DLA Piper Accuser Denied Pseudonym for Sexual Battery Claims

A former DLA Piper associate must use her real name to advance rape allegations against her supervising partner and the global law firm, a Massachusetts judge said.

Calling the associate’s use of a pseudonym “unfair and improper,” Suffolk Superior Court Judge Robert B. Gordon said Monday the case failed to fit the “narrow categories” where courts have allowed alleged sexual abuse survivors to proceed anonymously, which include cases with child victims or criminal prosecutions out of their control.

The associate, so far identified in court papers as Jane Doe, is “an adult professional who has elected to initiate civil litigation and seek money damages in a public forum of her choosing,” Gordon said, a fact that “militates against a privacy interest sufficient to rebut the presumption against anonymity.”

“Courts confronting analogous cases, asked to safeguard inchoate interests in privacy like those here invoked by plaintiff"—including reputational injury, sensitivity around sexual trauma and mental health, and concerns about future employment—"have routinely rejected calls to permit civil claims to be litigated under a pseudonym,” the judge said.

The associate’s attorney, Jonathan Pollard of Pollard PLLC, said his client will proceed with the lawsuit under her own name and that the fight over the pseudonym was about the defendant’s seeking “leverage.”

“My client is willing to go up against the 3rd biggest law firm in the world, and a former partner at that law firm, in her own name, and endure all the scrutiny,” Pollard said. “There’s a reason for that.”

The lawsuit claimed former DLA Piper intellectual property partner Brian Biggs sexually harassed and assaulted her, including raping her at the firm’s Wilmington office in December 2022 and breaking into her Boston home in 2024, among other incidents. The complaint said the firm should be held responsible for its hostile work environment and Biggs’ “unwanted sexual advances.”

Biggs left DLA Piper after the firm reviewed the associate’s allegations. He later worked for Ashby & Geddes before leaving that firm after the complaint was filed in December 2025. He has denied the claims through his attorney, who has called them “false and defamatory.” The firm said it promptly investigated the associate’s allegations, which prior to the lawsuit didn’t include a rape claim.

In his motion, Biggs told the judge that plaintiffs making serious allegations—absent “exceptional circumstances"—should have to do so in a public forum. He complained that restriction would make it harder to “meaningfully interview witnesses, serve relevant subpoenas, or fully respond in public filings to Plaintiff’s salacious allegations.”

The associate responded that courts “routinely reject” claims of prejudice like Biggs’s, and revealing her name publicly would subject her to additional pressure in the case, which involves a powerful law firm in her profession “and a real risk of retaliation and professional blacklisting.”

Gordon said the associate’s January 2025 efforts to secure a restraining order against Biggs, using her real name, also further diminish her “privacy-based interest” in using a pseudonym. The associate also took no steps to impound or seal that proceedings. No restraining order was issued.

DLA Piper didn’t formally join in Biggs’ motion, although its attorney Camille Olson of Seyfarth Shaw LLP told the court at the hearing that the firm agreed the pseudonym should go.

The former partner also told the court that testimony in the associate’s 2025 restraining order proceeding undercuts her claim that he raped her. The associate testified that there was “no physical abuse” until they resumed their relationship in September or October of 2023 after a break.

While denying the associate’s ability to continue as Jane Doe, Gordon said the court is however able to fashion “equally effective but less constitutionally problematic means” of safeguarding her privacy, including protective orders limiting disclosure of discovery or a tailored impoundment order for filed case documents with sensitive information.

Representatives for Biggs and DLA Piper weren’t immediately available for comment on Tuesday.

The associate is also represented by Shah Litigation PLLC. Biggs is represented by Libby Hoopes Brooks & Mulvey PC.

The case is Doe v. DLA Piper LLP (US), Mass. Super. Ct., No. 2584CV03465, order issued 3/10/26.