Skip to main content

Mathilda S. McGee-Tubb


[email protected]



Mathilda’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and arbitration across a variety of areas and industries. Mathilda regularly advises clients in all stages of dispute resolution, from pre-litigation counseling and investigation through discovery, dispositive motion practice, trial, and appeals.  Through strategic discovery, well-researched briefing, and effective oral advocacy, she has repeatedly won cases at the summary judgment stage.  Although a litigator by training, Mathilda is well-versed in a variety of dispute resolution methods and prioritizes achieving creative, business-oriented solutions for her clients.

Mathilda has national experience litigating complicated contract and business disputes and defending insurance companies in coverage disputes.  She regularly defends against class action claims arising under state consumer protection laws, particularly those brought against landlords by residential tenants, and is one of a handful of class action defense lawyers in Massachusetts with in-depth knowledge of the Massachusetts security deposit and submetering laws.  In addition to her commercial litigation practice, Mathilda advises clients on legal issues related to higher education, represents individuals and trustees in estate and probate disputes, and navigates novel appellate issues on behalf of litigants and amici curiae in state and federal courts.  Mathilda utilizes this broad base of substantive knowledge and understanding of the lifecycle of litigation to provide clients with strategic advice tailored to their individualized needs and goals.

For clients in the education sector, Mathilda draws on her broad experience in the industry, including as a former legal intern at the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, an Education Pioneers Fellow, and an administrator at Columbia University, where she developed university policies and communications. Mathilda has leveraged this experience to advise clients on compliance with federal education laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and aid clients in navigating Title IX investigations on campus, among other ways.

Mathilda also has an active pro bono practice, with a particular focus on immigration issues, for which she has received Mintz’s Pro Bono Award and the Lawyers for Civil Rights Pro Bono Award. In 2017, she helped an immigrant secure release from ICE custody after nearly a year of detention on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. She has assisted Lawyers for Civil Rights file briefs of amici curiae in seminal cases involving affirmative action and the inclusion of a citizenship question on the U.S. census before the U.S. Supreme Court, partnered with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts on a seminal case that shifted the burden of proof in bond hearings for certain immigrants detained during removal proceedings, and represented the NAACP – Boston Branch as an intervenor in a high-profile case regarding the admissions criteria for Boston’s highly selective public schools.

Prior to joining the firm, Mathilda served as a judicial law clerk, first to the Honorable Robert J. Cordy of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and then to the Honorable Douglas P. Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. During law school, Mathilda was editor-in-chief of the Boston College Law Review and a student attorney in the Boston College Legal Assistance Bureau.


  • Boston College (JD, magna cum laude)
  • Columbia University (MA)
  • Oberlin College (BA)


  • Prevailed at trial on behalf of a major video game company against a claim brought by a player who was banned from the video game for cheating.
  • Regularly represents clients in trust and estate disputes in Massachusetts Probate Court, including trust beneficiaries and trustees.
  • Part of a team defending two parent-defendants in the Varsity Blues college admissions prosecution in the District of Massachusetts.
  • Defeated a motion for class certification and obtained summary judgment on claims brought by a putative class of tenants of a residential realty company asserting violations of the Massachusetts utility submetering laws and the Massachusetts consumer protection act, chapter 93A.
  • Obtained summary judgment on behalf of a class of immigrants subject to discretionary ICE detention in a seminal case in the District of Massachusetts that shifted the burden of proof in bond hearings in the Immigration Court, Pereira Brito et al. v. Barr et al.
  • Obtained dismissal of a complex counterclaim asserting violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) in federal district court.
  • Drafted briefs of amici curiae for a variety of appellate matters, including in cases before the United States Supreme Court and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
  • Defended an insurance holding company against alleged bad faith claims brought under M.G.L. chs. 93A/176D in connection with its handling and adjusting of a wrongful death claim.
  • Served as second chair at a trial representing a limited liability company in complex commercial litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to claims concerning contractual interpretation and fiduciary duties.
  • Obtained voluntary dismissal of a consumer class action involving unsolicited text messages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
  • Obtained a favorable arbitration award in California in a dispute over an oral joint venture to open and operate a garment manufacturing facility in China.
  • Part of a team that obtained complete dismissal of a breach of contract and antitrust complaint in federal district court.

Recognition & Awards

  • Best Lawyers in America "Ones to Watch": Appellate Practice (2022) 
  • Best Lawyers in America "Ones to Watch": Commercial Litigation (2021-2022) 
  • Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Rising Star (2021)
  • Best Lawyers in America "Ones to Watch": Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants (2021-2022) 
  • Richard Mintz Pro Bono Award (2019)
  • Lawyers for Civil Rights, Pro Bono Award (2016 and 2019)
  • Order of the Coif
  • McGrath & Kane Award, Boston College Law School (2013)


  • Member, Subcommittee on Alternative Paths to Admission of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Steering Committee on Bar Admissions (2021- present)
  • Member, ABA TIPS Law Journal Editorial Board Standing Committee (2021- present)
  • Member, Boston Bar Association Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Section Steering Committee
  • Board Member, Lawyers for Civil Rights (2020-present)
  • Gubernatorial Appointee, Metropolitan Area Planning Council (2018 – present)
  • Member, Supreme Judicial Court Law Clerks’ Society Governing Board (2015 - present)
  • Member, Boston Bar Association Public Interest Leadership Program, Class of 2019 - 2020
  • Vice Chair and Board Member, Apprentice Learning (2016 – 2019)
  • At-Large Member, Oberlin College Alumni Leadership Council (2016 – 2019)
  • Member, ONEin3 Advisory Council to Mayor Thomas M. Menino (2013 - 2014)
  • Member, Executive Board & Nominations Committee, Oberlin Alumni Association (2011 - 2014)
  • Class Trustee, Oberlin College (2007 - 2010)

Recent Insights

News & Press



Education and Nonprofits Viewpoint Thumbnail
As discussed in an earlier post, colleges and universities are facing a wave of class action lawsuits seeking refunds of tuition, fees, and room and board expenses after schools closed their campus in the spring of 2020 in response to COVID-19.
Read more
Education and Nonprofits Viewpoint Thumbnail

COVID-19 Tuition and Fees Lawsuits: Defending University Practices and Defeating Class Claims

June 26, 2020 | Blog | By Thomas Wintner, Mathilda McGee-Tubb

Across the United States, students have brought over 100 class action lawsuits against public and private colleges and universities seeking refunds of tuition, fees, and room and board expenses after schools closed their physical facilities, including their classrooms and residence halls, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On Monday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a precedential decision in Nguyen v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology et al. (SJC-12329), which addresses the complicated issue of higher education institutions’ responsibility to protect students at risk of suicide.
Read more
In July 2016, four players on the Minnesota Lynx WNBA team wore black shirts in support of the Black Lives Matter social justice movement. The WNBA fined the players, but later rescinded the fines.
Read more
On June 23, 2016, in its second time hearing Fisher v. University of Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin. The Court held that the program is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause because it is narrowly tailored to achieving concrete, compelling goals tied to the educational benefits flowing from student body diversity.
Read more
What is the responsibility of a public educational institution when it receives a public records request for material that it believes it must keep private under state and federal student records laws?
Read more

News & Press

News Thumbnail
Kim V. Marrkand, Mintz Member and Founder and Co-Chair of the firm’s Insurance Practice, authored an article published in April 2021 by the Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal, a publication of the American Bar Association’s Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section, that examined Section 12 of the American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance, titled “Liability of Insurer for Conduct of Defense”, wherein Ms. Marrkand shows that Section 12 “invents wholly new rules and a cause of action without either the support of existing case law or compelling policy rationale.” Mintz Associates Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Clare Prober provided significant contributions to the article.
Press Release Thumbnail
Pro bono litigation team recognized for work to achieve groundbreaking victory for immigrants’ rights and mentorship provided to the legal community.
News Thumbnail
An article published by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reported that a victory secured in federal court by lawyers from Mintz and the American Civil Liberties Union is having a profound effect on the way bond hearings are conducted in deportation cases. The article included commentary from attorneys on the front lines in the Boston immigration court. One lawyer called the ruling a “breath of fresh air” and a “massive change in the law.”
News Thumbnail
Articles published by Law360 and MassLive reported that Mintz, together with the ACLU of Massachusetts and the ACLU of New Hampshire, achieved a groundbreaking victory for immigrants’ rights when Chief U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris ruled that the government’s practice of detaining certain immigrants by default violates both due process and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The first-of-its-kind class action lawsuit, Pereira Brito v. Barr, was filed in June on behalf of immigrants who were jailed due to flawed detention hearings in which the detainee was required to bear the burden of proof as to not being a flight risk or a danger to the community. The latest ruling holds that the class of immigrants are entitled to bond hearings at which the government bears the burden of justifying an immigrant’s detention, and at which the immigration court must consider someone’s ability to pay when setting a bond amount.

The Mintz pro bono team representing the plaintiffs in this case includes Members Susan Finegan and Susan Cohen, Special Counsel Andrew Nathanson, and Associates Mathilda McGee-Tubb, Jennifer Mather McCarthy, and Ryan Dougherty.
News Thumbnail
Law360 covered a summary judgment argument by lawyers from Mintz and the American Civil Liberties Union in a class action lawsuit, Pereira Brito v. Barr, challenging the government’s practice of denying due process to detained immigrants.
An article published by Law360 covered a motion hearing in a class action lawsuit, Pereira Brito v. Barr, filed by Mintz, together with the ACLU of Massachusetts and the ACLU of New Hampshire, challenging the government’s practice of denying due process to detained immigrants.
News Thumbnail
Mintz attorneys, Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Joshua Briones, author this article which addresses the case before the Ninth Circuit, where Facebook contends that a BIPA class action would violate federal due process, because it could result in a huge statutory damages award untethered to any injury, and inconsistent with BIPA’s legislative intent. If Facebook succeeds in this argument, it will open the door to other defendants doing the same.