The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers accepted a public reprimand of an attorney who had taken over a divorce case from prior counsel

The respondent was provided with a copy of the client’s file on March 28, 2013 which contained the notice from the court of the pre-trial conference scheduled for April 12, 2013. Between March 29, 2013 and April 5, 2013, the client sent three emails to the respondent relating to the retainer, as well as an additional email on April 5, 2013 that he had left the retainer check at an unattended desk at the respondent’s office. The respondent left the country on April 10, 2013 for a planned vacation. Before leaving on vacation, the respondent failed to review the client’s file which contained the pre-trial conference notice, failed to review the emails sent by the client regarding the retainer, and was unaware that the retainer had been left at her office.

The pre-trial conference was held in Lawrence on April 12, 2013 at which opposing counsel appeared and no attorney appeared on behalf of the client. The client incorrectly went to the Salem courthouse instead. Opposing counsel telephoned the respondent’s office and reached an associate who was unaware of the client, the pre-trial conference, and the fact that a retainer had been received by the office. The associate advised opposing counsel that she did not believe the respondent represented the client and that the respondent was out of the country. The associate also received a call from the client inquiring as to why the respondent was not in Salem. The associate informed the client that there was no indication that the firm was representing him, that according to opposing counsel the hearing was in Lawrence, and that he should go to Lawrence and request a continuance. The client did not appear in Lawrence and a divorce judgment was issued.

Following her return from vacation, the respondent learned that a pre-trial conference had occurred on April 12, 2013 and that a divorce judgment had issued. The respondent subsequently filed motions for relief from judgment and for a new trial which were denied by the court. The respondent continued to represent the client until 2017 in post-divorce matters.