seal

Court Case Record DAGMARA FRANKOWSKA vs. COMMONWEALTH EQUITY SERVICES, LLP & others 2011-J-0209 UID(9558)


DAGMARA FRANKOWSKA vs. COMMONWEALTH EQUITY SERVICES, LLP & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2011-J-0209


 
Case Number2011-J-0209
Case TitleDAGMARA FRANKOWSKA vs. COMMONWEALTH EQUITY SERVICES, LLP & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyMiddlesex
CourtMiddlesex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date05/16/2011
Close Date05/16/2011

Parties

CounselNameType
Terence E. Coles, EsquireDagmara FrankowskaPlaintiff/Respondent
Julie B. Brennan, Esquire Brian H. Lamkin, EsquireCommonwealth Equity Services, LLDefendant/Petitioner
Thomas F. Maffei, EsquireJames Adelman Esq.Defendant
Thomas F. Maffei, EsquireEllen Rosenberg Esq.Defendant
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
05/16/2011 #1 Petition pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231, ยง 118 with attachments and proposed order filed by Commonwealth Equity Services, LLP, dba Commonwealth Financial Network and Scott Solod.
05/16/2011 #2 Motion to Stay Lower Court Proceedings Pending Interlocutory Review, filed by Commonwealth Equity Services, LLP, dba Commonwealth Financial Network and Scott Solod.
05/16/2011 #3 Motion to Consolidate with Related Petition (11-J-202) , filed by Commonwealth Equity Services, LLP, dba Commonwealth Financial Network and Scott Solod.
05/16/2011 #4 Exhibits to be attached to Memoranda of Law filed by Commonwealth Equity Services, LLP.
05/16/2011 #5 Hearing held.
05/16/2011 #6 Appearance of Attorney Thomas F. Maffei for James Adelman and Ellen Rotenberg.
05/16/2011 #7 Appearance of Attorney Brian H. Lamkin for Commonwealth Equity Services, LLP.
05/16/2011 ORDER: The parties have each filed separate petitions seeking review of the procedure utilized by the trial court in conducting a hearing to investigate whether in-house counsel for defendant Commonwealth Equity Services, LLP, violated Rule 3.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides "A lawyer shall not in pretrial procedure . . . fail to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party[.]" Both petitions are denied. The Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 3:09 D. (2) requires that the judge have "knowledge of facts indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a significant question as to the lawyer's honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer" for a referral to the Board of Bar Overseers. The Commentary states that the word "significant" is a reference to "the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the judge is aware." It is somewhat perplexing that counsel for the two attorneys, who the judge may or may not refer to the BBO, rather than arguing to the trial judge that referral to the BBO is unwarranted, argue that the judge should not be conducting the hearing at all. Moreover, counsel intimated in their petition, and affirmatively stated at the single justice hearing, that if the judge believes that BBO referral is warranted she should refer the case. While I might merely refer the case to the BBO, assuming that the facts so warrant, I cannot find an abuse of discretion with the manner in which the judge is acting. While it does not appear to be the case, if the hearing were conducted on the issue of sanctions, it would also be within her discretion to conduct it. (Kantrowitz, J.). Notice/attest/Kern, J./image