Primary Client

The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers has reprimanded an attorney for a conflict of interest in the representation of a mother and her son

In July 2021, the respondent began representing a client who had been served with a complaint for protection from harassment filed by the building manager of the rental community where the client resided. The client, an adult, resided in the rental property with his mother, who received housing assistance to pay the rent, and his minor sibling. In the complaint, the building manager alleged that the client had harassed her on three separate occasions.

While the harassment prevention proceeding was ongoing, the rental community sent the respondent, the client, and the client’s mother a lease violation letter describing the three incidents and a fourth incident, all alleged to have been committed by the complainant.

The respondent negotiated a settlement of the harassment prevention matter, whereby the client would keep his distance from the building manager. Shortly after settlement of the harassment prevention matter, the rental community sent a second lease violation letter alleging a fifth violation committed by the client.

The rental community then sent a Notice to Quit to the client and his mother stating that it would evict all occupants of their unit if they did not move out within 30 days (the “Eviction Matter”). The respondent reviewed the Notice to Quit in the Eviction Matter and discussed it with both the client and his mother. Neither the client nor his mother moved out pursuant to the Notice to Quit.

On or about October 8, 2021, the rental community served an eviction complaint on the client and his mother seeking to evict all the occupants of the rental unit. The grounds for eviction were solely based on the alleged behavior of the client as described in the lease violation letters.

At this time, the respondent knew that the interests of the client and his mother were, at least, potentially in conflict given that the mother’s primary goal was to protect her tenancy and housing assistance, which goal might be furthered by disassociating herself from her adult son whose alleged behavior was the only grounds for eviction. The respondent, however, failed to discuss any potential for conflict with the client or his mother.

As the eviction matter progressed without being resolved

By the time he entered his appearance, the respondent considered the mother to be his “primary” client because she was the head of household, the recipient of the housing assistance, and the mother of a minor child who would be most harmed by an eviction. By the time he entered his appearance, the respondent could not have reasonably believed that he could provide competent and diligent representation to each client when he considered his duty to one to be subordinate to his duty to the other. The respondent never discussed this conflict with either client. The respondent did not withdraw from the matter.

By the date of the trial, the respondent had not completed tasks that he had promised his clients including filing an answer and counterclaim and pursing discovery of recordings pertaining to the incidents alleged in the eviction complaint. Prior to completion of the trial the parties settled the matter with the son agreeing to move out. After the settlement the son asked for documents from his file, which the respondent never provided.

(Mike Frisch)