Laurence E. Sweeney







 Attorney Sweeney

Laurence E. Sweeney, R.Ph., Esq.

 

  

 

 

Attorney Laurence E. Sweeney has been practicing law since 1991 focusing on family law (Divorce, Custody, Visitation, Alimony, Property Division, Etc.)  He first trained as a divorce mediator in the early eighties and has had continuing and renewed training in 2016.  Although he practices family law as an attorney, when he engages clients as a divorce mediator he is not acting as an attorney for either party, nor could he represent either one.  His role as mediator is to facilitate a mediated settlement of all or as many issues as possible for a divorcing couple, helping to dramatically reduce the cost of a litigated divorce.  He prefers to practice divorce as a mediator, but if a person wishes to engage Mr. Sweeney as an attorney he can only do so if he has not meet with or received information from the other party in seeking a mediated divorce.

Mr. Sweeney also practices law in the areas of Employment Law and Civil Rights Law, with a focus on public employees retaliated against or discharged for exercising free speech rights or because of some other discriminatory reason, such as disability, sex, age, race, retaliation for assisting another being discriminated against or reporting discrimination in the workplace. 

He graduated Cum Laude from New England School of Law in 1991.  He earned his Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy from Massachusetts College of Pharmacy in 1981.  Attorney Sweeney spent three years as an Adjunct Professor at the University of New England College of Pharmacy where he taught and directed the Pharmacy Law and Ethics Class.  Attorney Sweeney provides lectures to Pharmacists, Doctors and Nurses on various topics for Continuing Pharmacy Education.  He has provided CE lectures for the New Hampshire Pharmacist Association, the Maine Pharmacy Association, the University of New England College of Pharmacy, the American College Health Association, and the New Hampshire Board of Pharmacy.  He has also served on the New Hampshire Board of Pharmacy Continuing Education Advisory Council for a three year appointment term.

While at New England School of Law, Attorney Sweeney won the Honors Moot Court Competition and advanced to the Regional Quarter Finals.  He also served as an Editor on the New England Law Review, the schools premier publication.  The New England Law Review published Attorney Sweeney's Note:  "Chilling" The Procreational Choice: Frozen Embryos -- Who Gets What When the Donor Couple Divorce?"  [See an Excerpt Below]

Attorney Sweeney lives in Chelmsford, MA, is married, has an 19 year-old son, a 33 year-old daughter and three granddaughters (and 2 toy poodles). 

In his spare time Attorney Sweeney enjoys writing and has written a science fiction screenplay which earned status as finalist in one screenplay competition and quarter-finalist in another.


EXCERPT FROM LAW REVIEW ARTICLE PUBLISHED:

 NOTE: "Chilling" The Procreational Choice: Frozen Embryos--Who Gets What When the Donor Couple Divorce

Fall, 1990

25 New Eng. L. Rev. 367

Author

Laurence E. Sweeney

Excerpt

I. INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade, advances in medical reproductive technology have helped thousands of people who would otherwise go childless because of infertility 1 achieve their long-time goal of having a family. 2 There are a variety of reasons for infertility, 3 and medical science has helped many couples overcome these problems. 4In helping these people, however, a number of moral, ethical and legal dilemmas have surfaced.

One such dilemma has surfaced in a Tennessee case, Davis v. Davis
, 5 involving a couple who, after several years of unsuccessful attempts at pregnancy, decided to utilize the reproductive technology commonly referred to as in vitro
 fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). 6 Several eggs were removed from the wife and fertilized with her husband's sperm. 7 Two of the resulting embryos were transferred into the wife's uterus in hopes that there would be implantation and a resulting pregnancy. 8 The seven remaining embryos were frozen for a later attempt, should no pregnancy result from the first. 9 When no pregnancy resulted, putting added pressure on the already strained marriage, the couple filed for divorce and no further attempts were made to implant the other embryos. 10

During the divorce proceeding, the wife claimed a right to the embryos because she still wished to use them to get pregnant. The husband asserted that he should not be made a father against his wishes and wanted custody of the embryos to allow them to expire. ...