This transcript of Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR was generated using AI transcription and lightly edited for readability. It may contain errors, and speaker labels are approximate. The audio recording is the authoritative version.
Welcome to Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR, the podcast where we elevate the stories of the plaintiff's bar and dive into the key trends shaping the civil justice system today. I'm your host, Ray DeLorenzi, and in each episode, we'll bring you insightful interviews with leading attorneys, expert perspectives on current legal events, and in-depth discussions on the issues that matter most. Now, let's jump in.
Part of what justice means for each client is different. Most often, it's not money, it's not the compensation, it's about the change, and it's about the ways that we can change the systems, the policies, the laws, the things like that to ensure what happened to them doesn't happen again, or at least impede it as much as we can.
Ray: Hey, everyone, welcome to a new episode of Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR. I'm your host, Ray DeLorenzi, and today I'm honored to be joined by Kim Dougherty of the Justice Law Collaborative. Kim joins us from the Boston, Massachusetts area. She has worked on an array of really interesting cases that we'll get into, but also has a very interesting background of how she got into the law, which I'm just as interested in learning about. So, in any event, Kim, thanks so much for joining the podcast today.
Kim: Oh, thanks so much for having me. I'm excited to be here.
Ray: So, Kim, a lot of people are growing up and they're like, I'm going to be a lawyer. They have a lawyer in the family. I know you took an unconventional path to the law through the social work space. So I'm curious, why don't you take us back to young Kim growing up and what your home was like and what led you to go the social work route?
Kim: I actually grew up on Cape Cod. I was one of the few people who actually left the sandbox to go on to higher education. I was the first in my family actually to go to college, never mind social work school and then grad school and then law school. So it was pretty much unconventional. And I didn't know what I was doing at all, other than trying to find my path. I was always the person, though, that was sticking up for the one being picked on at the playground. And, you know, I was focused still on a lot of activities and being involved, and I just really enjoyed being around other people.
And going into college, I was interested in psychology, social work, but also the law. And I helped create a pre-law program there because there wasn't one at the time. And ultimately, I ended up going to social work school as opposed to a PhD program because it was a two-year program and not a four-year program before you even see a patient or a client. And the way that Columbia worked was your education is eight to six, two days a week, and you're thrown in day one, three days a week, right into social work. So I found myself in the Bronx in a Family Health Center, where I was helping pregnant teens kind of figure out their path forward.
And then the next year I was able to choose. So I went and integrated the social work with law, and I worked in the Manhattan family courts in child protective cases, and abuse cases, and delinquency cases. And that led me to understand that change really needed to happen on a macro level, whether it be through litigation or legislation, because helping one individual at a time was very meaningful, but it wasn't making the change and the impact that I thought needed to be made. And that's what then led me to go to law school.
Ray: So clearly, you were interested in it, you know, in developing a pre-law program. Was being a lawyer sort of your eventual goal, or did it take some time for you to see the system up close to get to that point?
Kim: I think seeing the system and how broken it was through my social work position really was what sealed the deal for me. I had interest in both, but I didn't necessarily anticipate, you know, going on to higher education for another three years. But because I felt like the impact that really needed to be made was more broad and really could have used the benefit of a law degree, that's why I decided to just go ahead and go to law school after social work school.
Ray: Tell me about your first day when you're at Columbia. You're in school for two days and then you said you go to a family health clinic. Do you remember that first day, and how eye-opening was it for you? Did you feel like you were in your element? Were you terrified? I mean, what were these sort of emotions in that first assignment?
Kim: No, I was definitely feeling unprepared the first day. Going into Jerome Avenue in the South Bronx was also scary. You know, taking a train up there and walking in and getting to know people for the first time. But they were very welcoming. The community itself was a wonderful community. There were definitely scary things happening around the area, dangerous things that were going on, but the community and the young individuals that I worked with were just so grateful. A lot of them would call me mama, mamasita. You know, I kind of started fitting in and speaking some Spanish with them. And it was nice because I gained respect from that younger population kind of right away. And I did have guidance of some really great supervisors to help me through those initial stages. But yeah, it was definitely frightening at the start.
Ray: Tell me about transitioning to Manhattan Family Court. What was your role, and how did it intersect with judges and lawyers? When you're facing a situation that typically can be awful circumstances, children involved, what was that interplay?
Kim: It was awful the entire time. It was really tragic. If you can imagine, these are kids who have been separated from their parents for reasons of abuse and neglect, and some of the most horrific situations have led them to be a part of the Manhattan Family Courts program. I worked on an interdisciplinary team with lawyers, and I was the social worker assigned to certain cases. We were evaluating... sometimes I would be supervising visits with parents, but then also evaluating whether reunification was something that could be recommended for the child to go back to the family, whether the steps that were put in place for that to occur had happened, whether they achieved those steps. If they hadn't, how are we going to get the parents to achieve those steps?
And then I also worked on delinquency cases, which brought me out to Rikers Island one time because we had one of our clients who was 16 but being charged as an adult. So I had gone out to Rikers Island and met with that client and tried to figure out our best path forward to have the least impact on his life, even though he was out there, and talking through what he could do from the mental health perspective to kind of get through things. So it was a variety, but the majority was child protective cases, and then that one client I had on Rikers Island.
Ray: Being part of the system, thinking back on it now, is it a system that works, is broken, somewhere in the middle? What were your thoughts when you were in it, and now, when you look back on it?
Kim: Well, when I was in it, I thought there's so much change that needs to be happening here to help these kids. Whether it be legislative change, policy change, regulatory change, the system really wasn't working for them, and it was really tragic and sad. And so that's why I was thinking, how can I make a greater impact? What can I do? Whether it be through litigation, whether it be through legislation. I knew it was something more than what I could do as a social worker. And I had to kind of find that path forward to make maximum impact.
Ray: The lawyers that were there that you were interfacing with, what was their demeanor? Were they jaded, like they felt they were stuck in the system? Were they folks that you looked up to? What was the dynamic? Because then you decided to become a lawyer. Did it make you want to be like that? Were they role models in some ways, or the opposite?
Kim: Well, I gave them a lot of credit for what they were doing, because to deal with tragedy day after day in horrific circumstances is a lot and it takes a lot. But compassion fatigue was certainly there. You could see that, you know, secondary trauma results in compassion fatigue, and that happens to anyone who does that type of work for long enough. So I saw mixed sides, but I think it takes a lot of work and a lot of effort, and a certain type of person to be able to do that day after day, year after year. So I gave them a lot of credit, the people who were able to stick with it and help try to get these families and these children, you know, acting in their best interest, wherever they need to be.
Ray: Was there a seminal moment where you were like, okay, now I'm going to go to law school, that's where I can really make an impact? Or was it just a gradual, this is where my life is taking me, sort of thing?
Kim: Yeah, I think it was more gradual. And it just sort of compounded over time.
Ray: So you head to law school. Did you have an inkling of what type of law you wanted to practice? Did you want to do family law, or were you like, I can't go back to that? What were you thinking?
Kim: I knew I wanted to help. I wanted to be in the helping sort of profession. I knew that first and foremost. I was at Northeastern, so just like the undergrad, you have four internships where you can kind of sort out what you want to do. So I was happy that I had that opportunity. Right when I came in, the second year when I could, I worked in the domestic violence clinic. So I was helping women get restraining orders when they didn't have counsel, you know, pro bono to help them get the restraining orders they need, so they were no longer in an abusive situation. So my path was always to help people, always to help the people who are in unfortunate situations. And that kind of continued. And so when I went through my internships, I knew for sure once I had worked at the firm that I worked with doing plaintiff side work, representing people who are, you know, through wrongful death related to drugs and devices, medical malpractice, those sort of things. Once I had that experience for those three months and I got that job offer, I was like, all right, this is it. This is where I need to be, helping people and trying to get through some pretty tragic situations.
Ray: Do you remember post-law school what's the first case that you handled that was like yours? Usually every lawyer has one that stands out. It could have been a fender bender. But what was the first one where you were like, okay, this is me now?
Kim: Yeah. So I represented a nun who had been hit by a car and thrown forward into her car. And she had some pretty horrific injuries. And they just let me run with the case because it was just a single event case. And I was able to get her case resolved for a really good number for her. And then another one was a dog bite case in my first year. Here in Massachusetts, with dog bites, all you have to do is prove ownership and then they're responsible. So I was able to get some photos and have him present, and did a whole mediation presentation on that case. But I was also quickly put into the mass tort world. So going and taking depositions and helping out on expert reports with my now law partner, Paula Bliss, who was my mentor at the time and a few years ahead of me. She also went to Northeastern. So she really took me under her wing in the mass tort world. And we would be in Louisiana one day, in Alabama another day, New York another day, helping our clients through depositions and taking depositions of treaters and things like that. So I kind of got put right into the fire quickly. But I had a lot of support.
Ray: What was the first mass tort you worked on?
Kim: So it was Fen-Phen. Way back in the day. Yeah, Fen-Phen was the first one. And HRT, hormone replacement therapy, those were some of the earlier ones.
Ray: So tell me about this: in a single event case, you have that one client. And in mass tort, you could have tens, hundreds, thousands of clients, and you're someone who came of age having to work with individuals going through awful circumstances. How did you translate those communication skills that you had developed to a litigation context?
Kim: Well, I think dealing with anyone with trauma, having my social work background was really helpful. Being able to understand and empathize and meet them where they are in terms of what their needs might be. And recognizing where there might be some needs that normally litigators wouldn't think of, I think has been a tremendous help throughout my entire career in being able to be client focused in our advocacy and trauma informed in our advocacy. So I think that really was a great addition to being able to be an impactful lawyer, one who cares about social change and is able to think outside the box, because part of what justice means for each client is different. And most often, it's not money. It's not the compensation. It's about the change. And it's about the ways that we can change the systems, the policies, the laws, the things like that to ensure what happened to them doesn't happen again, or at least impede it as much as we can. So taking that part of my social work background into the law has been something that I think has been really helpful to accomplish things for our clients that are not necessarily what most litigators are focused on or thinking about.
Ray: So I think that's a good transition to you building Justice Law Collaborative, which always struck me as a very interesting name for a law firm, because most are like the Law Offices of Kim Dougherty, or Kim Dougherty Law, and this name gives a certain connotation of how you approach people and approach cases. So how did the firm come together?
Kim: So, my law partner, Paula, who was my initial mentor, and I had been working for other firms nationwide on various litigations for several years. We had originally left our first firm because it was a 200-lawyer defense firm, and there were 12 of us doing plaintiff side work, and they wanted us to transition to the defense world. And that didn't really quite go over well. So we went on and worked at other national firms and just always been talking about, you know, should we do this on our own? Should we do something? There are decisions that are being made by other people that we would make differently. Having some autonomy and choice over your clients and what you want to do with your case and what you think is important about the case. So, you know, COVID hit and we just had time to really focus on building what we really wanted.
And at the time, for me, one of my law partners was retiring. So there was a transition happening regardless. So we just kind of sat down, put our heads together, and we knew that what our firm needed to be about was not us, but our clients. And so that's why we chose not to put our names on it. Some people may say, well, you might lose some branding and people knowing who you are, but our goal was to make it client-centered and to make it about justice for our clients, and to have a collaborative where we can work with other law firms and lawyers throughout the country together in a way that mutually benefits everybody.
Ray: So, having experience at other firms, and not to be critical of them in any way, what were things that you did at those firms that made you say, you know what, that's not the model I want for a firm that I can design from the ground up?
Kim: Yeah, so I think I've always had a passion for the legislative side of things, and also working within the confines of the FDA and trying to raise awareness about imperfect drugs and drugs and devices that were dangerous. And also just my path of always wanting to be there for victims of child abuse and survivors of child physical abuse and sexual abuse. If it wasn't necessarily supported, I was told I couldn't do it, right? Like, no, we're not doing that. We're not doing that case. No, we're not doing that case either. And so I didn't have the autonomy to always take on the cases that I thought were really important and that would really impact social change and justice. And I oftentimes was confined to just the litigation and not that outside-the-box work with legislation and different departments and things like that. That was really the biggest piece of it, kind of getting that autonomy to work a case the way I wanted to and to take on the work that I wanted to take on. And the same, I think, for my law partner.
Ray: So, two cases I want to talk to you about. The first, I know, predates when you began Justice Law Collaborative, but I think it's probably one that stands out to you when you're thinking about your career: the New England Compounding Center and tainted medicine, tainted steroids. And I want you to take a moment because I think that is a really good example of gaps in the regulatory space. For those who aren't familiar with that case, can you do a little bit of a windup of what it was about?
Kim: Yes. So, New England Compounding Center is a compounding pharmacy here in Massachusetts, in Framingham. What they were creating were steroids that people normally get in their knee, their back, their spine, when they have some pain. They were not following any of the regulations, and fungal meningitis ended up developing within the... well, the fungus developed within the steroids. And so when people were getting injected, they got fungal meningitis, which is the most horrific, painful type of meningitis you can have because it attacks your brain. And so over 700 people were sickened throughout the country. Over 100 people died really tragic, horrible, painful deaths. And it was all a result of just negligence and greed, where they were trying to pump out as much of this stuff as possible. They were using fake names like Mickey Mouse to fill prescriptions, things like that. They were criminally charged because of this, for the death of the people, among other types of charges. But I mean, I don't know if you want me to continue.
Ray: Oh, yes, please.
Kim: I was contacted by a lawyer out of the state who had a case, and we were talking about what to do in terms of, again, greatest impact. So I said, I'd like to just go and execute ex parte and see if we can get an inspection of this facility and do preservation of evidence and all of this, because everything's happening so fast, and so many people are getting sick, but their doors are, you know, you could walk in and walk out of them. So all the evidence that's there, who knows what's happening to it? Certainly, they were probably aware and wanting to get rid of some of it. So I went in ex parte and asked for inspection of the facility, a four-day inspection, and also preservation of evidence. And shockingly, it was granted. I could not believe it, without the defendants being there.
And unshockingly, we were removed to federal court the next day. And then I was forced in federal court to try to implement and enforce the state court orders to get inspection of the facility. And of course, they all caught on by then and they were represented, and it made it a little bit more of a challenge. But within the next couple of months, we were actually able to get ordering of the inspection, preservation was ordered, and then inspection of the facility was ordered as well. So we worked really quickly trying to find the best experts. And we literally hired the expert that wrote the encyclopedia of clean rooms. We hired some folks who did work on 9/11 finding those sort of fungal pieces and things like that. And we were able to get that inspection done literally right before Christmas.
On the fourth day, the defense lawyer said to me, we're filing for bankruptcy, but you're welcome, you got your evidence now. If they had filed before we'd done those inspections, we would have had a stay and we would have never been able to do that four-day inspection and find all the evidence that we did, and other defendants that we could hold accountable. So that was a big favor that normally you don't get from the defense side. But he had been a former pharmacist and kind of had a feeling that these people deserved some justice. So we were able to gather that evidence and hold multiple different entities responsible, from the HVAC system to the cleaners in the clean room to the manufacturers to the ultimate New England Compounding Center itself.
Ray: So you had worked on drugs prior, litigation-wise, but compounding is sort of a different ball of wax, especially related to the FDA. What did that tell you or illustrate to you about the FDA and the limits of the regulatory apparatus?
Kim: Yeah, their reach is not very far. And even as far as it goes, it's not enough. And so there are other entities out there that kind of fly under the radar and these sort of tragic things can happen. Like right now, my law partner is working on IVF cases, and they're all unregulated. So, you know, people who are in these vulnerable situations, they just want to have a baby. They're paying for these tests that really aren't viable to decide whether to keep an embryo or not. These are the sort of things, like in New England Compounding, that happen when you're not regulated, when the government doesn't have the power to do what people would expect.
Ray: The second case I want to talk to you about is Katie Meyer. And as someone who operates in the PR and communications world, it's one of those high-profile cases that brings all sorts of feelings. It's a terrible tragedy. Katie Meyer was an athlete at Stanford. Why don't you give an explanation for those who aren't familiar with the case, sort of an overview of it? And then I want to talk about the legislative component as well.
Kim: Yeah, absolutely. Katie Meyer was an elite athlete, D1 at Stanford, just a really smart person, a really great person, gregarious personality. She'd be the first one out there getting everybody hyped up at a game. Even within her own team — she was on the soccer team, she was the goalie — she would hype them up, and the coach would be like, well, I guess I don't have anything more to say. So they went through to the championship in 2019. She basically was the one who won it for them on PKs by stopping the PKs. And then, you know, fast forward a little bit more time right after COVID, they're back at Stanford for the preseason, and they're in the dorms before all the other students get there. She had buddied up with a freshman who's a minor who came from across the country. Long story short, the freshman had been sexually assaulted by a football player, and he was essentially taken off the team for one practice in less than 48 hours and then let back on the team. Nothing was done.
And so she happened upon him coming out of the cafeteria and spilled coffee on him. She was in distress. She was telling them she was in distress. She was seeing a sports psychologist, talking about suicidal ideations, all interrelated. And what happened finally on the night of her passing was that she got a six-page single-spaced letter that threatened her diploma, actually put it on hold, and threatened all the things that she had worked for: her captainship, her scholarship, her RA position, her fellowship. She was waiting to get into Stanford Law School, was going to put that on hold. And essentially, they were charging her for spilling coffee, and all of that just in her mind kind of just fell in on her.
You know, for someone to get into Stanford, to academically excel and play D1, I mean, these are students who don't make mistakes. They come in and they have worked their whole life to be in that place, to be in that spot. And, you know, unfortunately, she saw that there was sort of no way back. And she took her life literally within hours of that night. She wrote back telling them that she was shocked and distraught, and they scheduled a meeting with her a couple of weeks later. So it's a sad case, but ultimately it's had a positive result, and we've moved forward to a resolution just as of this week, where the university is making significant change, including honoring her legacy by retiring her number, doing a scholarship in her name, and starting a wellness center in her name. And also implementing the principles of Katie Meyer's Law, which will help people in the disciplinary process in the future.
Ray: That is, of course, an amazing achievement. And I know there's hope for Katie Meyer's Law to be enacted outside of Stanford. What does that look like right now? And what would the law do? I know the legislative process is tricky, but what's the intended outcome?
Kim: So, Katie Meyer's Law is a law in California now. It's already been passed in her name. And it requires universities, day one, to have a support person there to explain the process, to support the student through the disciplinary process, to help them understand their options, to be there for them, and it also allows them to participate throughout the process. The way that it was before was, you know, you can have someone come, but they can't speak. And there were a lot of issues with due process and things like that in the process that we found. Over 10 years ago, a Stanford alumni had offered to do exactly what this bill is now doing — day one of a disciplinary proceeding. He was going to get all sorts of Stanford alumni to represent the students day one, help them through the process, help them understand, try to give them the support, let them know this isn't going to be sort of the end of the world. And Stanford declined to allow that to happen.
So now we fast forward, and having Katie Meyer's Law now going federally, Representative Brownley has drafted a bill that if any university receives any public funding, they need to implement it. So that's not just public universities now, that's private universities that will have to implement this. And it's really truly going to make universities safer, to help with raising awareness on mental health and the issues that these students face. Also, a piece of Representative Brownley's bill has to do with tracking statistics on suicides, because a lot of times universities will try to claim it's something else, or have the family just say they passed and not document it as a suicide because they don't want people to think that students at their universities are having mental health issues and facing mental health concerns. So that will expose that piece of it as well. So I'm just really proud of the Meyers to have found purpose through all this pain and to have been able to advocate so strongly, both within California and now outside of California, to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again. They strongly believe that if Katie had had that support, and if Katie Meyer's Law had been in existence when she was going through this, that she would be here today. So that's really the important piece behind it, is making that change.
Ray: You know, getting any law passed federally is difficult, particularly in the current political climate. Although mental health seems to be one of those issues that really transcends partisan lines. Are you optimistic, not necessarily in this Congress, but over the next few years, that the momentum could be there to do something like this?
Kim: Yeah, I mean, interestingly, when the Meyers had gone to DC — and I wasn't with them this time when they were lobbying — they had the support of bipartisans behind it. It was very welcome on both sides of the aisle. They've since been on... both I and they have been on Jake Tapper. Jake Tapper has taken interest in it. There have been other people like Colton Underwood, who was a former NFL player who then went on The Bachelor. I'm not sure which one he's more famous for, but he also has a bill where he's implementing some of these pieces of Katie Meyer's Law and trying to get that passed. So there is momentum. I think there is momentum, even in this current day, from people who really care about these issues, who have influence, and then also on the legislative side, both sides. So we're hopeful. We're hopeful that it gets pushed through.
Ray: So now that you've resolved the case, and the legislative piece has been addressed at least at the state level and hopefully one day at the federal level, what's next for you, Kim?
Kim: Well, for me, I'm still on the board of Katie's Save, which is the foundation the family started literally within weeks of her passing because they cared so much about trying to raise awareness of these issues and mental health issues with students. And so they've been going to schools all over the country, making presentations, putting out information at their mental health awareness games that they're having. So the foundation is going to continue on to do really great work. We're going to continue on to try to make that legislative change and the push there. And, you know, I'm hoping to just see them when I'm out in California in a few weeks. And I know they won't be strangers. This is a family that will be with me for life. And I've been so privileged to work with them on all the impactful things that they've done with this case. So it'll continue.
Ray: With that, Kim Dougherty of Justice Law Collaborative, thanks so much for joining the podcast. Really appreciate the time.
Thanks for listening to this episode of Raising the Bar with RebuttalPR. Don't forget to subscribe and follow to join us next time. See you then.
