12 Best Rideshare accident lawyers in Massachusetts (Reviewed in 2026)

The tenth register, and the only one that shows its work

Twelve states now, and twelve different answers to the same question: what will a bar register stand behind? Texas prints “No Public Disciplinary History”. Florida covers ten years and says so. Georgia opens in 1991. Nevada gives a case number. New York vouches for one line of its own page and sends you to the Appellate Division for the rest. Washington never writes the word “none” at all.

Massachusetts hands you the decision. The Board of Bar Overseers answers Public Discipline plainly — None, in most cases — and where the answer is Yes, it prints the date and hyperlinks the decision document. Most states tell you that something exists. This one shows you where it is.

That matters more than it sounds. Our Washington page spent two batches arguing that a blank is not a clean record; it took a reprimand finally appearing to settle it. Here the argument does not arise, because the field demonstrably works: one of these twelve reads “Yes”, dated 20 July 2022, with a working link to a page headed In the Matter of Danilo Avalon. We followed it. A register that will show you the bad record is a register worth believing on the clean ones — which is why the other eleven listings here carry a green “None” rather than the dash our Washington and New York listings carry.

What we have not done is read the decision. It sits in an embedded document we did not open, and we are not going to characterise conduct we have not read. The action and the date are published in full on his card, in the register’s own words, and the link is on his profile so you can do what we did not.

Nine fields, and then it stops

The BBO publishes name, status, malpractice insurance, location, public discipline, firm, address, admission date and BBO number. That is the entire record. No practice areas, no law school, no admissions in other states, no languages, no office size, no fee terms.

It is the leanest register on this site, and the effect is the opposite of what you would expect. Because the Board does not ask lawyers to describe themselves, there is nothing on a Massachusetts record that the Board did not put there — no block to shade, no warning to print, no forty-three practice areas selected by a two-partner firm. Washington publishes far more and warns that it might be incomplete, inaccurate, and/or out of date. Massachusetts publishes less and warrants all of it.

The cost lands on us. Nothing about what these twelve actually do for a living is register-checked, so every practice claim on every profile here is tagged Reported. David Condon’s record cannot tell you that his own biography is defence and labour work while his firm’s rideshare page is plaintiff-side marketing. We had to read that ourselves, and his listing says so.

Three of these twelve pages have something wrong with them

We read every rideshare page behind every listing. All twelve resolve. Three do not survive reading.

The worst is Chelsey Guay’s, and it is the worst on this entire site. Under a heading reading Rideshare Accident Lawyer, the page runs the demo copy its website template shipped with: an architecture consultancy, and the revitalisation of an art gallery in Toronto, printed three times, with an FAQ asking how the reader might meet fellow architects. We fetched it ourselves on 17 August 2026 and it is live. It also sits at a URL under /hartford/ — a Connecticut city — while the firm’s own navigation gives its Massachusetts offices as Boston and Hanover. Her bar record is clean and current and that is what her listing certifies. But on rideshare specifically, the evidence is not thin. It is absent.

Kevin Donovan’s firm page names the wrong regulator. Advising readers how to vet a lawyer, it says you can view records of disciplinary action on the Massachusetts Bar Association’s website. The MBA is a voluntary membership association; it does not discipline anybody. Discipline in this state is the Board of Bar Overseers — the register every listing on this page is built from. Of all the errors in this batch it is the one that actually costs the reader something, because following it means running the check against a body with nothing to show.

David DiCenso’s page prints its own opening twice, introduction and first section repeated word for word a few paragraphs down. Harmless, and nothing on the page is wrong because of it. We name it because these pages are the only evidence most readers ever get that a firm works on these cases, and a page nobody proofread is weaker evidence than one somebody did.

Two more disagree with themselves in smaller ways. James Merrigan’s page closes by asking readers to call a number one digit different from the one in its own contact block. Sharon Randall’s firm gives a rideshare number that is not the number on her bar record.

Where the pages contradict each other

Two figures in this batch cannot both be describing the same thing. DiCenso’s page and Avalon’s both put Massachusetts personal injury protection at $8,000, covering first-dollar medical costs regardless of fault. Donovan’s says an at-fault driver’s personal policy would likely cover the first $20,000 in damages.

We are not going to tell you which is right, because we have no source that settles it and picking the one that sounds more familiar is precisely the habit this site was built to break. What we can tell you is that three firms writing for the same readers about the same state published two different numbers, and that a reader taking either on trust is taking it on trust.

The batch also contains its share of unsourced assertion. Dillon Brozyna’s firm page states a quarterly revenue figure for Uber and attributes it to nobody; we have not reprinted it. At the other end, Marc Breakstone’s page cites Lyft’s own published safety report by year and then quotes that report’s methodology explaining what its numbers leave out. It is the only page in the batch that tells you the weaknesses of its own evidence, and after a hundred and seventy-two listings it remains a rare thing to find.

One name we were given, and did not publish

A thirteenth candidate arrived with a full biography and a bar record that belongs to somebody else. The biography is Michele Haber, an attorney whose own firm page says she is admitted in California and graduated law school in 2014. The record supplied with her is Julie Michelle Huber of Kirkland & Ellis, admitted in Massachusetts in November 2023. Different name, different firm, different state.

This is the third time, after Nathan Majors and Ross Cellino, that a candidate has reached us paired with the wrong person’s record, and all three times the tell was the same: the admission date and the law school did not fit the career described. Neither person is published. A bar check that checks the wrong person is worse than no bar check, because it looks like one.

Where these lawyers actually are

Eleven of the twelve are registered in Boston proper — Franklin Street, Devonshire Street, Post Office Square, Federal Street, Summer Street, Dartmouth Street, School Street, Broad Street, Friend Street, Center Plaza and Columbia Road. Charles Pappas is in Framingham, about twenty miles west and inside the Boston metro; his card says so on its face.

Two carry a phone number that does not match their address. Brozyna’s bar record gives a Tampa area code against a Federal Street address, which fits a biography describing twelve years in Florida before a Massachusetts admission in 2023. Donovan’s gives a 508 number against a Broad Street address. Neither is irregular. Both are simply not what you would guess from the address, and a directory that prints the address without the number would be hiding an easy check.

What we haven’t checked

Coverage grows market by market. If you handle rideshare cases elsewhere in Massachusetts, tell us you exist — it costs nothing and buys nothing, but it gets you looked at. All states · How we work