Mark Zarrow’s practice emphasizes mediation, arbitration, appeals, and the protection of elders through protective services orders, guardianships and conservatorships.
A Lian Zarrow partner since 1982, he has tried cases and briefed and argued appeals before the Massachusetts Trial Court, Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court; the U.S. District Court; and the U. S. Court of Appeals.
Mediation and arbitration practice
- Mark has mediated and arbitrated hundreds of matters concerning divorce and separation, personal injury, contract and business disputes, construction issues, employment discrimination, and consumer complaints.
- Serves on the Arbitrator Panel of the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation’s Home Improvement Contractor’s Arbitration Program
- Arbitrator for the Council of Better Business Bureaus’ BBB AUTO LINE program
- Approved to serve as trial master and discovery master by the Massachusetts Superior Court and Massachusetts Probate and Family Court
- Panelist on the Superior Court panel of arbitrators
- Member of the Massachusetts Council of Family Mediators
- Served on the Standing Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution of the Administrative Office of the Massachusetts Trial Court for many years
Mark’s appellate cases include:
Lipsitt v. Plaud, 466 Mass. 240 (2013). In this case Attorney Zarrow prevailed before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in overturning a lower court decision, which dismissed a claim for unpaid wages under the statute of limitations. He also convinced the Court to overturn the lower court’s holding that the individual who ran the defendant corporation could not be held personally liable.
Carpenter v. Carpenter, 73 Mass.App.Ct. 732 (2009). Based on Attorney Zarrow’s argument the Massachusetts Appeals Court overturned the lower court’s ruling that the former husband’s municipal pension could be partly assigned to the former wife, where almost twenty years had elapsed since the original divorce.
Cormier v. Quist, 77 Mass.App.Ct. 914 (2010). Attorney Zarrow convinced the Massachusetts Appeals Court to remand the case to the trial judge because the judge had not considered that the child was in his mother’s sole custody, in a case that was brought to determine whether the child, who was born out of wedlock, should have his mother’s, as opposed to his father’s, surname.