Byline: Mass. Lawyers Weekly Staff
SJC No. BD-2015-114
In the Matter of Saba Hashem
The Board of Bar Overseers will hold a public hearing on the petition for reinstatement of Saba Hashem of Methuen, MA, who has been suspended since 2016. The hearing will be on Monday, January 14, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. at the Office of the Board, 99 High Street, Boston, MA. Hearings are subject to rescheduling without notice. Parties interested in attending or offering testimony should contact the Administrative Assistant of the Board at 671-728-8700 in advance of the hearing date.
Petition for reinstatement
Now comes Petitioner, Saba Hashem, by and through counsel requests this Honorable Court in accordance with Rule 4:01 Section 18, Reinstatement, to allow Reinstatement of Petitioner for the following reasons:
Petitioner's term of suspension expired June 29, 2017;
Petitioner successfully completed the terms of his Probation November 24, 2017;
Petitioner has complied with all the terms and conditions of the order imposing suspension;
Petitioner has not paid any costs assessed by the court under section 23 of this rule as they do not apply;
Petitioner has not made restitution to, or otherwise made whole, all clients or others injured by the petitioner's misconduct as this condition does not apply;
Petitioner has not repaid the Clients' Security Board any funds awarded on account of the petitioner's misconduct as this condition does not apply;
Petitioner has taken the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination after entry of the order of suspension, and has received a passing grade, as established by the Board of Bar Examiners;
Petitioner has not posted with the Board any bond it has required under paragraph 6 of this section 18; and
Petitioner has filed with the Board and served upon the bar counsel copies of the petition and the completed questionnaire required by the Board under its rules.
Wherefore, Petitioner respectfully prays this Honorable Court grant an order reinstating petitioner and any additional relief as this Honorable Court may deem meet and just.
The following summary was compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the record of proceedings before the board.
BBO Public Reprimand No. 2018-14
In re: Brian B. Kydd
P.O. Box 463
Arlington, MA, 02476
Order (public reprimand) entered by the board on Nov. 1, 2018
The respondent stipulated to a public reprimand for failing to inform a client that he was not willing to represent it in a case after pre-suit negotiations broke down when the client refused to honor an agreement to settle. The client eventually settled the case on less favorable terms than negotiated by the respondent.
In December of 2016, the respondent was retained to attempt to negotiate a settlement on behalf of clients in an ongoing civil dispute with a former employee who alleged sexual harassment. Prior counsel for the clients negotiated a settlement in the amount of $38,000 to be paid to the former employee. The clients originally agreed, then changed their mind, discharged prior counsel and hired the respondent to try to obtain a more favorable settlement.
In early 2017, the respondent negotiated a settlement with the former employee on behalf of the clients in the amount of $32,500 to which the clients originally agreed. The clients later rescinded their agreement to pay the agreed-upon sum. The respondent unsuccessfully attempted to renegotiate the settlement.
On April 18, 2017, the former employee filed a lawsuit against the clients seeking damages in the amount of $32,500 as well as costs and attorneys' fees. The clients were served with process on the complaint. On May 30, 2017, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. The respondent was unwilling to continue to represent the clients in the circumstances. The respondent was aware of the former employee's lawsuit but did not file an appearance or any pleadings on the clients' behalf. He stopped communicating with the clients in May of 2017 and did not advise them that he would not represent them and that they should obtain new counsel to handle the case. A default judgment was entered against the clients on June 12, 2017. The clients discharged the respondent in July of 2017 and requested a copy of their file. The respondent failed to provide a copy of the file to the clients within a reasonable time. The clients settled the matter for $39,000 ($32,500 plus $6,500 for costs and attorneys' fees).
By failing to advise the clients that he would not represent them and that they should obtain new counsel to handle the case, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.2(a) and 1.3. By failing to communicate with the clients the status of the case, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.4. By failing to return the clients' file within a reasonable time upon request, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.6(e).
The respondent was admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth in 1990.
In aggravation, the respondent received a three-month suspension, suspended for one year on conditions, in 2009. Matter of Kydd, 25 Mass. Att'y Disc. R. 341 (2009).
On August 28, 2018, bar counsel commenced disciplinary proceedings before the Board of Bar Overseers by filing a petition for discipline. On the same date, bar counsel and the respondent filed Respondent's Answer to Petition for Discipline and Stipulation of the Parties in which the parties recommended that the respondent receive a public reprimand. On September 17, 2018, the Board of Bar Overseers accepted the parties' recommendation and imposed a public reprimand.
The following summaries were compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the record filed with the Supreme Judicial Court. The complete court orders are available by contacting the clerk of the SJC.
SJC No. BD-2018-046
In re: Matthew J. Bresette
90 Pine Lane
Barnstable, MA, 02630
SJC order of term suspension entered by Justice Lowy on Oct. 15, 2018
The respondent stipulated to an indefinite suspension based on his intentional misuse of trust funds that he oversaw as trustee, in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4(c) and (h). His former law firm made restitution to the clients and the respondent has reimbursed the firm.
The respondent was admitted to the Bar of the...