What Were They Thinking

I have written several times about the disciplinary proceedings against several attorneys who represented the losing party in the Demoulas cases. (see here, here and here). As I described in the first of these blog entries: The saga of how Gary Crossen (then of Foley, Hoag & Eliot and former ethics counsel to two Massachusetts Governors), Richard Donahue (a former President of the Massachusetts Bar Association, chair of its Commission on Professionalism and President of Nike, Inc.), and Kevin Curry, a former Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General, lured the judge’s former law clerk out-of-state in order to tape record his “confession,” attempted to bully him into signing an affidavit, conducted surveillance on him, and more, is described in agonizing detail in the 229 page decision. As a fan of hard boiled detective novels (including Boston’s current claim to fame, Dennis LeHane, author of Mystic River and other engrossing works), I can only say that in Boston, reality is stranger than fiction. After years of hearings and delays Bar Counsel issued her decision recommending the “ultimate sanction,” disbarment of all three attorneys. Her decision is now working its way through the Board of Bar Overseers and will ultimately be in the hands of a single Justice of the State Supreme Judicial Court. The consensus in the community appears to be that bar counsel’s decision will be followed. Bar Counsel’s recommendation of disbarment…

This falls squarely under the “what were they thinking” category. I’ve written about the attorney discipline proceedings in the Demoulas case here and here. Oral argument before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court took place on October 4, 2007. These arguments may be viewed in full here (Crossen) and here (Curry). When the SJC issues its rulings on these two appeals, the door will finally close on this scandal, ten years after it first opened. The Justices’ questioning of the attorneys for Messrs. Crossen and Curry was surprisingly gentle, and their questioning of the BBO’s attorney quite aggresive. If I were in Crossen or Curry’s shoes, I would be cautiously optimistic following this hearing.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing, nothing, against leasing companies. But it seems that some people do, so it grabs my attention when a leasing company sues for breach of a lease and not only loses its case but gets hit with a counterclaim that results in a judgment for violation of M.G.L. c. 93A (the Massachusetts “unfair and deceptive acts and practices” statute). This was the outcome in General Electric Capital v. MHPG, Inc. Following default on the lease GE sued not only its lessee, MHPG, but (since MHPG was insolvent), the next best thing, the company’s stockholders and directors. After all, you’ve got to go where the money is, right? After Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Ernest B. Murphy (no stranger to controversy himself) rejected GE’s attempt to “pierce the corporate veil” he ruled that GE’s suit against the shareholders/directors was a violation of c. 93A (the Massachusetts statute prohibiting “unfair or deceptive acts or practices”). To quote: As the case progressed . . . GE learned there was no personal guaranty from either of the [directors] and that both had left MHPG almost two years prior to the default under the lease. Even after having been alerted to the absence of any personal guarantees, GE . . . vigorously prosecuted the case against [the directors]. This Court finds this continued litigation inexcusable, and well parametrized within a…

What Were They Thinking? Even the least experienced Massachusetts lawyer knows that when an answer to a lawsuit is not filed within the requisite 20 days and a default judgment is issued, the default is easily set aside as a matter of course based on even the flimsiest excuse. And, if the answer is filed only one day late professional courtesy mandates that the plaintiff permit the defendant to file late. Apparently some lawyers in a large Boston law firm (unidentified) never got this message: they refused to agree to set aside a default under these circumstances, forcing the defendant (who filed his answer one day late) to file a motion to remove the default. After reviewing the law and (predictably) setting aside the default, Superior Court Judge Mitchell Sikora slammed the plaintiff’s lawyers hard: Beyond the letter and purpose of the legal standards, conscientious judges and attorneys attempt to implement our litigation system with reasonable efficiency, civility, and common sense. This episode illustrates an egregious breach of those professional and cultural values. Counsel for Perrina Construction Company, a large Boston firm, has engaged in a mean-spirited and wasteful tactic. It has wasted the time and effort of an opposing attorney practicing in a small office. It has wasted the time and effort of the Superior Court. If one were to dramatize the public’s worst image of the contemporary litigator,…