Preview
w
4
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
SABA HASHEM, individually, and as a
Member of, and derivatively on behalf of,
D’ANGELO and HASHEM, LLC.
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.1677-CV-01419 /] =
Vv.
STEPHEN L. D’ANGELO, D’ANGELO
LAW GROUP, LLC, and D’ANGELO
AND HASHEM, LLC.
Defendants.
STEPHEN L. D’ANGELO AND D’ANGELO LAW GROUP. LLC’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, the Defendants Stephen L. D’Angelo and D’ Angelo Law
Group. LLC (“D’ Angelo” and D’ Angelo Law Group”, respectively) the moving party, hereby
move for Summary Adjudication on all counts brought by the Plaintiffs, except Quantum meruit.
The relevant facts are undisputed, leaving only. issues of law to be decided by the Court.
As set forth more fully in the Memorandum of Law submitted with this motion, D’ Angelo and
D’Angelo Law Group state the following:
First, Plaintiffs cannot establish the required elements of the Massachusetts Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.1 regarding their “derivative” claim for an accounting, which they have attempted
to bring. No written demand or futility has been shown. Additionally, Mr. Hashem does not
represent fairly and adequately represent other similarly interested members in enforcing a right
of the LLC. Mr. Hashem’s claims are personal to himself only.
-1-Second, Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, establish the elements of interference with
contractual relations or conversion. Plaintiffs had no advantageous relationship with a third
party, as the contingent fee contracts the LLC had with legal clients became void as a matter of
law upon Mr. Hashem’s suspension from the practice of law. It necessarily follows that no
inducement, improper in means or motive, can be shown. Defendants’ offering the clients the
choice of retaining new counsel, with D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC or other attorneys was not
tortious conduct. Mr. D’ Angelo was compelled ethically to tender those clients their files and
offer them that choice, and to form a new law firm as D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC could no
longer continuc to offer legal services to clients since Mr. Hashem remained a member, having
never tendered his shares, as required. Nor can any inducement to break contracts be shown.
Mr. Hashem’s suspension voided those contracts. There was no heightened actual malice when
Mr. D’Angelo followed the recommendations of Ethics Counsel, and abided by the Rules of
Professional Conduct. Thus, Defendants did not cause Plaintiffs harm.
Similarly, Defendants had no legally protected interests in the clients, as they are not
assets, and lawyers cannot claim an expectation of continued representation. Mr. Hashem was
and still is unable to share fees as a non-lawyer. Therefore, he did not have any right to
possession of personal property, which is required for a conversion to have occurred.
Third, Attorney D’Angelo’s provision of written notice to all of the clients of D’ Angelo
and Hashem, LLC that each was entitled to select new counsel was ethically required by
Assistant Bar Counsel. Accordingly, because clients have a right to choose and change
counsel, clients are not assets. Further, Attorney D’Angelo’s acceptance of some of those clients
who independently selected him as their new counsel was not a breach of any fiduciary duty.Fourth, Mr. Hashem has no standing, He was not a lawyer at the time the Complaint, or
[second] Ameded Complaint was filed and throughout the litigation.
Lastly, in light of the above, which is supported by applicable legal authority in
Defendants’ Memorandum of Law, it is highly unlikely that Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits.
Thus, injunctive relief should be a matter of summary adjudication as well.
In addition to the Memorandum of Law, a Statement of Undisputed Facts and the
Affidavit of Stephen L. D’Angelo are submitted in support of this motion.
WHEREFORE, Stephen L. D’Angelo and D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC request that this
Honorable Court allow its Motion for Summary Adjudication on all counts, except the count for
Quantum Meruit-for Mr. Hashem’s services provided, if any, prior to his suspension.
Date: August 1, 2019
Stephen L. D’Angelo and
D’Angelo Law Group, LLC
By their attorneys,
(na. 62 Cc! WK
Thomas C. LaPorte (BBO #634194)
Kenneth A. Cossingham (BBO # 100970)
Cossingham Law Office, P.C.
30 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 404
North Andover, MA 01845
(978) 685-5686
tlaporte@cossinghamlaw.com
kcossingham@cossinghamlaw.coms
Lead BI dh 6
Preview
w 4 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETS ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT SABA HASHEM, individually, and as a Member of, and derivatively on behalf of, D’ANGELO and HASHEM, LLC. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.1677-CV-01419 /] = Vv. STEPHEN L. D’ANGELO, D’ANGELO LAW GROUP, LLC, and D’ANGELO AND HASHEM, LLC. Defendants. STEPHEN L. D’ANGELO AND D’ANGELO LAW GROUP. LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, the Defendants Stephen L. D’Angelo and D’ Angelo Law Group. LLC (“D’ Angelo” and D’ Angelo Law Group”, respectively) the moving party, hereby move for Summary Adjudication on all counts brought by the Plaintiffs, except Quantum meruit. The relevant facts are undisputed, leaving only. issues of law to be decided by the Court. As set forth more fully in the Memorandum of Law submitted with this motion, D’ Angelo and D’Angelo Law Group state the following: First, Plaintiffs cannot establish the required elements of the Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 regarding their “derivative” claim for an accounting, which they have attempted to bring. No written demand or futility has been shown. Additionally, Mr. Hashem does not represent fairly and adequately represent other similarly interested members in enforcing a right of the LLC. Mr. Hashem’s claims are personal to himself only. -1-Second, Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, establish the elements of interference with contractual relations or conversion. Plaintiffs had no advantageous relationship with a third party, as the contingent fee contracts the LLC had with legal clients became void as a matter of law upon Mr. Hashem’s suspension from the practice of law. It necessarily follows that no inducement, improper in means or motive, can be shown. Defendants’ offering the clients the choice of retaining new counsel, with D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC or other attorneys was not tortious conduct. Mr. D’ Angelo was compelled ethically to tender those clients their files and offer them that choice, and to form a new law firm as D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC could no longer continuc to offer legal services to clients since Mr. Hashem remained a member, having never tendered his shares, as required. Nor can any inducement to break contracts be shown. Mr. Hashem’s suspension voided those contracts. There was no heightened actual malice when Mr. D’Angelo followed the recommendations of Ethics Counsel, and abided by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Thus, Defendants did not cause Plaintiffs harm. Similarly, Defendants had no legally protected interests in the clients, as they are not assets, and lawyers cannot claim an expectation of continued representation. Mr. Hashem was and still is unable to share fees as a non-lawyer. Therefore, he did not have any right to possession of personal property, which is required for a conversion to have occurred. Third, Attorney D’Angelo’s provision of written notice to all of the clients of D’ Angelo and Hashem, LLC that each was entitled to select new counsel was ethically required by Assistant Bar Counsel. Accordingly, because clients have a right to choose and change counsel, clients are not assets. Further, Attorney D’Angelo’s acceptance of some of those clients who independently selected him as their new counsel was not a breach of any fiduciary duty.Fourth, Mr. Hashem has no standing, He was not a lawyer at the time the Complaint, or [second] Ameded Complaint was filed and throughout the litigation. Lastly, in light of the above, which is supported by applicable legal authority in Defendants’ Memorandum of Law, it is highly unlikely that Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits. Thus, injunctive relief should be a matter of summary adjudication as well. In addition to the Memorandum of Law, a Statement of Undisputed Facts and the Affidavit of Stephen L. D’Angelo are submitted in support of this motion. WHEREFORE, Stephen L. D’Angelo and D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC request that this Honorable Court allow its Motion for Summary Adjudication on all counts, except the count for Quantum Meruit-for Mr. Hashem’s services provided, if any, prior to his suspension. Date: August 1, 2019 Stephen L. D’Angelo and D’Angelo Law Group, LLC By their attorneys, (na. 62 Cc! WK Thomas C. LaPorte (BBO #634194) Kenneth A. Cossingham (BBO # 100970) Cossingham Law Office, P.C. 30 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 404 North Andover, MA 01845 (978) 685-5686 tlaporte@cossinghamlaw.com kcossingham@cossinghamlaw.coms Lead BI dh 6