In the Matter of Edward J. Collins (2024)

Citation: In the Matter of Edward J. Collins (2024)
Parent Document: In the Matter of Edward J. Collins (2024)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2024-09-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10281485/in-the-matter-of-edward-j-collins/ ↗

Full Text

953 chars

As to his own misconduct, the respondent argues that the board was wrong to conclude that his representation was anything other than pro bono.  But he represented to bar counsel that while he did not intend to charge the client for recovering the value of her purported interest in the property, nevertheless, "to the extent she recovered more than that later, the fee would likely be [one-third] of such recovery but that was to be worked out between us in final form later."  At the hearing, the respondent acknowledged this statement, which was admitted in evidence by way of an agreed-upon exhibit.  In sum, there was substantial evidence to conclude that the respondent did not represent the client as a pro bono client but rather entered into a contingent fee agreement, which by the plain language of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5 (c), as amended, 480 Mass. 1315 (2018), needed to be in writing.  See Malonis v. Harrington, 442 Mass. 692, 693 n.1 (2004).

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text