Michael Hanley
Proven VerdictsAbout Michael Hanley
Michael Hanley has practiced law in northern New England since 1976, focusing primarily on medical malpractice and complex commercial litigation. Much of his caseload comes from referrals by other attorneys handling difficult or unusual matters, and he has represented clients against major corporations, insurance companies, financial institutions and hospitals, including in Ulm v. Ford Motor Company, 170 Vt. 281 (2000).
Hanley served as lead counsel in several cases that reshaped Vermont law, among them Russo v. Griffin (1986), which eased recovery for legal malpractice, Crump v. P & C Food Markets, Inc. (1990), which allowed employees to recover for emotional distress after wrongful termination, and Thompson v. Dewey's South Royalton, Inc. (1999), which broadened recovery under the state's dram shop law. He also litigated a line of cases expanding the rights of survivors of childhood sexual abuse to bring claims, including Earle v. State of Vermont (1999) and Doe v. Raymond (2008), and two federal decisions, Robinson v. Springfield Hospital (2010) and Newland v. North Country Health Care (2017), that curbed hospitals' use of peer review privilege to block discovery in malpractice cases.
He is admitted to practice in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, holds an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, and has been recognized by Best Lawyers in America and New England Super Lawyers.
Proven verdicts and settlements
On September 9, 1990, James Ulm was riding as a passenger in a 1978 Ford Bronco on a dirt road above Wilmington, Vermont, when the driver lost steering control and the Bronco rolled, breaking Ulm's back and leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. Ulm sued Ford Motor Company, arguing the Bronco's steering system was defectively designed, and a Windham Superior Court jury returned a $1,250,000 verdict in his favor. After the trial court credited pretrial settlements and added prejudgment interest, the final judgment rose to $1,290,460.52. Ford appealed, and the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in full, also rejecting a subrogation claim brought by Ulm's health plan.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each case is unique and depends on its own facts.
