Patrick J. Vallely


  • The University of Chicago Law School, JD, 2005 – with honors; Editor in Chief, Chicago Journal of International Law
  • University of Dayton, BA, 2002 – magna cum laude

Download vCard

Patrick Vallely is a partner at Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP. He focuses his practice on the following areas:

  • Class Actions
  • Consumer Fraud
  • Consumer Privacy
  • Corporate and Shareholder Disputes

Mr. Vallely is a seasoned litigator with nearly twenty years of experience litigating class actions across a range of substantive law, including consumer, privacy, securities, insurance, and employment law. He also handles high-stakes corporate disputes.

Mr. Vallely brings a strategic advantage to his clients, having both prosecuted cases on behalf of individuals across a broad range of claims and defended businesses and their officers and directors at a prior firm, bolstering his strategic insights for his clients.

Mr. Vallely’s consumer and privacy litigation experience includes the following:

• Obtained a $34 million recovery against a mortgage lender arising from a lender’s force-placed insurance practices

• Obtained a $10 million recovery against a bank on behalf of checking account customers from whom the bank obtained overdraft fees through improper debit transaction reordering

• Obtained a $15 million recovery at trial against a cigarette manufacturer for deception relating to “light” cigarettes

• Litigated and argued an appeal construing Massachusetts consumer protection law, relating in a landmark ruling clarifying the scope of the law and rejecting defense arguments for federal preemption

• Represents patients of several Massachusetts healthcare providers for violations of consumers’ privacy by providers that use tracking technologies, including obtaining key decisions resolving important issues of state privacy law

• Represents long-term care insurance policyholders in claims arising from the insurer’s transfers to corporate affiliates that undermine the ability of policyholders to collect on future insurance claims

• In his time at a large defense firm before coming to Shapiro Haber & Urmy, Mr. Vallely successfully defended class actions involving major financial institutions, providing him deep knowledge on class action defense strategy that he now uses to hold companies accountable for their harm to consumers and other individuals

Mr. Vallely’s securities and corporate dispute litigation experience includes the following:

• Represented shareholders in a derivative suit against directors and officers of a major technology company involving allegations of insider trading, resulting in a landmark Court of Chancery decision clarifying Delaware law on claims relating to insider trading, and ultimately procuring a substantial derivative settlement for the benefit of the company and its shareholders.

• Represented shareholders in a derivative suit against directors and officers of a major tobacco company relating to an ill-fated investment in another company that resulted in the company’s participation in unlawful conduct, resulting in a creative settlement solution requiring important modifications to the company’s practices to avoid future unlawful conduct, thus preserving shareholder value

• Represents shareholders of government-backed home mortgage companies in a derivative lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal government’s appropriation of value from the companies for the benefit of taxpayers

• Litigated numerous other derivative lawsuits alleging director and officer misconduct across a range of industries, including technology, medicine, and consumer products, both on the defense side (at a prior firm) and the plaintiff’s side (at Shapiro Haber & Urmy)

Mr. Vallely’s employment litigation experience includes:

• Obtained a $22.5 million recovery on behalf of direct store delivery distributors of a food manufacturer in a lawsuit relating to misclassification of the distributors as independent contractors

• Litigated wage claims by technology company employees who alleged their employer required them to work off-the-clock from home

Bar Admissions                                                  

  • Massachusetts
  • United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts