Conflict Draws Reprimand

The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers approved a public reprimand on stipulated facts

The respondent was retained on or about August 19, 2021 to represent an individual (“Client 1”) concerning his potential interests in certain real property that had been owned by Client 1’s late brother. Client 1 had continued to live at the property following his brother’s  death in 2015, and Client 1 informed the respondent that it was his desire to continue to do so. The respondent did not communicate in writing to Client 1 the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which he would be responsible.

The respondent learned that Client 1’s brother had died intestate, as did the late brother’s daughter who had a surviving son, which left three living heirs who possessed an equal interest in the subject property (i.e., the late brother’s two sons and one grandson). On behalf of Client 1, the respondent contacted two of the heirs and began discussing the possibility of relinquishing all or some of their interest in the property to Client 1 as compensation for his ongoing care of the property and payment of many mortgage payments. To resolve title issues, however, the respondent determined that it would be necessary to probate Client 1’s late brother’s estate and the estate of the late brother’s late daughter.

On or about August 30, 2021, the respondent agreed to represent the personal representative of the estate of Client 1’s late brother (“Client 2”). On or about October 16, 2021, the respondent agreed to represent the personal representative of the estate of the late brother’s daughter (“Client 3”). The respondent orally informed Clients 2 and 3 that he would bill for his services upon the sale of the property.

There was an obvious conflict in the respondent’s simultaneous representation of Client 1- – who wished to remain on the property – – and the directly adverse interests of Clients 2 and 3 — who had an ownership interest in the property. The respondent did not obtain from each client their informed consent to the conflict of interest confirmed in writing. Moreover, the respondent did not communicate in writing to Clients 2 and 3 the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which they would be responsible.

On or about August 25, 2022, on behalf of Clients 2 and 3, the respondent sent written notice to Client 1 demanding that he leave the property so that it could be sold. Consequently, Client 1 vacated the property. Client 1 was harmed by having to vacate the property without being afforded the opportunity to secure unconflicted counsel.

(Mike Frisch)