutchen).



Admitted to Practice

  • Massachusetts
  • New York
  • District of Columbia
  • United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
  • United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States Supreme Court

Education

  • Boston University College of Communication (M.S., Mass Communications, 2000, with Distinction)
  • Boston University School of Law (J.D., 1999)
  • Boston University (B.S., Print Journalism, 1996, magna cum laude)

Representative Cases

  • Obtained defense verdict for engineer where property owner claimed engineer breached its contract by failing to perform actions enumerated in engineer's contract.
  • Obtained summary judgment for attorney where plaintiff claimed attorney breached his standard of care as closing attorney by not issuing settlement proceeds when dispute arose among purported trustees over use of the money. Decision upheld by Massachusetts Appeals Court.
  • Obtained summary judgment for engineer where plaintiff claimed design of sump pump grate was deficient resulting in plaintiff's accident on the grounds that plaintiff provided no evidence that engineer designed the grate in question and that engineer had no responsibility for means and methods of construction or installation of the grate.
  • Obtained summary judgment for attorney where plaintiff alleged attorney hired to assist with obtaining special permit for age- and price-restricted property development should have given him business advice that there were other uses for the property which may have yielded greater profits.
  • Successfully moved for summary judgment for architect and engineer where plaintiff alleged design professionals did not maintain worksite safety resulting in plaintiff's injuries on the grounds that defendants were not responsible for worker or worksite safety or for means and methods of construction.
  • Successfully moved to dismiss claims against attorneys assigned as "shadow" counsel to criminal defendant representing himself pro se on the ground that court-appointed shadow counsel are not acting under color of state for purposes of civil rights violations. Decision affirmed by First Circuit Court of Appeals, petition for certiorari denied by United States Supreme Court.
  • Successfully moved for summary judgment for architect where plaintiff claimed it lost future prospective business because architect required plaintiff to perform additional services on project beyond normal standards on the ground that plaintiff's claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine and did not fall within the "negligent misrepresentation" exception.
  • Successfully moved to dismiss claims against attorney assigned as standby counsel to criminal defendant where plaintiff alleged 6th Amendment violations for failing to obtain evidence to prove the Plaintiff's innocence on the grounds that the plaintiff waived his 6th Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by choosing to represent himself and that the Plaintiff had suffered no damages because his criminal case had not yet gone to trial.