Smith Kane Elevates Senior Counsel Darshana Indira to Partner

Smith Kane, LLP announces that Darshana Indira has been elevated to partner, effective April 1, 2026.

Indira is an accomplished employment and business lawyer who advises company owners, organizational leaders, and C-suite executives across a wide range of employment and commercial litigation matters. Her practice spans both transactional counseling and complex disputes, with particular experience in industries including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, healthcare, and retail.

“Darshana has become an invaluable advisor to our clients and a trusted colleague within the firm,” said Matthew A. Kane, Managing Partner of Smith Kane. “Her thoughtful approach to complex employment and business issues, combined with her litigation experience and practical business judgment, makes her a natural fit for partnership. As we celebrate our 30th anniversary and continue to grow following our recent rebrand, Darshana’s leadership will play an important role in the firm’s future.”

Indira provides strategic counsel to businesses navigating the complexities of employer-employee relationships. She regularly advises management and senior executives on executive compensation matters, employment agreements, restrictive covenants, and severance negotiations.

In addition to her employment law practice, Indira is a trusted advisor to startups and emerging companies in Massachusetts and across the country. She works closely with founders and leadership teams to form entities, draft foundational corporate documents, and establish employment frameworks that support long-term growth. As those businesses evolve, she continues to serve as a key legal resource, advising on disputes and litigation when they arise.

Indira is an active leader in the legal community. She is co-chair of the BBA’s Labor & Employment Section, a member of the Women’s Bar Association’s Board of Directors and co-chair of its Women of Color Committee. She also serves as vice chair of the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Business Law Section Council. In 2025, Indira was named an Excellence in the Law: Up & Coming Lawyer by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

About Smith Kane, LLP

Celebrating 30 years, Smith Kane, LLP has built a reputation for helping clients grow their businesses, manage risk, and resolve complex legal matters. Founded in 1996, the firm offers big-firm expertise paired with the strategic, responsive, and client-focused approach of a boutique practice. Smith Kane represents clients in business law and litigation, white collar criminal defense, government investigations, and employment law matters from its Boston office.

Smith Kane’s Darshana Indira Moderates BBA Panel, “Preparation with Purpose: Managing Deponents in Employment Matters”

Smith Kane, LLP announces that Darshana Indira moderated the Boston Bar Association (BBA) panel, “Preparation with Purpose: Managing Deponents in Employment Matters,” March 12 at noon.

This program focused on how employment litigators prepare deponents for deposition, with an emphasis on judgment, strategy, and risk management. Attendees heard from both employee-side and management-side attorneys about how they approach deposition preparation and gained practical strategies for structuring prep sessions, addressing credibility issues, and avoiding common mistakes in employment matters.

Indira is an accomplished employment and business lawyer who advises company owners, organizational leaders, and C-suite executives across a wide range of employment and commercial litigation matters. Her practice spans both transactional counseling and complex disputes, with particular experience in industries including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, healthcare, and retail.

Indira provides strategic counsel to businesses navigating the complexities of employer-employee relationships. She regularly advises management and senior executives on executive compensation matters, employment agreements, restrictive covenants, and severance negotiations.

In addition to her employment law practice, Indira is a trusted advisor to startups and emerging companies in Massachusetts and across the country. She works closely with founders and leadership teams to form entities, draft foundational corporate documents, and establish employment frameworks that support long-term growth. As those businesses evolve, she continues to serve as a key legal resource, advising on disputes and litigation when they arise.

Indira is an active leader in the legal community. She is co-chair of the BBA’s Labor & Employment Section, a member of the Women’s Bar Association’s Board of Directors and co-chair of its Women of Color Committee. She also serves as vice chair of the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Business Law Section Council. In 2025, Indira was named an Excellence in the Law: Up & Coming Lawyer by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

About Smith Kane, LLP

Celebrating 30 years, Smith Kane, LLP has built a reputation for helping clients grow their businesses, manage risk, and resolve complex legal matters. Founded in 1996, the firm offers big-firm expertise paired with the strategic, responsive, and client-focused approach of a boutique practice. Smith Kane represents clients in business law and litigation, white collar criminal defense, government investigations, and employment law matters from its Boston office.

Compliance Duties Don’t Cancel Whistleblower Rights

On January 27, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a significant decision in Thomas Galvin v. Roxbury Community College clarifying the scope of protection under the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, G.L.c. 149, §185. The Court held that a public employee may engage in protected whistleblowing activity even if identifying legal violations falls within the employee’s job responsibilities and even if the employee may have been involved in the underlying compliance failures.

The decision provides important guidance for public employers, particularly educational institutions and other entities that rely on internal compliance officers or administrators to oversee regulatory obligations.

The plaintiff served as Roxbury Community College’s Director of Facilities and Public Safety and was the college’s primary campus security authority responsible for compliance with the federal Clery Act. Over a number of years, a student reported allegations of sexual assault to multiple senior administrators. Despite those reports, the college failed to disclose the allegations to the U.S. Department of Education as required by federal law. The plaintiff raised concerns internally, sought guidance from the Department of Education, disclosed the issue to the State Auditor’s Office, and later formally objected in writing to the board of trustees regarding the college’s failure to comply with its reporting obligations.

After external audits confirmed that Clery Act violations had occurred, the college terminated the plaintiff’s employment. The college asserted that the decision was based on performance deficiencies, including the plaintiff’s own failures to ensure regulatory compliance. The plaintiff sued, alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for whistleblowing in violation of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act. A jury agreed and awarded substantial damages.

On appeal, the college argued that the plaintiff could not qualify as a whistleblower because reporting Clery Act violations was part of his job and because he was himself implicated in the failures to report. The Supreme Judicial Court rejected those arguments and affirmed the verdict.

The Court held that when an employee objects to conduct that is undisputedly unlawful, the employee engages in protected activity as a matter of law. The statute requires only an objectively reasonable belief that a legal violation occurred, and that standard is automatically satisfied where the illegality is not in dispute. The Court further concluded that the Whistleblower Act does not exclude employees who had compliance responsibilities or who may have been involved in the misconduct they report.

Importantly, the Court drew a clear distinction between whistleblower status and cause for termination. While an employer remains free to discipline or terminate an employee for legitimate performance issues or misconduct, the employer may not do so because the employee objected to unlawful conduct. Determining whether the termination was motivated by whistleblowing or by performance failures is a fact-specific inquiry for the jury.

For public employers, this decision underscores the need for caution when responding to internal reports of regulatory violations, particularly when those reports come from compliance officers or administrators tasked with oversight. The ruling reinforces that the Whistleblower Act is intended to encourage the reporting of unlawful activity, not to penalize those closest to identifying it. Employers should ensure that adverse employment decisions are well documented, clearly grounded in legitimate performance concerns or other business needs unrelated to protected reporting activity, and carefully separated from any such activity. As regulatory scrutiny and enforcement continue to increase, this case serves as a reminder that an organization’s response to internal compliance concerns can have significant legal consequences.

Winter 2026 Newsletter

What happens when HR execs violate their own policies?

Darshana Indira authored an article, “What Happens When HR Execs Violate Their Own Policies,” for HR Executive. In the article, Darshana discusses how recent headlines involving HR executives and workplace misconduct highlight a critical issue for employers: the heightened legal exposure and credibility concerns that arise when compliance leaders violate the policies they enforce. The article examines why consistent enforcement matters, how to conduct impartial investigations when leadership is involved, and the reputational consequences of failing to hold HR leaders accountable.

Five Laredo, Smith & Kane Attorneys Recognized by Boston Magazine as 2025 “Top Lawyers”

Laredo, Smith & Kane announces that five of its attorneys were selected by Boston Magazine for inclusion on the 2025 Top Lawyers list. The exclusive list honors the best attorneys in the region, from corporate to family law.

The five Laredo, Smith & Kane attorneys named to the list include:

Boston Magazine’s annual Top Lawyers list is compiled through peer nominations. Attorneys are invited to nominate up to three of their peers in a select number of law specialties. Top vote-getters in each specialty are reviewed by an advisory board of select lawyers, chosen for their credentials and the high number of votes they received.

About Laredo, Smith & Kane, LLP

For nearly 30 years, Laredo, Smith & Kane has helped clients grow their businesses and resolve legal matters–offering clients big-firm expertise with the client-centered strategy that only a small firm can provide.  The firm’s attorneys successfully combine a strategic approach to running a business with thoughtful, thorough, and protective legal representation. The firm represents clients in matters related to business law and litigation, white collar criminal defense, government investigations, and employment law.

Seven Laredo, Smith & Kane Attorneys Recognized in the 2025 Edition of Massachusetts Super Lawyers

Laredo, Smith & Kane announces that seven of its attorneys have been recognized in the 2025 edition of Massachusetts Super Lawyers, with six included on the Super Lawyers list and one on the Rising Stars list. With these rankings, nearly all of the attorneys at the firm were recognized on the 2025 list.

The Laredo, Smith & Kane attorneys on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers list and their corresponding category/practice area are:

Senior counsel Darshana Indira was recognized as a Massachusetts Rising Star in Employment & Labor.

In addition, Laredo, Smith & Kane is one of only a few Boston law firms of similar size to have three partners – Kane, Laredo, and Salsburg – named to the Super Lawyers Top 100 list. Salsburg was also included on the Top 50 Women list, recognizing Massachusetts’ top 50 women attorneys.

Super Lawyers is a research-driven, peer-influenced rating service of lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The mission of Super Lawyers is to bring visibility to those attorneys who exhibit excellence in practice.

About Laredo, Smith & Kane, LLP

For nearly 30 years, Laredo, Smith & Kane has helped clients grow their businesses and resolve legal matters–offering clients big-firm expertise with the client-centered strategy that only a small firm can provide.  The firm’s attorneys successfully combine a strategic approach to running a business with thoughtful, thorough, and protective legal representation. The firm represents clients in matters related to business law and litigation, white collar criminal defense, government investigations, employment law, and school disciplinary and Title IX matters.

Six Laredo, Smith & Kane Attorneys Recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® 2026

Laredo, Smith & Kane announces that six of its attorneys were selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2026 edition. Published by Woodward/White, Inc., Best Lawyers is considered by many to be the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed publication in the legal profession.

The six Laredo, Smith & Kane attorneys listed in Best Lawyers are:

Inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America is based on an extensive peer-review process designed to capture the aggregate opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical and legal practice area. Best Lawyers has been published since 1983 and highlights the top 5% of practicing attorneys in each practice area. Its 2026 selections will be featured in the 32nd edition of The Best Lawyers in America.

About Laredo, Smith & Kane, LLP

For nearly 30 years, Laredo, Smith & Kane has helped clients grow their businesses and resolve legal matters–offering clients big-firm expertise with the client-centered strategy that only a small firm can provide.  The firm’s attorneys successfully combine a strategic approach to running a business with thoughtful, thorough, and protective legal representation. The firm represents clients in matters related to business law and litigation, white collar criminal defense, government investigations, employment law, and school disciplinary and Title IX matters.

Court Clarifies Boundaries of Post-Employment Restrictions

On June 13, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued a decision in Miele v. Foundation Medicine, Inc. that reinforces the distinction between noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements under the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act, G.L. c. 149, § 24L (the “Act”). The court concluded that a forfeiture clause triggered by a former employee’s breach of a nonsolicitation agreement does not convert that agreement into a “forfeiture for competition agreement” subject to the Act’s strict requirements.

This ruling offers some welcome clarity for Massachusetts employers who include post-employment restrictive covenants in severance or transition agreements, particularly those concerned about how to enforce nonsolicitation provisions without running afoul of the Act.

Susan Miele, a former executive at Foundation Medicine, Inc. (FMI), had entered into both a restrictive covenant agreement at the outset of her employment and a transition agreement upon her separation in 2020. The restrictive covenant included a standard employee nonsolicitation clause, which prohibited her from recruiting FMI employees for one year after her departure. The later transition agreement incorporated that nonsolicitation clause and added a forfeiture provision: if Miele breached any agreement with FMI, she would forfeit remaining severance payments and be required to return those already made. FMI ultimately paid Miele approximately $1.2 million.

After leaving FMI, Miele joined Ginkgo Bioworks and allegedly solicited several FMI employees. FMI ceased her severance payments and demanded repayment. Miele sued FMI for breach of contract and argued that the forfeiture clause violated the Noncompetition Agreement Act because it imposed financial penalties based on post-employment conduct.

The Superior Court initially sided with Miele in part, holding that the forfeiture provision rendered the nonsolicitation clause a “forfeiture for competition agreement” — a type of post-employment restriction covered by the Act. Under that reasoning, FMI’s forfeiture clause would be unenforceable because it did not meet the Act’s strict procedural and substantive standards for noncompete agreements.

FMI sought direct appellate review, arguing that the Legislature expressly excluded nonsolicitation agreements from the scope of the Act and that attaching a forfeiture clause does not change that characterization.

The SJC agreed with FMI and reversed the Superior Court’s partial grant of judgment in Miele’s favor. The court emphasized that the Act expressly excludes nonsolicitation agreements from the definition of noncompetition agreements. Since forfeiture for competition agreements are a subset of noncompetition agreements, the court reasoned, they too must exclude nonsolicitation provisions. Allowing a forfeiture clause to change the character of the underlying agreement would, in the court’s view, effectively undermine the Legislature’s clear exclusion of such provisions from the Act’s coverage.

The court also rejected Miele’s attempt to reinterpret “competitive activities” in a way that would sweep solicitation back into the Act’s coverage. To do so, the court said, would contradict the plain language and would render the statute internally inconsistent.

For employers, this decision reinforces the legal distinction between noncompetition and nonsolicitation agreements in Massachusetts. While the two types of provisions may serve similar business interests, they are treated differently under the statutory framework. Employers incorporating nonsolicitation clauses into severance or other post-employment agreements may find some reassurance in the court’s conclusion that doing so, even with an accompanying forfeiture mechanism, does not implicate the Act.

At the same time, the case serves as an important reminder of the scrutiny that restrictive covenants can invite, especially where severance pay or other post-employment benefits are conditioned on continued compliance. Companies reviewing or updating such agreements should consider how these provisions are structured, what remedies they contemplate, and whether the agreements are likely to withstand legal challenge in light of evolving interpretations of the statute.

Summer 2025 Newsletter

Laredo, Smith & Kane’s Darshana Indira Announces “Pioneering Women of Color” as Co-Chair of Women’s Bar Association Women of Color Committee

Darshana Indira, Senior Counsel at Laredo, Smith & Kane,  serves as co-chair of the Women’s Bar Association (WBA) Women of Color Committee. In this role, Indira helped plan and organize the Committee’s annual event,“Pioneering Women of Color,” June 4.

“I’m proud to serve the members of the WBA and co-chair the Women of Color Committee as we work together to foster a supportive community for all women to build their networks and thrive in their legal careers,” said Indira. “The Pioneering Women of Color event is a highlight of my year as co-chair of the Committee. This will be an exciting evening dedicated to honoring the brilliance and impact of women of color who are paving the way in the legal profession and beyond.”

The WBA is where women lawyers in Massachusetts come together to build important personal and professional relationships. Their vision is to build a strong community of women lawyers who make a difference in the profession and in society at large. In tandem, the WBA’s Women of Color Committee promotes women of color in the legal profession for their multitude of successes and to honor them for their personal and professional accomplishments.

As an accomplished employment and business lawyer, Indira advises company owners, organizational leaders, and C-suite executives across a broad spectrum of employment and commercial litigation matters. With a deep understanding of various industries, including pharmaceuticals, biotech, healthcare, and retail, her expertise spans both transactional and litigation work. Indira provides strategic counsel to businesses on the complexities of employer-employee relationships. She assists management and senior executives in navigating executive compensation, employment agreements, non-compete clauses, and severance negotiations.

In addition to her employment law expertise, Indira is a trusted advisor in business law. She works with startups and emerging companies in Massachusetts and other states, helping them form their entities, draft foundational documents, and establish employment agreements. As these businesses grow, she remains a key legal resource, assisting with any potential litigation or disputes they may face. Indira was named a 2025 Excellence in the Law: Up & Coming Lawyer by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

About Laredo, Smith & Kane, LLP

For nearly 30 years, Laredo, Smith & Kane has helped clients grow their businesses and resolve legal matters–offering clients big-firm expertise with the client-centered strategy that only a small firm can provide. The firm’s attorneys successfully combine a strategic approach to running a business with thoughtful, thorough, and protective legal representation. The firm represents clients in matters related to business law and litigation, white collar criminal defense, government investigations, employment law, and school disciplinary and Title IX matters.

Laredo, Smith & Kane’s Darshana Indira Presents on BBA Webinar, “MA Pay Transparency Law – Policies & Practice”

Laredo, Smith & Kane announces that Senior Counsel Darshana Indira served as a panelist on the Boston Bar Association’s (BBA) webinar, MA Pay Transparency Law – Policies & Practice, on May 21. Indira and fellow panelists provided an overview of the Massachusetts Pay Transparency Statute’s salary-range disclosure rules, new wage-data reporting duties, and the enforcement and claim risks for employers. Additionally, they discussed practical tips to stay ahead of the curve.

As an accomplished employment and business lawyer, Indira advises company owners, organizational leaders, and C-suite executives across a broad spectrum of employment and commercial litigation matters. With a deep understanding of various industries, including pharmaceuticals, biotech, healthcare, and retail, her expertise spans both transactional and litigation work. Indira provides strategic counsel to businesses on the complexities of employer-employee relationships. She assists management and senior executives in navigating executive compensation, employment agreements, non-compete clauses, and severance negotiations.

In addition to her employment law expertise, Indira is a trusted advisor in business law. She works with startups and emerging companies in Massachusetts and other states, helping them form their entities, draft foundational documents, and establish employment agreements. As these businesses grow, she remains a key legal resource, assisting with any potential litigation or disputes they may face. Indira was named a 2025 Excellence in the Law: Up & Coming Lawyer by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. An active BBA member and leader, Indira currently serves on the 2025 Employment Law Conference Steering Committee.

About Laredo, Smith & Kane, LLP

For nearly 30 years, Laredo, Smith & Kane has helped clients grow their businesses and resolve legal matters–offering clients big-firm expertise with the client-centered strategy that only a small firm can provide.  The firm’s attorneys successfully combine a strategic approach to running a business with thoughtful, thorough, and protective legal representation. The firm represents clients in matters related to business law and litigation, white collar criminal defense, government investigations, employment law, and school disciplinary and Title IX matters.