In The Matter Of Anonymous

655 N.E. 2d 67 (1995)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 1988, D was a member of a law firm. Late that year, a company retained D to defend it against certain grievances initiated by a labor union. The union alleged that the company failed to properly contribute funds pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. Both parties recognized that an individual holding the position of trustee and financial secretary of the union (trustee) was a key witness, since he negotiated the collective bargaining agreement between the company and the union. D met with the trustee on December 22, 1988, as well as on several other occasions in late 1988, and discussed the pending grievances. At a deposition, the trustee testified that he informed the company it would not have to contribute funds pursuant to the agreement. He was effectively discharged as a trustee of the union in late 1988, due to the union's perception that he provided certain information detrimental to its position in the grievance litigation. He formally resigned from his elected position of financial secretary in February, 1989. The trustee testified that, on December 22, 1988, he met with an attorney in D's firm to inquire about representation in a wrongful discharge suit against the union. The trustee was referred to D. D and the trustee met later that day, and discussed the upcoming labor grievance proceedings, and the trustee's termination from his positions at the union with the possibility of filing a lawsuit against the union's president for wrongful termination. D gave the trustee information about RICO actions and assisted him in revising a statement the trustee planned to deliver to union members. On December 27, 1988, D's law firm opened a client file for the trustee. D and the trustee met two more times. They discussed a possible contingency fee arrangement. D told the trustee he thought his case may have been worth one million dollars. The trustee sent D audio tapes of his recollection of the events surrounding his termination from the union. The trustee wrote at least five letters to D. On March 17, 1989, D posted a billing slip to the file, memorializing a March 17, 1989 meeting between them. No formal employment agreement was entered and D never billed the trustee, nor did he ever expressly accept employment as the trustee's attorney. D began practicing law in another office and the trustee retrieved his case file from the firm's offices, believing that he was D's client. After D's move, the trustee never communicated directly with D regarding his case. D did not use the trustee as a witness in the grievance proceedings related to the union. On May 3, 1990, D filed a fraud action on behalf of the company against the trustee and others, alleging that the trustee had fraudulently represented to the company that it would not have to contribute to the union's benefit plan. D moved to withdraw his appearance on July 25, 1991, because of the appearance of impropriety. D contends that the hearing officer erroneously concluded that the trustee and D formed an attorney-client relationship.