A client who had previously worked as a teacher in the Cambridge public schools retained the respondent in October 2001 to assist him in securing an administrative position in the Cambridge School Department. The client paid the respondent a retainer of $1,000 for his anticipated services. At the time, the respondent’s customary hourly fee was $150 per hour. The respondent sent a letter to the superintendent of schools inquiring about the possibility of allowing the client to assume an administrative position in the school department. After writing the letter, the respondent conducted no more than two hours of research concerning the possibility of bringing an age discrimination complaint against the school department on the client’s behalf.
In December 2001, the respondent informed the client that he did not believe the client could prevail on an age discrimination claim against the school department. The client told the respondent that he intended to submit an application to the Cambridge School Department for a job as a principal. The respondent understood that the client was relying on him for further assistance in his effort to secure a job.
In May 2002, the client informed the respondent that his application for a principal’s position had been rejected and requested further legal advice about the implications of his failure to get the principal’s job and his ability to secure other employment in the school system. The respondent did not reply to the client’s request for further advice.
The client sent emails and letters to the respondent in May and July 2002 expressing frustration with the respondent’s failure to reply to his requests for further assistance. The client asked the respondent to return his file and the fee he had paid. The respondent did not reply to these communications. In August 2002, in response to the client’s demands, the respondent agreed to turn over the client’s file and refund his $1,000.
When the respondent did not promptly return the file or the retainer, the client complained to the Office of Bar Counsel. In December 2002, several months after the client complained to bar counsel, the respondent returned the client’s file and refunded $1,000.
The respondent’s retention of the entire $1,000 retainer his client had paid to him after performing no more than three hours of work on the client’s behalf violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(a) (lawyer shall not charge or collect a clearly excessive fee). The respondent’s failure to respond to his client’s requests for information violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.4(a) and (b) (lawyer shall promptly comply with client’s reasonable requests for information and shall explain matter to extent reasonably necessary to enable client to make informed decisions regarding the representation).
In another matter, the respondent represented two individuals who were engaged in real estate development projects. In about May 2002, one of the clients asked the respondent to prepare a waiver of mechanics lien to send to an insurance company so that the company would release insurance proceeds to pay for work done on an insured’s property. The respondent prepared the document as the client had requested.
With the other client’s consent, the respondent signed the other client’s name on the waiver and notarized the client’s signature on the document. The respondent’s notarization of the client’s signature when he knew that the client had not signed the document violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4(c) and (h) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving misrepresentation or other conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law).
The respondent received a public reprimand for this misconduct.
