Lissa McKinney

Lissa McKinney graduated Suffolk University (1981) and Suffolk University Law School (1984) and started as a trial lawyer with the Committee for Public Counsel Services in Worcester and Boston. Her courtroom and trial experience spans 40 years and more than 1,000 bench or jury trials, probable cause hearings, restraining order hearings and evidentiary hearings. Lissa's practice concentrates on labor and employment law, personal injury, consumer fraud complaints, administrative hearings, and ALL matters of criminal defense.Out of the courtroom, she represent clients at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, Department of Employment and Training, DSS Fair Hearings, disciplinary hearings of licensed occupations, and firearms licensing appeals.

McKinney was an Adjunct Clinical Trial Practice Instructor at Suffolk University Law School where she supervised third year law students providing indigent criminal defense. She served as Staff Attorney for Suffolk Lawyers for Justice (SLJ), the Suffolk County bar advocate program assuring the quality of lawyers representing indigent criminal defendants. McKinney has also been a lecturer at various educational seminars sponsored by Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education (MCLE), the Boston Bar Association, Suffolk County Bar Advocate Program, Suffolk Lawyers for Justice, and the Committee for Public Counsel Services, such as: District Court Bar Advocate Training; Essential Rules of Criminal Procedure; Trying Drug Cases in Massachusetts; Emerging Areas of Criminal Practice; Hot Tips for Trying Criminal Cases, Probation Violation Proceedings; Defending on a Shoestring; Pre-Trial Conference Rules; Evidence-Getting It In and Keeping It Out.

Lissa is a member of the Massachusetts Bar, the U.S. District Court for the First Circuit, & the Florida Bar,
Membership: Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL); Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys (MATA).

• Free Consultation
  Free consultation for the first 45-60 minutes.Fees for review and assessment beyond consultation are addressed during consultation.
• Credit Cards Accepted
  Paypal
• Contingent Fees
  Contingent fees are accepted for personal injury cases such as motor vehicle accidents, property accident and related torts.
• Rates, Retainers and Additional Information
  Consumer law cases brought under MGL ch. 93A will include a claim for attorney fees. Efforts to recover costs and fees are always made in these cases, but not guaranteed. Accordingly, attorney fees on an hourly basis are billed pending resolution and recovery of fees.

Florida

Since 1987

Massachusetts

Since 1985

Member

Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Current

Member

Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys

Current

Suffolk University Law School

J.D. (1984) | Criminal law, student lawyer clinical program, labor and employment

1981 - 1984

Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL)

Member

Current

Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorney's

Member

Current

Florida State Bar  # 642540

Member

1987 - Current

Massachusetts State Bar  # 544172

Member

1985 - Current

Probation Surrenders, Boston

Suffolk Lawyers for Justice (SLJ)

Evidence: Getting it in-Keeping it Out, Boston

Suffolk Lawyers for Justice (SLJ)

Pre-Trial Conference Rules, Boston

Suffolk Lawyers for Justice (SLJ)

Defending on a Shoestring, Boston

Suffolk Lawyers for Justice (SLJ)

Essential Rules of Criminal Procedure, Boston

Boston Bar Association

Q. Wondering if my restraining order was violated

November 13, 2024

A: An order to communicate about you child via the OFW app or another is very important for setting boundary's and building trust. If the RO states it must be via the App, then it could be a violation. One issue is whether he understands the limits of the authorized discourse or not.

In my view, it is a violation but, I also think it would be petty to report it as such at this time. It could get him into a lot of trouble and/or cost a job if he got locked up. As the previous violation was punished by a fine, it suggests it was a less serious violation.

You are far better off *starting by sending a message through the App something like this: "______, as you are aware, we can only communicate through this app and only about our child. Any other communications are unwelcome, and in violation of the restraining order. Please stop." If he does it again after the warning, then you could call the police or report it. He could have been offering you a heads up about the partner in case she does anything nutty like try to contact you. Jealous girlfriends can create drama even when there is nothing happening.

If you give the caution and he continues and you call the police, you will be able to say you warned him 1st.

Good luck- ... Read More

Q. Opening the door

September 8, 2024

A: First, you are asking about a Florida case, and that state's law would apply as to rules of evidence.

It seems like you are asking a question out of curiosity, rather than having a legal issue that needs some guidance by the lawyers that volunteer thier time. Please respect that the attorneyes that take their time to respond value their time, and it has worth to them.

The door was admissible no doubt as it had a bullet hole in it. What was writen after the fact on the door is inadmissible, and likley to be prejudicial to the defendant. The jury doesn't need to know whether the occupant of the home was called names or what they were. Their job is to determine if she did it or not. That said, in criminal or other proceedings a witness can 'open the door', usually accidentally, to admissibility which would then allow excluded information to be admissible to disprove some fact or another. ... Read More

Q. What is the statue of the ordinance number 14-240(b in Connecticut?

May 22, 2024

A: You were 'following to closely' to the vehicle in front of you. If you need more info on this citation you may want to ask a CT attorney.

CT Gen Stat § 14-240(b) (2023):

(b) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, no person operating a motor vehicle shall follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having regard for the speed of such vehicles, the traffic upon and the condition of the highway and weather conditions.