For more than sixteen years, Alan Borowsky has devoted his legal career to advocating for survivors of sexual abuse and assault. He spent the first decade of that career as a prosecutor handling child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and human trafficking cases before transitioning to civil litigation, where he now represents survivors against the individuals and institutions responsible for allowing abuse to occur.

In a conversation with WWDB host Joe Dougherty, Alan discusses the differences between the criminal and civil justice systems, why institutional accountability matters, and how trauma-informed advocacy helps survivors pursue justice beyond a criminal conviction.

 

Originally recorded on the Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky Show on WWDB Talk 860 with host Joe Dougherty.

The following is an edited version of the interview. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity while preserving the substance of the discussion.

From Competition to the Courtroom

Joe Dougherty: Alan, before we talk about your practice, I’d like to start with your own journey. You didn’t begin your career knowing you wanted to become a lawyer. How did you find your way into this work?

Alan Borowsky: Like many liberal arts graduates, I wasn’t entirely sure what I wanted to do after college. I earned my degree in Spanish, and law school wasn’t part of some long-term plan. It became the path I chose as I tried to figure out where I wanted my career to go.

The moment everything changed came during my second year of law school. One of my assignments was to observe a criminal trial at Philadelphia’s Criminal Justice Center. I watched two young prosecutors try a case against a seasoned criminal defense attorney. Despite being relatively new lawyers, they presented an outstanding case and secured a conviction.

Watching them advocate for victims had a profound impact on me. I’ve always been competitive and enjoyed preparing for challenges, whether through sports or academics. Seeing those attorneys combine preparation, advocacy, and public service made me realize that was exactly what I wanted to do.

That experience led me to clerk in Delaware County after law school, followed by an opportunity in the Delaware County District Attorney’s Office. Eventually, I joined the Special Victims Unit, prosecuting cases involving child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and human trafficking.

I originally thought I might spend a few years doing that work before moving into another area of law. Instead, I found a purpose that has stayed with me for more than sixteen years.

Competing When the Stakes Matter Most

Joe Dougherty: You mentioned being competitive, and I think there’s an interesting connection between athletics and trial work.

I’ve had similar conversations with Bob Mongeluzzi. After decades of extraordinary success, what still motivates him is advocating for people who have been wronged and competing on their behalf.

You played competitive golf. Once you’re standing over an important putt, you’re on your own. Trial work seems very similar. Once you’re standing before a jury, there’s no one else who can make the argument for your client.

Alan Borowsky: I think that’s exactly right.

Individual sports teach accountability. Preparation matters, but eventually you’re the one who has to perform. There’s no teammate who can step in if something unexpected happens.

The courtroom is much the same. You prepare extensively, anticipate the issues, and learn your case inside and out. But once you’re standing before a judge or jury, you have to rely on your preparation, your judgment, and your ability to think under pressure.

Sports taught me how to solve problems in real time. Trial work demands those same skills every day.

Courage Isn’t the Absence of Fear

Joe Dougherty: Every great athlete talks about feeling nervous before a big moment. I’ve always believed there’s a choice: you can focus on making a mistake, or you can trust your preparation and embrace the opportunity.

Does that mindset apply in the courtroom?

Alan Borowsky: Absolutely.

I don’t think courage means being fearless. Courage means feeling fear and moving forward anyway.

Every trial lawyer experiences nerves before opening statements or a significant argument. Every competitor feels those emotions before an important event.

The key isn’t eliminating that energy—it’s learning to channel it.

If you don’t feel those nerves, it probably means you don’t care very much about the outcome. When you care deeply about your clients and you’ve invested yourself in preparing their case, those feelings are natural.

Preparation gives you confidence. When you’ve done the work, you trust yourself to perform when it matters most.

Why Criminal Justice Isn’t the End of the Story

Joe Dougherty: You spent the first part of your career as a prosecutor before moving into civil litigation. For many people, that probably seems like a dramatic change. What led you to make that transition?

Alan Borowsky: I don’t see it as leaving one mission behind. I see it as expanding it.

For the first ten years of my career, I prosecuted cases involving child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and human trafficking. It was incredibly meaningful work because we were able to investigate these crimes, hold offenders accountable, and help remove dangerous individuals from our communities.

When you’re a prosecutor, your focus is naturally on the person who committed the crime. You gather the evidence, present the case, and seek justice through the criminal courts.

But over time I came to realize that, for survivors, a criminal conviction is often only part of the story.

The criminal justice system serves an essential purpose. It can send offenders to prison, place them on probation, require them to register as sex offenders, and protect the public from future harm.

What it can’t do is address the lifelong impact abuse has on the survivor.

Many survivors face years—or even decades—of counseling, medical treatment, and emotional recovery. Some struggle to return to school or work. Others experience trauma that affects relationships, trust, and nearly every aspect of their daily lives.

The criminal justice system simply isn’t designed to address those losses.

That’s where the civil justice system becomes so important.

Joe Dougherty: During the radio show I used the phrase “maximum justice.” The criminal courts punish the offender, but the survivor is still left trying to rebuild a life that may never look the same again.

Is that how you view the role of civil litigation?

Alan Borowsky: I think that’s exactly right.

No legal system can erase what happened.

There’s no verdict, settlement, or sentence that can restore someone’s life to the way it was before they experienced abuse.

But civil litigation can provide something equally important: accountability and the resources survivors need to move forward.

That may include compensation for therapy, future treatment, lost income, diminished earning capacity, and the many other ways trauma can affect a person’s life over time.

Just as importantly, civil litigation allows us to look beyond the individual offender.

In many of these cases, abuse didn’t happen simply because one person made a terrible decision. It happened because someone ignored warning signs, failed to follow established policies, overlooked complaints, or chose not to act.

The civil justice system gives survivors an opportunity to ask those larger questions.

Who knew?

Who should have intervened?

What policies failed?

Who had the ability to prevent this from happening—and didn’t?

Those questions often fall outside the scope of a criminal prosecution, but they’re critically important if we want to understand why abuse occurred in the first place.

Joe Dougherty: That’s an important distinction because most people naturally focus on the perpetrator.

But sometimes there are institutions that had opportunities to prevent what happened.

Alan Borowsky: Exactly.

Abuse rarely occurs in a vacuum.

Whether we’re talking about a school, a religious organization, a youth program, an employer, a hotel, or another institution, these cases often reveal missed opportunities to protect vulnerable people.

Sometimes complaints weren’t investigated.

Sometimes background checks weren’t performed.

Sometimes policies existed on paper but weren’t followed in practice.

And sometimes people simply looked the other way.

Holding those institutions accountable isn’t about assigning blame for its own sake.

It’s about recognizing that organizations have responsibilities.

When those responsibilities are ignored, the consequences can be devastating—not only for one survivor, but for others who may be harmed later.

Joe Dougherty: One of the things that struck me during our conversation is that the criminal and civil justice systems aren’t competing with each other—they’re complementary.

One protects society by prosecuting offenders.

The other helps survivors rebuild while encouraging institutions to make meaningful changes.

Alan Borowsky: That’s exactly how I view it.

As a prosecutor, I worked to remove dangerous offenders from the community.

Today, I continue advocating for survivors in a different courtroom.

The goal has never changed.

It’s still about pursuing justice.

The difference is that civil litigation allows us to pursue accountability more broadly. It recognizes that preventing future abuse sometimes requires more than prosecuting one individual. It also requires examining the systems, decisions, and institutional failures that allowed the abuse to occur.

When organizations are held accountable, they’re far more likely to improve training, strengthen policies, and create safer environments.

Ultimately, that’s good not only for my clients, but for every family that places its trust in those institutions.

Seeking “Maximum Justice”

Joe Dougherty: During our conversation, I kept coming back to the phrase “maximum justice.” The criminal justice system can punish the person who committed the crime, but that doesn’t erase what happened to the survivor.

Is that how you view the role of civil litigation?

Alan Borowsky: I do.

The criminal and civil justice systems serve different purposes, and I think it’s important for people to understand that they complement one another.

The criminal justice system is focused on accountability for the offender. It exists to investigate crimes, prosecute those responsible, and, when appropriate, remove dangerous individuals from our communities.

That’s an essential part of justice.

But for survivors, the conclusion of a criminal case is rarely the end of the journey.

Many continue to live with the emotional, psychological, and financial effects of abuse long after a verdict has been reached. Recovery often requires years of counseling, ongoing medical care, and a tremendous amount of personal resilience.

Civil litigation recognizes those realities.

It provides an opportunity to pursue the resources survivors may need throughout their recovery while also examining whether others share responsibility for allowing the abuse to occur.

Joe Dougherty: One of the things that struck me after talking with you is that the civil justice system isn’t simply about financial recovery.

It’s also about asking questions that might never be answered in a criminal courtroom.

Alan Borowsky: That’s exactly right.

A criminal prosecution is focused on proving whether a defendant committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil litigation asks a broader set of questions.

Were warning signs ignored?

Were complaints dismissed?

Did an institution fail to follow its own policies?

Did someone have the opportunity to prevent what happened but choose not to act?

Those questions matter—not simply because they help determine responsibility, but because answering them can expose systemic failures that need to be corrected.

In many cases, meaningful change begins with accountability.

Joe Dougherty: Throughout my career, I’ve seen examples where civil litigation has changed the way organizations operate.

Whether it’s safer products, improved workplace practices, or stronger safety standards, holding organizations accountable often leads to reforms that protect other people.

Does that same principle apply to the work you do?

Alan Borowsky: Absolutely.

One of the most meaningful aspects of civil litigation is its ability to create change beyond a single case.

When institutions are required to answer for failures in hiring, supervision, training, or reporting, those issues receive attention in a way they often wouldn’t otherwise.

Organizations review their policies.

They improve employee training.

They strengthen reporting procedures.

They implement safeguards that may help prevent future abuse.

While no lawsuit can undo what happened to a survivor, meaningful institutional change can reduce the likelihood that someone else experiences the same harm.

That’s an important part of justice.

Joe Dougherty: It seems like your perspective is unique because you’ve spent your career on both sides of the justice system.

You’ve prosecuted offenders, and now you represent survivors in civil court.

How has that shaped the way you approach these cases?

Alan Borowsky: I think it’s given me a broader understanding of what justice really means.

As a prosecutor, success often meant obtaining a conviction and helping remove a dangerous offender from the community.

Today, success includes that objective, but it extends much further.

It’s helping survivors regain a sense of stability.

It’s holding institutions accountable when they failed to protect people who trusted them.

And it’s encouraging meaningful changes that make communities safer.

Those goals aren’t separate from criminal justice—they build upon it.

To me, that’s what pursuing the fullest measure of justice looks like.

Joe Dougherty: That’s why I keep coming back to the phrase “maximum justice.”

Justice isn’t just about what happens to the offender.

It’s also about helping survivors move forward and doing everything possible to prevent the same failures from harming someone else.

Alan Borowsky: I think that’s exactly right.

No legal outcome can erase the trauma a survivor has experienced.

But if the civil justice system can provide resources that support healing, hold institutions accountable for preventable failures, and encourage safer practices going forward, then we’ve accomplished something meaningful.

That’s the goal every time we take one of these cases.

Holding Institutions Accountable

Joe Dougherty: Throughout our conversation, we’ve talked about holding offenders accountable. But you’ve also emphasized that many cases involve more than the individual who committed the abuse.

Why is it important to examine the role of institutions?

Alan Borowsky: Because abuse often doesn’t happen in isolation.

In many cases, there are circumstances that allowed it to occur—or warning signs that should have prompted someone to act before another person was harmed.

That doesn’t mean every institution is automatically responsible whenever abuse occurs. But when organizations fail to meet their responsibilities, it’s important to understand why.

Civil litigation allows us to ask those questions.

Were complaints ignored?

Were established policies followed?

Did supervisors respond appropriately when concerns were raised?

Were reasonable safeguards in place to protect vulnerable people?

Those questions matter because they help determine whether an institution could have prevented what happened.

Joe Dougherty: Most people naturally focus on the person who committed the abuse. That’s understandable.

But the civil justice system asks whether there were opportunities to prevent the abuse before it happened.

Alan Borowsky: Exactly.

Many organizations have a legal and moral responsibility to protect the people they serve.

Schools have responsibilities to students.

Religious organizations have responsibilities to their congregations.

Youth programs have responsibilities to children and families.

Employers have responsibilities to their employees.

Hotels, businesses, and property owners have responsibilities to provide reasonably safe environments.

Those responsibilities don’t guarantee that tragedy will never occur, but they do require organizations to take reasonable steps to reduce foreseeable risks.

When those responsibilities are ignored, the consequences can be devastating.

Joe Dougherty: In your practice, what are some of the institutional failures you see most often?

Alan Borowsky: Every case is different, but there are certain themes that appear repeatedly.

Sometimes it’s a failure to investigate prior complaints.

Sometimes it’s inadequate supervision.

Sometimes warning signs are overlooked because no one wants to confront a difficult situation.

In other cases, organizations have policies in place but fail to enforce them consistently.

We’ve also seen situations involving negligent hiring, inadequate background screening, or failures to train employees on recognizing and reporting abuse.

No single issue defines every case, but these kinds of preventable failures often become an important part of understanding how abuse was allowed to continue.

Joe Dougherty: You mentioned earlier that civil litigation can create change.

Is that one of the reasons these institutional cases are so important?

Alan Borowsky: Absolutely.

One of the most meaningful outcomes of civil litigation is that it encourages organizations to evaluate their own practices.

When institutions are required to answer difficult questions, they’re often motivated to improve policies, strengthen oversight, provide better training, and create more effective reporting procedures.

Those changes don’t erase what happened to a survivor.

Nothing can.

But they can help reduce the likelihood that someone else experiences the same harm in the future.

To me, that’s one of the most important reasons this work matters.

Joe Dougherty: Earlier in our conversation, you said something that really stayed with me.

You talked about looking beyond the individual offender and asking, “Who enabled this? Who had the opportunity to prevent it?”

Those seem like difficult conversations, but they’re necessary if we truly want to make communities safer.

Alan Borowsky: I believe they are.

Accountability shouldn’t stop with the person who committed the abuse if others had the ability—and the responsibility—to intervene.

Civil litigation creates an opportunity to examine the entire picture.

Sometimes that means uncovering patterns that weren’t previously recognized.

Sometimes it means identifying failures in communication or supervision.

Sometimes it leads to institutional reforms that benefit people far beyond the individual case.

Ultimately, accountability isn’t about assigning blame for its own sake.

It’s about recognizing where systems failed and working to ensure they function better in the future.

Joe Dougherty: That strikes me as one of the biggest differences between the criminal and civil justice systems.

The criminal case focuses on what one person did.

The civil case often asks a broader question:

“How did this happen, and what can be done to prevent it from happening again?”

Alan Borowsky: That’s exactly right.

When we answer those questions honestly, we not only help our clients pursue justice—we also help organizations become safer and better equipped to protect the people who depend on them.

That’s an outcome that benefits everyone.

Why Civil Litigation Makes Communities Safer

Joe Dougherty: Personal injury lawyers are sometimes misunderstood. People tend to focus on verdicts and settlements without recognizing the broader impact this work can have.

Throughout history, many of the safety measures we now take for granted have come about because someone was willing to hold a company or institution accountable.

Do you think that’s an important part of what civil litigation accomplishes?

Alan Borowsky: I do.

At its best, civil litigation encourages organizations to take a closer look at how they’re operating and whether they can do better.

When serious failures come to light, those cases often prompt meaningful change.

Policies are rewritten.

Training improves.

Safety procedures become stronger.

Organizations invest in better oversight because they recognize the consequences of failing to do so.

Those improvements don’t happen in every case, but accountability has a way of encouraging organizations to evaluate risks that may have been overlooked.

Ultimately, that’s good for everyone.

Joe Dougherty: It reminds me that many of the everyday safety features people rarely think about exist because someone challenged the status quo.

Whether it’s improvements to products, workplace safety, or public spaces, civil litigation has often been part of that process.

Alan Borowsky: That’s true.

While every case is different, civil litigation has historically played an important role in identifying dangerous conditions and encouraging safer practices.

When evidence shows that preventable harm occurred because reasonable precautions weren’t taken, those cases often become catalysts for change.

Organizations don’t simply resolve a lawsuit and move on.

Many examine what happened, identify weaknesses, and make improvements designed to reduce the risk of future incidents.

When those changes protect even one additional person from experiencing the same harm, that’s a meaningful outcome.

Joe Dougherty: I think that’s something many people don’t realize.

The outcome of one case can affect people who were never involved in the litigation.

Alan Borowsky: Exactly.

Our clients come to us because they’ve experienced something deeply personal and often life-changing.

Our first responsibility is always to help them pursue justice.

But if a case also leads to stronger policies, improved reporting procedures, better supervision, or safer environments for others, that’s an important result as well.

Justice doesn’t only look backward.

Sometimes it creates opportunities to make things better moving forward.

Joe Dougherty: Earlier you talked about examining institutional failures.

It seems that when organizations know they’ll be asked difficult questions about their decisions, they’re more likely to prioritize prevention.

Alan Borowsky: Accountability is a powerful incentive.

Most organizations genuinely want to do the right thing.

When weaknesses are identified—whether in hiring practices, employee training, reporting procedures, or supervision—there’s an opportunity to address those issues before someone else is harmed.

Civil litigation provides a process for examining those failures carefully and transparently.

The ultimate goal isn’t simply to look at what went wrong.

It’s to encourage organizations to ask how they can do better in the future.

Joe Dougherty: One thing that’s become clear throughout our conversation is that you’re not just representing individual clients.

You’re also trying to improve the systems that are supposed to protect people.

Alan Borowsky: That’s certainly part of how I view this work.

Every case begins with one person’s story.

Someone trusted an organization.

Someone expected to be safe.

Something went wrong.

Our responsibility is to help that individual seek justice.

But if the case also encourages broader changes that make schools, workplaces, businesses, or other organizations safer, then we’ve accomplished something that extends well beyond a single lawsuit.

That’s one of the most rewarding aspects of this work.

Joe Dougherty: So when people ask what success looks like, it isn’t measured only by a verdict or settlement.

It’s measured by whether a survivor receives the support they need, whether those responsible are held accountable, and whether meaningful steps are taken to prevent the same thing from happening again.

Alan Borowsky: I think that’s exactly right.

A successful outcome is one that helps our client move forward with dignity while encouraging safer practices that benefit others.

If we can accomplish both, then we’ve achieved something that reaches far beyond the courtroom.

Trauma-Informed Advocacy

Joe Dougherty: Throughout our conversation, you’ve talked about accountability and justice. But before any of that can happen, someone has to be willing to walk through your door and tell you one of the most difficult stories of their life.

That takes an extraordinary amount of trust.

How do you approach those conversations?

Alan Borowsky: The first thing I remind myself is that this may be the first time this person has ever shared their experience in detail.

For many survivors, talking about abuse isn’t simply uncomfortable—it’s deeply painful. They’ve often carried that trauma for years, and recounting those experiences can be emotionally exhausting.

My responsibility is to create an environment where they feel safe, respected, and heard.

That starts with listening.

People shouldn’t feel rushed. They shouldn’t feel judged. And they should never feel like they’re being asked to prove themselves the moment they walk into my office.

Before we’re lawyers and clients, we’re people having a very difficult conversation.

That’s something I never lose sight of.

Joe Dougherty: Earlier you mentioned that these cases require a trauma-informed approach. What does that mean in practice?

Alan Borowsky: Trauma affects people in different ways.

Some survivors remember events in remarkable detail.

Others struggle with chronology or recall certain moments differently over time.

That’s a normal response to trauma, and it’s something lawyers handling these cases need to understand.

A trauma-informed approach means recognizing those realities rather than assuming every survivor will communicate in the same way.

It also means understanding that the legal process itself can be stressful.

Our job isn’t simply to prepare a case.

It’s to help clients navigate that process in a way that respects what they’ve already been through.

Joe Dougherty: I imagine that’s very different from simply sitting someone down and saying, “Tell me everything that happened.”

Alan Borowsky: It is.

These conversations require patience.

You have to build trust before asking someone to revisit some of the most painful moments of their life.

As attorneys, we obviously need to understand the facts.

But how we gather that information matters.

When clients know they’re being listened to—and that their attorney genuinely believes them—they’re often better able to share their experiences in a way that ultimately strengthens the case.

Just as importantly, it allows them to participate in the process without feeling like they’re being retraumatized.

Joe Dougherty: During the radio interview, something else stood out to me.

You talked about preparing your clients for what lies ahead, not just legally but emotionally.

Alan Borowsky: That’s an important part of representation.

Many survivors have never participated in a legal proceeding before.

Depositions, court appearances, medical evaluations, and interviews can feel intimidating.

One of my responsibilities is helping clients understand what to expect so there are as few surprises as possible.

Preparation reduces anxiety.

It allows people to focus on telling the truth rather than worrying about the process itself.

The legal system can be unfamiliar.

Our role is to guide clients through it with honesty, compassion, and clear communication.

Joe Dougherty: You also spent many years as a prosecutor working with survivors.

Has that experience influenced how you practice today?

Alan Borowsky: Very much so.

As a prosecutor, I learned that every survivor responds to trauma differently.

No two cases are the same because no two people are the same.

That experience reinforced the importance of listening before making assumptions.

It also taught me that trust isn’t automatic.

It’s earned.

Today, I approach every client with that same mindset.

The legal issues may differ from one case to another, but the human side of the work remains remarkably consistent.

People want someone who will listen, communicate honestly, and advocate for them every step of the way.

That’s what I strive to provide.

Joe Dougherty: Listening to you, it strikes me that your role extends well beyond preparing legal arguments.

You’re helping people navigate one of the most difficult experiences of their lives.

Alan Borowsky: I think that’s true.

Every client comes to us because something happened that changed their life.

The legal case is certainly important.

But equally important is making sure our clients know they don’t have to face that process alone.

If they leave our office feeling heard, respected, and confident that someone is advocating for them, then we’ve already taken an important first step.

Everything we do after that builds on the trust we’ve established together.

Advice for Survivors and Their Families

Joe Dougherty: Alan, if someone listening today has experienced sexual abuse—or if they’re a parent, spouse, or loved one trying to help someone who has—what’s the first thing you want them to know?

Alan Borowsky: First and foremost, I want them to know they’re not alone.

Many survivors carry what happened to them in silence for months, years, or even decades. Some worry they won’t be believed. Others blame themselves or believe it’s simply too late to do anything about what happened.

Those feelings are understandable, but they shouldn’t prevent someone from asking questions or seeking help.

Every situation is different, and every survivor deserves to understand their options.

Joe Dougherty: If someone has recently experienced abuse, what practical steps should they consider?

Alan Borowsky: If the abuse is recent and it’s safe to do so, I encourage people to report it to law enforcement as soon as possible.

Criminal investigations play a vital role in protecting the public and holding offenders accountable. Reporting abuse promptly also helps preserve evidence and allows investigators to begin their work while information is still fresh.

Just as importantly, I encourage survivors to seek medical care and emotional support when appropriate.

No one should have to navigate this experience alone.

There are professionals—including counselors, victim advocates, healthcare providers, and attorneys—who are prepared to help.

Joe Dougherty: Many people probably don’t realize they may also have legal rights outside of the criminal justice system.

When should someone consider speaking with an attorney?

Alan Borowsky: As early as possible.

Even if someone isn’t sure whether they have a civil case, speaking with an attorney can help them understand what options may be available.

An attorney experienced in handling sexual abuse cases can explain the legal process, answer questions, and help preserve information that may become important later.

Sometimes people hesitate because they assume they’ll be pressured into filing a lawsuit.

That isn’t how these conversations should work.

An initial consultation is an opportunity to ask questions, learn about your rights, and make informed decisions at your own pace.

Joe Dougherty: We also talked earlier about statutes of limitation.

Some survivors assume that if years have passed, they no longer have any legal options.

Alan Borowsky: That’s one of the biggest misconceptions I encounter.

The law surrounding statutes of limitation can be very complex, particularly in sexual abuse cases. The answer often depends on the facts of the case, when the abuse occurred, the jurisdiction, and changes in the law over time.

Because of that, I never encourage someone to assume it’s too late without first speaking to an attorney.

Even if a civil claim ultimately isn’t available, having an informed conversation about your rights can provide clarity and peace of mind.

The important thing is not to make that decision based on assumptions.

Joe Dougherty: Throughout this interview, we’ve talked about justice, accountability, healing, and prevention.

If someone is considering taking that first step, what would you want them to remember?

Alan Borowsky: I’d want them to remember that asking for help is an act of courage.

You don’t have to know every answer before making a phone call.

You don’t have to decide immediately whether to pursue legal action.

You simply have to be willing to begin a conversation.

Our responsibility is to listen, answer your questions honestly, explain the process, and help you understand your options.

Every survivor’s journey is different.

The legal process can’t erase what happened, but it can provide accountability, resources for recovery, and, in many cases, an opportunity to help protect others from experiencing the same harm.

If someone leaves that first conversation feeling heard, respected, and empowered to make an informed decision, then we’ve done our job.

Joe Dougherty: Listening to you today, I think one message has come through clearly.

Justice isn’t defined by a single verdict or one day in court.

It’s about helping survivors reclaim their voice, holding people and organizations accountable, and working toward a future where fewer people experience the same kind of harm.

Alan Borowsky: I couldn’t have said it better.

Every case is different, but the mission remains the same.

It’s about standing beside people during one of the most difficult chapters of their lives and helping them move forward with dignity, compassion, and the strongest advocacy we can provide.

That’s why I do this work.

Closing Thoughts

Joe Dougherty: Alan, we’ve covered a lot today—from your years as a prosecutor, to your work representing survivors, to the importance of institutional accountability and creating safer communities.

As I listen to everything we’ve talked about, one thing stands out to me.

You don’t seem to define success by verdicts or settlements.

You define it by whether you’ve made a meaningful difference in someone’s life.

Is that fair?

Alan Borowsky: I think it is.

Every case has legal objectives, of course. We work hard to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients, and that’s incredibly important.

But behind every case is a person whose life has been changed.

Many of our clients come to us during one of the most difficult periods they’ll ever experience. They didn’t ask to be in that position, and they certainly didn’t expect to need a lawyer.

If we can help them feel heard, guide them through a difficult process with honesty and compassion, and achieve a result that allows them to move forward with greater security and confidence, then we’ve done something meaningful.

That’s what motivates me every day.

Joe Dougherty: Earlier you said something that really stuck with me.

You said the criminal justice system focuses on the offender, while the civil justice system focuses on the survivor.

To me, that perfectly captures why your work matters.

Alan Borowsky: The two systems are different, but they’re both essential.

One protects the public by holding offenders accountable.

The other helps survivors pursue the resources they need to rebuild their lives while examining whether others failed in their responsibilities.

Neither system replaces the other.

Together, they provide a more complete path toward justice.

Joe Dougherty: If there’s one thing you hope someone takes away from this conversation—whether they’re a survivor, a family member, another attorney, or simply someone trying to better understand this work—what would it be?

Alan Borowsky: I’d hope they come away with an understanding that justice is about people.

It’s about listening before speaking.

It’s about treating every person with dignity and respect.

It’s about recognizing that survivors are more than the worst thing that’s ever happened to them.

And it’s about understanding that accountability isn’t simply about looking backward—it’s about creating safer environments and stronger institutions moving forward.

If this conversation encourages even one person to ask questions, seek help, or better understand their rights, then I’m grateful we had the opportunity to have it.

Joe Dougherty: Alan, thank you for spending time with us today and for sharing your perspective.

I think one of the biggest takeaways from this conversation is that justice isn’t measured solely by what happens in a courtroom.

It’s measured by how we treat people, how we help them move forward, and how we work to ensure the same failures don’t happen again.

Thank you for joining us.

Alan Borowsky: Thank you, Joe. I appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation.

---

About Alan Borowsky

Alan Borowsky is a partner at Saltz Mongeluzzi Bendesky, where he represents survivors of sexual abuse and assault in complex civil litigation. Before joining the firm, he served for more than a decade as a prosecutor, handling cases involving child sexual abuse, adult sexual assault, and human trafficking. His experience in both the criminal and civil justice systems provides a unique perspective on helping survivors pursue accountability, navigate the legal process, and seek meaningful justice.

If you or someone you love has survived sexual abuse or sex trafficking, contact us for a free, confidential consultation. You don’t have to carry this alone — and you don’t have to stay silent.