Wendy Murphy | |
|---|---|
| Born | August 13, 1961 |
| Education | Boston College |
| Occupation | Lawyer |
| Known for | Handling legal cases related to child abuse and sex crime |
 | This article contains promotional content. (March 2021) |
Wendy Murphy (born August 13, 1961) is a lawyer specializing in child abuse and interpersonal violence.
Murphy received a BA from Boston College in 1983 and became a Juris Doctor from New England Law Boston in 1987.
Murphy began her career as a prosecutor in Middlesex County, handling legal cases related to child abuse and sex crime. Then, she switched to her private practice to focus on violence against women and children. Murphy is an adjunct professor of sexual violence law at New England Law Boston. Murphy was a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School from 2002 to 2003. Earlier, she taught Reproductive Rights and Technologies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She is the founder and director of the Victim Advocacy & Research Group, which is a volunteer legal advocacy organization that, since 1992, has provided free legal services to victims in the criminal justice system.
She successfully sued both Princeton University and Harvard Law School for violating Title IX regulations “by mishandling sexual assault complaints.”
With co-counsel John Williams, she sued Yale University on behalf of Susan Daria Landino (formerly Burhans). This was another Title IX case and the first Jackson v Birmingham case filed by a higher education administrator rather than a sports coach.
When serial child rapist Wayne Chapman was to be released from jail, she represented his victims to keep him in jail. She filed an appeal with the Supreme Judicial Court asking for an emergency injunction preventing his release.
According to author Stuart Taylor, Jr., Murphy is a supporter of the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" principle in the American judicial system.
In 2013, Murphy was sanctioned for violations of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with U.S. district judge Joseph R. Goodwin writing:
Every aspect of this case has been riddled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and distortions by Ms. Murphy. The action was filed against the "West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals," although the correct name of the court is the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. The Complaint refers to this court as the "United States District Court for the District of West Virginia," apparently failing to realize that the state of West Virginia has two federal districts. Ms. Murphy, who is admitted to practice law in Massachusetts, did not file a Statement of Visiting Attorney or pay the Visiting Attorney fee to appear pro hac vice, as required by Local Rule 83.6. The entire premise of the Complaint in this case was based upon a blatant distortion of the SCAWV's opinion in State ex rel. J.W. v. Knight, 223 W.Va. 785, 679 S.E.2d 617 (2009). And a case against the SCAWV is clearly barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
