Photo by Amy Cantrell.
A conversation with Raymond Boucher sits in your bones.
Somberly incisive, fiercely empathetic and profoundly disturbed by the human potential for evil and apathy, Boucher will not shy away from telling the truth.
One might expect smiles and rehearsed material from a lawyer as high-profile as Boucher – who recently secured the largest settlement in L.A. County history.
But if Boucher knows one thing, it’s how to defy expectations.
Boucher has spent decades shattering ceilings of advocacy for survivors of sexual abuse. He is known primarily for taking on the Catholic Church – first in 2007, when he led a landmark $660M settlement with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles on behalf of more than 500 victims of clergy sexual abuse. The settlement was by far the largest result in a clergy sex abuse case at the time, a record now supplanted only by a 2024 settlement with the L.A. Archdiocese, again helmed by Boucher.
Last year, Boucher, along with co-counsel, represented more than 1,300 additional victims of childhood sexual abuse by members of the clergy in L.A., yielding a settlement of $880M. Boucher, the founder of L.A.-based Boucher LLP, was one of four plaintiffs’ liaison counsel on the case, along with Michael Reck of Jeff Anderson & Associates, Spencer Lucas of Panish | Shea | Ravipudi, and Morgan A. Stewart of Manly, Stewart & Finaldi.
Between the two litigations, Boucher has been instrumental in securing more than $1.4B on behalf of nearly 2,000 individuals.
And the records continue. Just a few months ago, Boucher was a core member of the team that secured the historic $4B settlement with L.A. County covering more than 11,000 claims of sexual abuse in its juvenile detention and foster care centers going back to 1959. The majority of the reported abuse took place in the '80s, '90s and 2000s, most often within the foster home MacLaren Children’s Center, which shuttered in 2003.
“With MacLaren, these kids were taken from a place where they weren't safe and put into a place where they were even less safe,” Boucher says. “The county took them and promised them light but gave them utter darkness.”
But Boucher is less interested in talking about the size of the win. Instead, he emphasizes the dehumanizing struggles his clients continue to face in a world that has become increasingly numb to their stories.
“[Survivors] still feel stigmatized. They still feel guilty. They still feel ashamed. That will never go away,” he says. “So while the rest of society has kind of moved on, there is, on an individualized basis, no moving on. Not in that sense.”
Boucher himself is anything but desensitized to these stories. Despite hearing new, horrific survivor accounts of sexual abuse every day for decades, he is not used to knowing that children too often endure the worst that humanity has to offer. His grief and rage on his clients’ behalf simmers beneath a smooth surface, palpable.
Yet, there’s something else there, too. Hope.
Boucher believes passionately in the justice system that has already provided his clients with not just billions of dollars, but with a voice, with an apology and, finally, with acceptance.
He sees clients cry when they receive settlement awards. Part of that, Boucher says, “is just the recognition of them as a human being. Part of it is a recognition of the responsibility of the institutions that allowed the sexual abuse and the destruction of their childhood. And some of it is just a relief that the time has finally come – 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years later – to hear, ‘I didn't do anything wrong. It wasn't my fault.’”
A Lawdragon Legend, Boucher has advocated for victims of a host of struggles over his 40 years of advocacy – from bolstering protections for witnesses to representing poisoned farm workers. But his focus on sexual abuse cases has only increased over time, and he doesn’t see it slowing down any time soon. When asked about the future of litigation on behalf of victims of abuse, Boucher views it as, “unfortunately, an important, essential, eternal part of our system.”
He’s not stopping the fight. And he’s not letting anyone ignore it.
Lawdragon: You’ve now handled two of the largest clergy sexual abuse litigations of all time, both against the Archdiocese of L.A., though close to 20 years apart. How did the experience last year differ from working on the 2007 litigation?
Raymond Boucher: It’s night and day. In 2007, it was unprecedented. The conversation wasn't common; it wasn't comfortable for people to hear it or talk about it. They hadn't become numb to it. At that time, people were getting information from news agencies and the power of investigative reporting was critical to the work. It didn't need to be sensationalized at all. There was a rawness and a realness to it. There was no roadmap.
Now the world has experienced not just with the L.A. Archdiocese, but Portland, Alaska, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, New York, New Jersey, Delaware and it just goes on and on and on. And it will continue to go on, because every diocese in the country is implicated. But it's not news. And that's both refreshing and scary at the same time.
LD: How do you see that impacting the cases themselves?
RB: One thing that the litigation did in 2002 was open up the opportunity for cases like the Tyndall case out of USC. And then that gave the opportunity for UCLA. So you have these mushrooms that are growing up, so to speak, of people who are finally feeling empowered to come forward and coming out of secrecy and out of silence. John Manly did an incredible job with the Nassar litigation involving the Olympics. There have been so many cases here in California involving the school districts. There've been cases completed around Penn State. For survivors, hopefully the process isn't quite as daunting and as big of an emotional impediment as it had been.
LD: Did you feel that when working with those that you were representing this time?
RB: I feel it with the way judges, opposing counsel and some of the clients are reacting. But on a personal level, where we’re at today is such a contradiction in terms. Society may be numb to the words of sexual abuse; they've heard it so many times. But on an individual basis, I sit down with clients and they still feel stigmatized. They still feel guilty. They still feel ashamed. That will never go away. So while the rest of society has kind of moved on, on an individualized basis, there is no moving on. Not in that sense.
LD: It’s interesting that we can become numb to it as a society, but that doesn’t necessarily help alleviate the stigma.
RB: It's no easier now for somebody to tell a husband or a wife or a son or a daughter or mother or dad or a confidant that they had been raped or sexually abused by a teacher or priest or doctor. The psychological techniques that the predators use to manipulate these children, those voices stay; they can still hear them. Sometimes when you talk to a survivor, they act out the voice and the mannerisms of the individuals that abused them. You don't get over that. For us, on the front lines of fighting for sexual abuse survivors, we always have to make sure that everybody who interacts with the clients understands that.
LD: The L.A. Archdiocese did not file for bankruptcy, but many have when faced with similar litigation. Tell me about the effect that has on these cases and your clients.
RB: Most of the other diocese are hiding and burrowing into asset protection rather than seeking forgiveness and contrition and ultimately compensating people. There’s a massive sense of entitlement in these religious institutions that are filing bankruptcy. The survivors, who just want to be recognized and to be compensated in some way, are being treated as pariahs. So, they're being traumatized again when these dioceses declare bankruptcy. I applaud the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. The numbers aren't where we would've liked to have gotten them to, but we did a lot of work looking at the assets of the church, going into the depths of all their financial records and capabilities. And L.A. had sold off assets the last time to try to get to where we settled it back in 2007.
LD: I was going to ask about the challenges now that their insurance had run dry from the 2007 settlement.
RB: To their credit, they're borrowing, they're selling assets, they're taking responsibility, they're accepting the need to be held accountable and they're trying not to re-traumatize all these survivors. Marge Graf [general counsel for the Archdiocese of L.A.] is the bridge between the last time and today. She is a formidable opponent. She's a brilliant lawyer and she has a moral compass. She was vital to getting both settlements completed. So that hasn’t changed. But the world has changed in terms of news and in terms of advertising and net settlement numbers and unfortunately entities hiding behind bankruptcies.
The numbers, no matter how large they may seem, are not ultimately sufficient to really bring real justice for survivors. I understand, though, that most are immensely grateful and many cry when they hear that they'll receive compensation. I think a big part of that is just the recognition of them as a human being. Part of it is a recognition of the responsibility of the institutions that allowed the sexual abuse and the destruction of their childhood. And some of it is just a relief that the time has finally come – 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years later – to hear, “I didn't do anything wrong. It wasn't my fault.” And money is our civil justice system's way of acknowledging that.
Many cry when they hear that they'll receive compensation. I think a big part of that is just the recognition of them as a human being.
LD: You've heard thousands of these stories over the years, but you have not become numb. Is there anything that still surprises you?
RB: I get surprised every day. I went to a screening of a Netflix series by one of the founders of Free a Girl, called “YOLANTHE.” She goes underground around the world and tries to save children who are being sex trafficked. As I sat in the auditorium listening, I wanted to cry. I wanted to scream. Because it's impossible to understand the evilness of humankind, the depravity of people, the ability to hurt a child. And I wanted to cry partly because it's a story I've heard too many times. That day, I happened to have one of my clients in the Orange County Diocese case at my office. We were going through his life, and I just shook my head at the parallel between what I was seeing on screen and what I was experiencing firsthand in my office.
LD: How do you still show up every time for your clients who are there to tell their stories?
RB: There are so many really good lawyers who work in this space. The work that they're doing and the change that's coming from that is really inspiring. But at the same time, we know that we don't have enough hands to meet all the need out there. We don't have the capacity to reach out to everybody that has been sexually abused. So I find myself grateful every day that I come into the office, grateful that I get to continue to fight for people in cases that I find important and meaningful. I'm grateful that we still have a civil justice system that allows people to have access to the bar of justice and to have a voice fight for them.
LD: Looking at the county litigation, you’ve said that there are remedial steps that still need to be taken to ensure that this doesn't happen again in this system and similar ones. What is still necessary?
RB: I had a college professor in organizational theory who said that people will do evil things to one another under the anonymity and umbrella of an organization. People will try to explain it away. And when you look at the documents in the clergy cases and you see what happened with the county, you see these records that clearly show that people knew what was happening. But there's all these excuses and explanations for defending it or letting it continue to happen. People in authority refuse to take action partly because they're afraid of retaliation, partly because they feel as though they don't have the backing of the institution. Part of it's just an institutional inertia. These institutions need to actually implement programs that will teach and empower people in every setting where individuals are at risk for being sexually abused. So, the county, and every county – school districts, foster care, prison systems, detention systems – need to have a top-down change that empowers, that ensures accountability and that establishes protective controls.
I find myself grateful every day that I come into the office, grateful that I get to continue to fight for people in cases that I find important and meaningful.
LD: When you're talking about the county litigation, at what point did you get a sense of the scale of this litigation, both in terms of the number of plaintiffs that would be involved and the size of the result?
RB: I think we're still figuring that out, honestly. Within the first year, year and a half, we understood the potential magnitude of the problem. Partly because of the number of people that came forward; partly because of the stories they told. And from those stories, you learn very quickly that in places like MacLaren Hall, these kids were taken from a place where they weren't safe and put into a place where they were even less safe. I’m sure there were some people that were there with the best intentions. But overwhelmingly, for decades, the county and the people that were responsible for running these facilities turned a blind eye, sometimes participated, often protected those individuals that were abusing and dehumanizing these children. The one thing they didn't do is take any steps to protect the children that were within their care and their custody.
LD: You're now focused on navigating the settlement structure and payouts. What are the next steps?
RB: We recognize that it's a large amount of money. If the county goes into bankruptcy, the effect will be devastating. I'm certain that a number of these survivors won't make it through otherwise. The kind of disappointment that comes when you finally find the courage to come forward out of your darkness only to be beaten down again, there's only so much that people can take.
The magnitude of the problem has grown. The number of people who have come forward has almost doubled since the settlement was announced. So, at that point, you have to put in safeguards that ensure a couple of things. One is that people are treated fairly vis-a-vis one another – that you have protocols and standards in place that the judges who do the allocation can utilize to ensure that whatever is paid out to these individuals who had the courage to come forward is done so fairly under the circumstances. The second is to ensure that you have safeguards to weed out any potential claims that may not be valid. And then you have to ensure that everybody who comes forward receives at least some compensation, and on top of that, you hope to be able to incorporate some method of providing resources to them for mental health issues. You hope to put them in touch with professionals that can assist in managing whatever money they are going to receive. That's really done on a firm-by-firm basis.
LD: That makes sense. Now, both of these litigations were filed during the three-year lookback window that extended the statute for limitations for child sexual abuse cases. At the start of January 2024, though, California essentially eliminated its statute of limitations for those civil suits, allowing survivors to file at any time. How is that change in the law going to affect litigation going forward?
RB: Many survivors of childhood sexual abuse have no ability to comprehend what happened to them and the effect of what happened to them on their adult lives. It takes decades before people are able to confront it and understand the damage that has been done. So, the opening of the statute of limitations for a longer period of time at least gives people at the time in their lives when they're most likely to be able to make that connection and understand it – in their forties, fifties, and later – a chance to hold responsible institutions accountable. Hopefully more states around the country will recognize that.
LD: Finally, last year you celebrated the 10-year anniversary of your firm. Does the firm now look about what you expected when you started?
RB: The last 11 years have been an incredible time with the partners and lawyers and staff that I have had the privilege of working with. I've loved every moment of it. We now have an office in San Francisco with some very talented lawyers. We still get to be involved in impact litigation, doing things that we think make a difference. We're not looking at cases from a business perspective. We're looking at them from the perspective of, “Do they fit within our moral compass, our ethos? Are they cases that we think, whether we win or lose, we can make a difference with?”
It's hard to express the gratitude and the love I have for people I work with and have worked with over my career – the lawyers that I've had a chance to practice with at different firms and in collaboration with for cases like the L.A. County case and the L.A. Archdiocese case and so many other cases in my career. I’m looking forward to the next 40 years.
