Preview
—
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
Civil Action No. 1677-CV-01419 A
SABA HASHEM, individually, and as a
Member of, and derivatively on behalf of,
D’ ANGELO and HASHEM, LLC.
Plaintiff
Vv.
STEPHEN L. D‘'ANGELO, D’ANGELO
LAW GROUP, LLC, and D’ANGELO
AND HASHEM, LLC.
Defendants
JENNIFER CARRION
Intervenor
wwe eS SS SD DS
Joint Pre-Trial Memorandum
1. Agreed Upon Facts
On January 12, 2000, Saba Hashem and Stephen D’Angelo, then both licensed at-
torneys in good standing with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, formed D’ Angelo
& Hashem LLC (“D & H LLC”), They never executed an operating agreement for D &
HLLC. Each was a member entitled to a 50% share of its profits and losses.
Prior to Mr. Hashem’s suspension, for nearly sixteen years they together managed D
& HLLC. The practice of D & H LLC consisted almost exclusively of representing in-
jured parties in civil actions against third parties causing those injuries and in matters
before the Industrial Accident Board. Jennifer Carrion was an employee of D & H LLC.
Page 1 of 35Jennifer Carrion has Judgment and Execution against D&H LLC and Hashem since May
2012.
On November 5, 2015, Attorney D’Angelo formed D’Angelo Law Group LLC
(‘D’Angelo LLC”), his wholly owned limited liability company. On December 27, 2015
Mr. Hashem’s license to practice law was temporarily suspended. On April 8, 2020, this
Court entered judgment in favor of Jennifer Carrion against D’ Angelo, LLC under suc-
cessor liability. Ms. Carrion has received no compensation from D’ Angelo LLC.
2. Plaintiff's Expected Evidence
On January 12, 2000, Saba Hashem and Stephen D’Angelo formed D’Angelo &
Hashem LLC (“D & H LLC”). They never executed an operating agreement for D & H
LLC. Each was a member entitled to a 50% share of its profits and losses. For nearly
next sixteen years they together managed D & H LLC. The practice of D & H LLC con-
sisted almost exclusively of representing injured parties in civil actions against third
parties causing those injuries and in matters before the Industrial Accident Board. By
November 5, 2015, when Mr. D'Angelo formed D'Angelo Law Group LLC (“D'Angelo
LLC”), his wholly owned limited liability company, it was apparent to both Mr. Hashem
and Mr. D’Angelo that Mr. Hashem’s license to practice law would be temporarily sus-
pended. Beginning on November 6, 2015 and continuing thereafter, clients terminated
their contracts with D & H LLC and entered into agreements with D’Angelo LLC to be
Page 2 of 35represented in the same matters. On December 29, 2015, Mr. Hashem’s license to prac-
tice law was temporarily suspended.
At that time D’Angelo LLC was formed D & H LLC was actively representing
over 125 plaintiffs in pending personal injury and workers compensation actions. D &
H LLC had worked on the majority of these cases for years, and many were ready for
trial or settlement. All of the personal injury matters that resulted in fees to D’Angelo
LLC were subject to contingent fee agreements between D & H LLC and the client
where the fees were based on a contingency (securing a monetary recovery for the
client) and ranged between one third and forty percent of the gross amount recovered.
All of the C. 152 matters that resulted in fees to D’Angelo LLC were subject to fee agree-
ments between D & H LLC and the client where the fees were based on a contingency
(securing a monetary recovery for the client) and ranged between 15%-20%.
By December 29, 2015 when Mr. Hashem was temporarily suspended from the
practice of law, representation of virtually all 125 clients had been transferred to D’An-
gelo LLC. D & H LLC and Mr. Hashem had worked on the many of these cases for
years, and many were ready for trial or settlement. In most, if not all cases, D & H LLC
had advanced funds to third parties as part of its customary actions representing par-
ties. Such payments included, but were not limited to, filing fees, service fees, costs of
depositions and expert witness fees.
Page 3 of 35The switch was very profitable for Mr. D’Angelo. In the next twelve months
D’Angelo LLC, operating out of the same offices, staffed by the same employees using
the same furniture and equipment of D & H LLC, collected over $600,000 in fees and ex-
penses from matters in which D & H LLC had represented clients, without taking a single
case to trial. Since November 5, 2015, D’Angelo LLC has collected approximately
$1,200,000 in legal fees representing former D & H LLC clients - again without once tak-
ing a case to trial - and has paid nothing to either D & H LLC or Mr. Hashem in connec-
tion with any of the 125 cases transferred from D & H LLC in which it earned fees. A
list of those cases, with the amount and date D’Angelo LLC collected fees, is attached as
Exhibit A.
Throughout the period that D’Angelo LLC collected such fees it was the practice
and custom in the Massachusetts legal community for referral fees of one third of the
ultimate legal fee recovered to be paid to the attorney or law firm that provided or re-
ferred the client to the attorney performing the legal work that ultimately results in a re-
covery for the client and a fee for the attorney performing the work.
Mr. Hashem requested an accounting from Mr. D’Angelo of the financial activity
and condition of D & H LLG, and of what assets of D & H LLC he has caused to be
. transferred to D’Angelo LLC, but until producing documents as part of discovery in
this lawsuit, Mr. D’Angelo refused to provide such an accounting. Mr. Hashem ceased
to engage in any management activities of D & H LLC well before his December 29,
Page 4 of 352015 temporary suspension. On December 26, 2016 he resigned as manager of D & H
LLC. At no time prior to November 6, 2015 did Mr. D’Angelo claim to Mr. Hashem that
he was required by law to form a new limited liability company of which he would be
sole member and to cause to be transferred to such an entity the over one hundred
twenty five (125) active client matters then being handled by D & H LLC.
Mr. D'Angelo never notified Mr. Hashem that D’Angelo LLC alone would re-
ceive fees generated by these clients and their cases.
On February 6, 2016, Mr. D’Angelo signed and filed a purported 2015 annual report of
D & HLLC in which he reported that Mr. Hashem and he were “managing directors”
and officers of D & HLLC. In this action Mr. Hashem seeks an order the D’ Angelo De-
fendants' pay D & H LLC and him the fair and reasonable charge for their efforts a) se-
curing the 125 clients, b) performing work on and c) advancing expenses in connection with
those cases before Mr. Hashem’s suspension. This action for an accounting, quantum
meruit and breach of fiduciary duty, among others, seeks to prevent Mr. D'Angelo and
his limited liability company from unfairly profiting from D & H LLC’s and Mr.
Hashem'’s efforts, efforts that paved the way for the D’ Angelo defendants to collect very
substantial fees. Far from the victim of Mr. Hashem’s unfortunate transgression, as he
seeks to portray himself, the record shows Mr. D’Angelo saw opportunity in Mr.
1, “D'Angelo defendants” refers to Mr. D’Angelo and his wholly owned D’Angelo LLC.
Page 5 of 35Hashem’s suspension and pounced. What he had previously shared equally with Mr.
Hashem, for which they had together worked, would now be his alone.
Such actions are particularly reprehensible since Mr. D'Angelo owed both D & H
LLC and Mr. Hashem a duty of the utmost good faith and loyalty. He violated that
duty, and made a transparent grab for himself of all the benefits of the years of D & H
LLC’s time, efforts and expenses, leaving his former partner, Mr. Hashem, with noth-
ing?
Defendants’ Brief Statement as to what Evidence will show
To the extent claims have not been resolved by way of the Motions for Summary
Judgment currently under advisement, D'Angelo expects that the evidence will
show the following:
1. Former attorney Hashem’s inexcusable disregard of a pregnant womans (the
Intervenor) rights to be free from discrimination and illegal termination of her at her
workplace because she was a pregnant woman led to a civil judgment, solely against
him individually, as well as against his 2-member firm. The evidence will further show
that this episode of Mr. Hashem’'s conduct was a breach of his duty of care to his fellow
member and to the firm, to protect the interests of the firm, and the interests of Mr.
D’Angelo’s interest in the firm, as his conduct exposed the firm, vicariously, to a legal
2. As further evidence of their bad faith, despite collecting from various settlements
tens of thousands of dollars in expenses advanced by D & H LLC in preparing cases pri-
or to Mr. Hashem’'s suspension, the D’Angelo defendants have made no effort or offer to
reimburse D & H LLC for those expenditures.
Page 6 of 35liability.
2. The evidence will also show that the violent nature of his subsequent criminal
actions, against another woman on October 8, 2015, for which he was soon thereafter
convicted and physically separated from his 2-member law firm, in jail. These illegal
activities resulted in his services being made unavailable to the firm. Further, the
evidence will show that Mr. Hashem’s undisputed violent and felonious physical
against this second woman was found to be sufficient evidence that Mr. Hashem was
devoid of the character and fitness required of lawyers to practice law. More
specifically, the evidence will show that his violently aggressive and terrifying conduct
against a woman was the cause of his being suspended from practicing law after
recommendation by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, by the Supreme Judicial
Court for violation of Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(h) [for
his committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,
trustworthiness or fimess as a lawyer in other respects, and his engagement in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.], thereby publicly and adversely
harming the reputation of the firm, and of Mr. D’Angelo, as well as causing the
cessation and demise of the firm as it had been organized and cultivated for 16 years,
" including by Attorney D’Angelo, since Mr. Hashem’s suspension then made him also
legally unavailable to practice law, legally depriving the firm of his services for the
foreseeable future, as he was unable to petition for reinstatement for a period of 2 years
Page 7 of 35after the completion of his 2 4 (partially suspended) sentence.
1. The evidence will show that this further conduct of Mr. Hashem constituted a
breach of his fiduciary duties owed to D’Angelo and D&H when he, by his acts, put his
own personal interests in using his power, including physical power, his power as an
attorney over a former client, and his power as a superior and employer, to violate the
human and legal rights of women, to satisfy his personal interests arising out of lust or
his disrespectful tendencies against woman, and/or to assuage his personal anger. The
evidence will specifically show that Mr. Hashem disregarded this female victims’ rights
to her personal safety, to her security behind the locked door of her apartment, and,
certainly, her right to be free from physical attack and infliction of physical and
psychological injury upon her person. Further, the evidence will show that Mr.
Hashem’s intentional or reckless violent criminal acts constituted a breach of care to
protect the firm’s interest as an ongoing concern of good repute and to Mr. D’Angelo’s
rights in the firm as an ongoing concern of good repute. Moreover, Mr. Hashem’s acts
demonstrated a breach of his duty of loyalty to the firm, and Mr. D’Angelo insofar as
when Mr. Hashem engaged in this violence he elevated his personal interests, as
discussed above, and disregarded the interests of his firm and of Attorney D’Angelo.
3. The evidence will show that Mr. Hashem’s breaches of fiduciary duties were the
actual and legal cause of D&H’s cessation of business, and its later demise, damaging
the financial wherewithal of the firm, and causing financial damages to Attorney
Page 8 of 35D’‘Angelo, who was forced to use personal funds to pay off firm obligations, some of
which he had personally guaranteed based on his reasonable expectation that then
Attorney Hashem would never engage in the type of harmful breaches of fiduciary
duties of care and of loyalty, discussed above. The evidence will show that Mr.
Hashem’s actions caused the loss of some clients, further resulting in the loss of any fees
that may have been derived from those clients’ cases. The evidence will show that Mr,
Hashem’s breaches of his fiduciary duties continue to cause Attorney D’Angelo
damages.
4. The evidence will also show that Mr. Hashem’s violent and criminal disregard of
the law and to the rights to women by his own actions were the cause of his alleged
damages since his choosing to or otherwise engage in this behavior was inevitably
criminally punishable as well as of the type that would likely imperil, and did imperil,
his ability to remain a lawyer. Indeed, once suspended, the contingency contracts with
the firm became voided, prohibited him any right to share in legal fees, and rendered
Mr. Hashem’s rights to compensation to the reasonable value of his services on a
quantum meruit basis on a case by case basis, the burden to prove which is his.
5. The evidence will show that an accounting has been provided, after attempting
to assert privileges based on the privacy of clients’ identities, during the course of
discovery in this case.
6. The evidence will also show that prior to preparing and providing a notification
Page 9 of 35to clients who had contracted with D & H, LLC, that D & H, LLC could no longer
represent them, their rights to their files, and regarding their rights to choose alternate
counsel, Attorney D’Angelo obtained and followed the advice and guidance, including
in the form of a 7-page task list, from Attorney James Bolan.
7. The evidence will show that Attorney Bolan has extensive experience and many
years in the practice of legal ethics in Massachusetts, that Attorney D’Angelo’s seeking
of guidance from an attomey, James Bolan, was reasonable under the circumstances he
was faced with arising out of Mr. Hashem’s conduct, and that the list’ of action items
Attorney Bolan provided to Attorney D’Angelo was legally and ethically correct, and
that Attorney D'Angelo understood from Attorney Bolan that the notifications, the
removal of Mr. Hashem’s name from bank accounts, as well as confirmation that Mr.
Hashem had filed notice of withdrawals in pending cases, amongst other tasks, had to
be carried out right away.
8. The evidence will further show that Attorney D’Angelo has never had a
jadgment against him arising out of her Complaint regarding pregnancy discrimination
and not liable as a partner for Mr. Hashem's debt: rather he was, and is a member of a
Massachusetts Limited Liability Company at all times relevant to this case, and
therefore is not personally liable merely because of his status a manager and/or member
of either D & H, LLC or D‘Angelo Law Group, LLC under the Massachusetts Limited
Liability Act, contrary to the assertions of the Intervenor-Plaintiff.
Page 10 of 359. The evidence will further show that upon his suspension, Mr. Hashem was then
legally and ethically prohibited from owning an interest in a law firm, including an
ownership interest as a member of D’ Angelo & Hashem, LLC), and was required to sell
or otherwise legally tender his ownership interest in D & H, LLC, LLC, so that he no
longer owned that interest, but he did not, and that Attorney D'Angelo was not legally
obligated or bound by any ethical rule to buy Mr. Hashem’s interest, and further that
Attorney D’Angelo was prohibited from sharing any collected legal fees with Mr.
Hashem, as well as the fact that Mr. Hashem’s refused or failed to so tender his said
interest in contravention of a legally binding ethical obligation of him to do so.
10. The evidence will further show that Mr. Hashem is not entitled to a division of a
fee, including a referral fee, of any percentage, from a different law firm, including
D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, because no client consented to same in writing as well as
that Attorney D’Angelo was ethically prohibited from trying to continue to operate D é&
H, LLC, LLC, so long as Mr. Hashem, as a non-lawyer, continued to retain his
ownership interest in D & H, LLC, and that as a consequence it was impossible for
Attorney D'Angelo, as owner of only one-half (50%) of the membership interest of D &
H, LLC, to voluntarily dissolve the LLC.
11. The evidence will further show that neither Attorney D’Angelo nor D'Angelo
Law Group, LLC transferred any assets when former clients of D & H, LLC signed
contingency contracts with D’Angelo Law Group, LLC subsequent to the criminal
Page 11 of 35events involving Mr. Hashem and his incarceration, since clients are not assets and
lawyers do not own clients, and that Attorney D’Angelo’s provision of a choice of new
counsel, including possibly D'Angelo Law Group, LLC, by letter to the clients of D & H,
LLC was ethically required of him, and that he had no other choice.
12. The evidence will show that neither Attorney D’Angelo nor D'Angelo Law
Group, LLC attempted to avoid a debt or harbored any fraudulent intent.
13. The evidence will further show that Attorney D’Angelo’s formation of D’ Angelo
Law Group, LLC was not a breach of any governing rule of ethics, and that he no longer
desired to have his last name associated with Mr. Hashem’s, for any personal or
business purpose for instance, “D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC”, also was not unethical:
14. The evidence will also show that D’Angelo Law Group, LLC never assumed any
liability of D & H, LLC, and that the phone number and url used by D & H, LLC was
owned personally by Attorney D’Angelo and that D’Angelo Law Group, LLC installed
new software and computers, and executed a separate lease.
2. The evidence will further show that there was no purchase transaction between
D & H, LLC, and no use of any membership interest of D'Angelo Law Group, LLC to
acquire any interest in D & H, LLC.
Page 12 of 35Intervenor’s Expected Evidence
Intervenor Plaintiff Jennifer M. Carrion (“Carrion”) intervenes in this action as a
judgment creditor of Defendants, D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC (“D&H”) and Saba
Hashem (“Hashem”). She was an employee of D&H. As of end of 2018, D&H owed
nearly $600,000 in Executions to Carrion, with statutory interest that continues to
accrue, arising from a 2011 jury verdict that found D&H and Hashem liable to Carrion
for pregnancy discrimination. Plaintiff Hashem individually tenders partial payment.
D&H & D’Angelo LLC, who are officers of the Court, have not paid Carrion one cent on
her civil rights executions.
Suffolk Superior Court entered Judgment in favor of Jennifer Carrion by Jury Ver-
dict & attorney's fees against D&H LLC on May 29 2012, for which final Executions is-
sued on her favor on June 23, 2015 after finalization of all appeals in the amount of $
307,531.18, which consist of $100,000.00 in total discrimination damages, Trial Court At-
torney’s Fees $143,374.54, Appeals Court Attorney’s Fees/Costs $ 61,075.11 and $3,081.53
in Supreme Judicial Court Attorney's Fees/Costs.
At start of appeals, Suffolk Superior Court entered on July 17, 2012 a Preliminary
Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff Jennifer Carrion against D&H LLC, ordering that
“the Defendants, and their Associates, partners, members, employees, and agents
are prohibited from: 1. Taking any unlawful action to hinder or delay, or defraud the
Plaintiff from collecting the Plaintiff’s judgment in this action. 2. Transferring, alien-
ating, or encumbering any assets of the Defendants other than in the course of busi-
ness,”
Page 13 of 35The Evidence will show that at least in 2014 & 2015 and at more times, D&H, its
members, its partners, when in business, had an ability to pay Ms. Carrion’s Judgment
and Executions. Rather, D&H, its members, its partners, refused to pay a known
liability, Ms. Carrion’s Judgment. Since November 29, 2011, D&H, its members, its
partners, alienated and dissipated monies, assets, funds able to satisfy or partially
satisfy Intervenor’s Judgment. That has caused Intervenor’s Execution amounts to
double in the amount with interest, in addition to attorney's fees, costs of collection by
present and predecessor counsels.
. The evidence will further show that Hashem’s law partner, Stephen D’ Angelo
(“D'Angelo”), failed to dissolve D&H per M.G.L. and received six figure compensation
from cases originating from D&H from 2016 to present, along with its to his new or
successor law firm, Defendant D'Angelo Law Group, LLC (“DLG”), of which he is the
sole Manager. Within one year of Hashem’s suspension, Mr. D’Angelo paid himself
personally in excess of $300,000.00 in 2016 & 2017 and DLG received in excess of a
million dollars of attorney’s fees from cases originating from Dé&H in 2016, 2017, 2018.
This has resulted in this litigation by Hashem, Individually and as Manager to D&H.
Therefore, Ms. Carrion has intervened as of right to accomplish remedy and justice, to
prevent further alienation of assets, and to receive over half a million dollars in
judgments owed to her.
Evidence will show that Mr. D'Angelo, as Manager of D&H, & D’Angelo LLC,
Page 14 of 35has at all times refused to pay the Intervenor and thatMr. D’Angelo’s willful disregard
of a known liability, specifically, Ms. Carrion’s Executions, has created upon him
personal liability, since July 12, 2012. Most egregiously, the Defendants, Stephen
D’Angelo and the D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, refuse to follow Federal Court
preliminary injunction :
1, Promptly provide Intervention Plaintiff with an accounting relating to the
settlement in Lopez-Maldonando et al. v. Toll Brothers Inc, Suffolk Superior
Court Case No. 1484-CV-01440-G (...)
2. Hold the balance of attorney’s fees and costs in Lopez-Maldonando et al. v.
Toll Brothers Inc, Suffolk Superior Court Case No. 1484-CV-01440-G in an escrow
account;
3. Hold the balance and attorneys’ fees and costs from all other cases that
originated with D’Angelo & Hashem LLC, still held by or received by D’ Angelo
Law Group LLC, or Stephen D'Angelo, while this Injunction remains in effect, in
a escrow account
4. Defendants, Stephen D’Angelo and D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, are en-
joined, directly, or indirectly, alone or in concert with others, effective immediate-
ly, from making any distributions of amounts from such escrow accounts or ob-
tained from any cases originating from D’ Angelo & Hashem LLC, except that
D'Angelo Law Group LLC maintains the right to pay normal and customary ex-
penses occurred in the normal course of business. Such expenses may not in-
clude distributions to Stephen D’ Angelo, payments toward credit card balances,
or for car leases.
1. By Judgment dated April 8, 2020, Essex Superior Court entered Judgment in
favor of Ms. Carrion against D’Angelo LLC in the amount of $672,995.92 under theory
of successor liability under Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56. Mr.
D'Angelo, as managing member of D&H and D’Angelo LLC, still refuses to pay Ms.
Carrion’s Executions.
2. Ms. Carrion submitted a M.G.L. Chapter 93 A Section 9 Demand Letter to Mr.
Page 15 of 35D’Angelo on or before April 17, 2020 by certified & first-class mail. This formal
correspondence was sent before knowing that Judgment had issued in Ms. Carrion’s
favor.
3. Intervenor as Judgment Creditor to D&H and Hashem seeks satisfaction
and remedy to her civil rights Executions, Carrion proves to this jury and Tribunal that
the DLG is a successor by merger to D&H, and therefore liable to Carrion. Without
limitation, attorney's fees due to D&H and Hashem originating from D&H cases must
be reached and applied to satisfy Ms. Carrion’s execution under theory of successor’s
liability. Further Ms. Carrion will show that D&H and D’Angelo as Member & partner
of D& H did have ability to pay Ms. Carrion before Hashem’s suspension.
Notwithstanding said ability, injunctions and Executions; D'Angelo and D&H
dissipated and alienated funds away from paying Mr. Carrion under fraudulent
conveyance theory, and Reach & Apply. Before D&H, Mr. D’Angelo, Mr. Hashem were
able to receive six figure salaries, Ms. Carrion’s executions should have been paid first
like all other D&H LLC liabilities. Defendants deny the same despite being attorneys at
law.
4. Agreed Suggested Description of the Case to be Read to Jury/Empanelment
In this action Saba Hashem has sued his former partner, Stephen D’ Angelo and
his wholly owned limited liability company, D'Angelo Law Group LLC. Mr. Hashem
seeks on his own behalf and on behalf of D & H LLC that was owned by Mr. D’Angelo
Page 16 of 35and Mr. Hashem equally, for fees and expenses owed them. Mr. D'Angelo and
D’Angelo LLC deny they owe any money to Mr. Hashem or D & H LLC and that Mr.
Hashem has caused his own damages that he has alleged, and is not entitled to his
claimed damages. Attorney D’Angelo and D'Angelo Law Group, LLC have counter
sued Mr, Hashem for Breach of his fiduciary duties of loyalty and care, and for
damages. Mr. Hashem denies he breached any fiduciary duty and denies he caused the
D'Angelo Defendants any damages.
Intervenor Plaintiff, Carrion, intervenes as Judgment Creditor to D&H, its
members, partners, and Hashem to obtain remedy and compensation to her
outstanding Executions against D&H. Intervenor seeks to collect her Executions against
the Successor law firm D’Angelo LLC under successor liability, and Mr. D’Angelo d as
recipient of six figures of counsel fees from cases originating from D&H. Mr. Hashem
individually has tendered payment to Intervenor.
1. Significant Legal Issues
A. Plaintiff's Significant Legal Issues
Until supplying their portion of this Pre-Trial Memorandum on March 16, 2020
the D’Angelo Defendants had not listed, and still have not properly designated, any
expert witness. Plaintiff will move in limine to exchide or limit the testimony by Erin
Higgins as described below. Any other significant legal issues concerning the D’ Angelo
Page 17 of 35Defendants’ liability have already been briefed by plaintiff in his memorandum in
opposition to summary judgment, the contents of which are incorporated by reference
herein.
B. Defendants’ Significant Legal Issues
1, Discovery has not been closed in this case, and is actually still ongoing. Plaintiffs
made certain in Open Court that Expert Discovery was not cut off, which was
confirmed by Justice Feeley in June 2019. More than 5 months later, and 2 ¥ years after
they filed their Complaint, Plaintiffs disclosed their expert. Traditionally, Defendants
disclosure and discovery of experts occurs after Plaintiffs’, and Defendants have
adequately disclosed their expert herein less than 3 months later. Neither Plaintiffs nor
Intervenor-Plaintiff is prejudiced, while Defendants would be materially prejudiced in
their ability to present their defenses to Plaintiff's claims, and their Counterclaim
against same.
2. To the extent claims have not been resolved by way of the Motions for Summary
Judgment currently under advisement Defendants intend to rely upon the attached
First Circuit cases regarding the issue of Imposition of Successor Liability; and, Intend
to intend introduce evidence of the nature of Plaintiff’s convictions and prior bad acts
for the purpose(s) of explaining to the trier of fact Attorney D’Angelo’s State of Mind,
specifically business concerns about continuing to be associated with Plaintiff’s name,
and legal concerns about potential further legal exposure of the firm. The same are
Page 18 of 35probative of the rationale and reasons why Attorney D’Angelo did not attempt to
continue D & H, LLC after those incidents. The same is relevant to Attorney D’Angelo’s
defense to claim(s) and/or inferences the trier of fact could in fact make that Attorney
D’‘Angelo’s failure to include D & H, LLC as an option on the notifications to clients of
their rights to choose alternate counsel constituted a breach or evidence of a breach of
fiduciary duty against Plaintiffs, who have alleged same individually and derivatively.
The same is also relevant to rebut the claim(s) and/or inferences the trier of fact could in
fact make that the cessation of operations of D & H, LLC and Attorney D’Angelo’s
formation of D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC, an option provided to said clients, was a result
of any attempt to avoid a debt of Intervenor or to defraud Intervenor which will likely
be argued or inferred by Intervenor for the purpose of imposing Reach and Apply and
Successor Liability, which she has claimed. Defendants strongly contend the exclusion
of said evidence for the above-stated purposes would be unduly prejudicial to
Defendants in their defenses, and would not unfairly prejudice either Plaintiff or
Intervenor in arguing their claims, or otherwise. Mass Guide to Evidence R. 608(b) and
609; Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 867, 868 (1978); Commonwealth v.
Hamilton , 459 Mass. 422, 439 (2011).
3. Regarding all of the legal issues addressed in Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Adjudication (except for Conversion, which has been withdrawn), and Motion for
Summary Judgment, and Intervenor’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, regarding
Page 19 of 35applicable ethical rules to Plaintiffs conduct and rights, as well as Defendants’
prohibitions and requirements, Defendants refer to the legal authorities set forth in their
Memoranda of Law, Opposition to Cross-Motion of Intervenor, and Reply to
Opposition of Plaintiff to Defendants Motion for Summary Adjudication, filed with this
Court. Defendants will provide a Statement of Authorities to the extent the Summary
Judgment Motion do not extinguish legal issues and if the Court so require those
authorities to be listed. See also Malonis v. Harrington, 442 Mass. 692, 696-697 (2004),
Liss v. Studeny, 450 Mass. 473, 478-482 (2008) [regarding compensation owed under
quantum meruit theory owed to discharged lawyer when contingency occurs]; Mass R.
Prof. C. 1.05(e) [regarding fee splitting]; and Meehan v. Shaughnessy, 404 Mass. 419, 535
N.E.2d 1255 (1989) [regarding non-ownership of clients, clients are not assets.] Mass R.
Prof. C. 8.4(b) & (h) [regarding Mr. Hashem’s character, and fitness to continue being a
Massachusetts lawyer]. See also the Massachusetts statutes identified in Defendants’
Expert Disclosure herein [regarding nature of crimes of Mr. Hashem}4. Defendants
submit and intend to challenge the admissibility of proposed evidence of certain
revenue figures of D & H, LLC and D’Angelo Law Group, LLC based on their relevance
and pursuant to Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, Rule 403, as well as the introduction
of Attorney D’Angelo’s tax returns, including Schedule K-1s, as misleading and
confusing, irrelevant, violative of privacy rights, privileged under State and Federal
Law, and based on Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, Rule 403.
Page 20 of 355. Defendants submit and intend to challenge the relevance and admissibility of Judge
Conolly’s 2012 Order, and any references to same.
6. Defendants submit and intend to challenge the relevance and admissibility any
Order from the District Court of Massachusetts (Federal) Court, which lacked subject
matter jurisdiction and its Orders null and void.
7, Defendants submit and intend to challenge the relevance and admissibility of any
argument or statements relating to either Defendants’ ability to pay or similar thereto,
as well as based on its confusion and the misleading of the jury admission would create,
prejudicing Defendants.
8. Defendants submit and state that there is no personal liability of a manager or
member of an LLC, because of their status as a manager or member of any such LLC, as
a matter of Massachusetts law. Based upon that statement of law, and because personal
liability of Mr. D’Angelo because of his status as a member or manager is not alleged in
Count III of Intervenor’s Complaint, nor was that personal liability arising out of
member or manager status part of the Court's summary judgment on that Count II,
where the Court declared that D’Angelo Law Group, LLC was the successor in interest
to D & H, LLC, only. Defendants intend to challenge, by motion in limine, and
otherwise if necessary, any assertion to the jury to the contrary as any such argument or
assertion is not an accurate statement under the law, not alleged in Count II, nor part of
the Court's grant of Summary Judgment on Count IIL, and because allowance of same
Page 21 of 35would mislead and confuse the jury, as well prejudice Defendant D’ Angelo.
9. Defendants reiterate its position in Paragraph 8, immediately above, and further
submit that they will likewise challenge that the declaration of successor liability of
D’Angelo Law Group, LLC in and of itself, strengthens or tends to prove any personal
liability of Mr. D'Angelo under Chapter 93A, as alleged in Intervenor-Plaintiff’s 93A
Demand recently served, or otherwise, insofar as the Court's allowance of Summary
Judgment on Count II declaring D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC to be a successor in interest,
does not equate to a finding of any personal liability of Mr. D’Angelo, and because
allowance of same would mislead and confuse the jury, as well prejudice Defendant
D‘Angelo.
Cc. Intervenor’s Significant Legal Issues
Intervenor is concerned that Defendants D’Angelo and DLG are not escrowing
funds received by them from cases originating from D&H cases, despite Federal Court
Injunction. Further Pre-Judgment Security is now sought again from state court to
collect her Executions, in light of her high likelihood to prevail on the merits. Smith v.
Kelley, SJC 12759 (annexed). Defendants D’Angelo and DLG through their
maifeasances have prevented Ms. Carrion’s collection of her Executions. Mr. D'Angelo,
as member/partner of D&H, willfully disregarded a known liability, which is unfair and
deceptive especially when having the ability to pay. _Intervenor refers to her allowed
Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Summary Judgment Cross Motions in regards to
Page 22 of 35successor liability, breach of Chapter 156 C in not dissolving D&H, fraudulent
conveyance under Chapter 109A. Intervenor Plaintiff has Judgment against D’Angelo
LLC under successor liability in the amount of $672,995.92 in this action. Intervenor
Plaintiff will serve motion or action to secure Judgment. Intervenor Plaintiff has
commenced claims under MGL Ch. 93A Section 9 against Mr. D'Angelo & D’Angelo
LLC by Demand Letter dated April 17, 2020. Intervenor reserves the tight to
supplement this Memorandum.
1, Plaintiff's Expected Witness
A. Saba Hashem
B. , Steven D’Angelo
c. Matthew Andrade
Dz Dana McCoy
E. Any former client of D & H LLC who became a client of D’Angelo LLC.
A. Keeper of Records Saba Coleman Hunt, LLC
A. Matt Sussman
A. Any witness designated by the intervenor or the defendants.
Defendants’ Expected Witnesses
A. James Bolan, Esq.
B. Matthew Andrade, Esq.
GQ Matthew Sussman, Esq.
Page 23 of 35A.
B.
D. Richard Mestone, Esq.
E. Saba Hashem
F. Steven D'Angelo, Esq.
G. — Jennifer Carrion
H. — Any woman referenced in Defendant's Answers to Interrogatories
L Any former client of D & H LLC who became a client of D’Angelo LLC.
Any witness designated by the intervenor or the plaintiff.
Defendants reserve the right to supplement this list.
Intervenor’s Expected Witnesses
A.
B.
Saba Hashem
Steven D’Angelo
Matthew Andrade
Dana McCoy
Keeper of Records Saba Coleman Hunt, LLC
Matt Sussman.
Any former client of D & H LLC who became a client of D’ Angelo LLC.
Any former or present employee of D&H LLC,
Any former or present employee of D'Angelo LLC
Any witness designated by the plaintiff or the defendants.
Keeper of Records — Enterprise Bank
Page 24 of 35L. Keeper of Records — TD Bank
M. Keeper of Records — Santander Bank NA
N. Keeper of Records- Bank of America NA
oO. Keeper of Records Saba Coleman Hunt PC
P, Ashley Hashem
Q. Hiam Hashem
R. Intervenor reserves the rights to supplement this list
1. Plaintiff's Expert Witness
Plaintiff intends to call Saba Hashem as an expert witness. From his admission
to the Massachusetts Bar on June 14, 1999 until his temporary suspension on December
29, 2015, Saba Hashem’s practice consisted almost exclusively of representing injured
parties in civil actions against third parties causing those injuries and in matters before
the Industrial Accident Board. During the over fifteen years he was in active practice he
was a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA), Massachusetts Academy of
Trial Attorneys (MATA), American Association For Justice (AAJ) and. the American Bar
Association (ABA). At MATA, an organization of plaintiffs’ trial attorneys, Mr. Hashem
held the following leadership positions, among others. He was a member of the Board
of Governors, Secretary of MATA and a member of the MATA Mentor program, mentor-
ing young lawyers. At the ABA he was very involved in the Tort Insurance Practice Sec-
tion (TIPS) that examined issues relating to personal injury and workers compensation
Page 25 of 35litigation, a member of its Workers Compensation Committee and member and past
Chairman of its Auto Committee.
Mr. Hashem attended numerous seminars concerning the practice of law, with an
emphasis on plaintiffs personal injury matters and had many hundreds, if not thou-
sands of conversations with other attorneys, including MATA and MBA members,
about. plaintiffs’ personal injury practice. He knows from those experiences and his
over fifteen years of active practice, and will testify that it was, and remains, the practice
and custom in the Massachusetts legal community for referral fees of one third of the
ultimate legal fee recovered to be paid to the attorney or law firm that provided or re-
ferred the client to the attorney performing the legal work that ultimately results in a re-
covery for the client and a fee for the attorney performing the work. He, and firms with
which he was associated, including D & H LLC, paid and received 1/3 referral fees on at
least twenty five occasions.
He will testify, based on his review of the records, that since November 6, 2015,
Mr. D’Angelo has caused D’Angelo LLC to collect fees and expenses advanced (includ-
ing by D & H LLC) on cases where D & H LLC represented clients, and has made no
payments to D & H LLC in connection with any such funds received, and that from De-
cember 16, 2015 through December 29, 2016 D’Angelo LLC collected over $600,000 in
fees and expenses in matters in which D & H LLC had formerly represented clients,
without taking a single case to trial, since December 16, 2015, D’ Angelo LLC has collected
_ well over $1,000,000 in legal fees representing former D & H LLC clients — again with-
out taking a case to trial - and has paid nothing to either D & H LLC or Mr. Hashem,
and since then, D’Angelo Law LLC has collected at least $190,000 in fees on matters
where D & H LLC initially represented the client, including the Lopez-Maldonado mat-
ter, in which D'Angelo LLC received a fee of $190,000 in October 2018.
Defendants’ Expert Witness
Page 26 of 35Defendants expect to call Erin K. Higgins, Esq., Partner of Conn Kavanaugh
Rosenthal Peisch & Ford, LLP, 1 Federal St #15th, Boston, MA 02110, (717) 348-8223, At
torney Higgins graduated from Georgetown University, cum laude, with a Bachelors of
Arts Degree in 1987 as well as Boston College Law School, cum laude, with her Juris
Doctorate degree in 1991.
Attorney Higgins is a civil trial lawyer. During her 27 years of practice, she has
focused on representing lawyers, insurance agents and brokers, and other types of pro-
fessionals in defending against errors and omissions claims. She also represents lawyers
in disciplinary matters, having recently completed a four-year term on the Massachu-
setts Board of Bar Overseers, and advises lawyers on ethics issues. Attorney Higgins
speaks regularly on professional liability and ethics topics, and writes a regular column
on ethics for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. She also advises lawyers and law firms on
their fiduciary and ethical obligations as partners or members of law firms, and how
those obligations are impacted by a lawyer’s departure from a firm.
Attorney Higgins co-chairs her firm's Professional Liability group, and also
serves as the firm's Risk Management Partner. She also co-chairs the firm's Pro Bono
Committee. In that role, she connects the firm's lawyers with various opportunities to
provide free legal services to low-income clients, including those referred by the
Women’s Bar Foundation, Veterans Legal Services, the Victim Rights Law Center, Mass-
Page 27 of 35achusetts Advocates for Children, the New England Food Hub, and the Lawyers’ Clear-
inghouse.
Attorney Higgins’ practice areas include professional liability, product liability,
business litigation, complex tort defense, and insurance coverage litigation. A complete
copy of her biography is attached at Tab A.
Based upon her knowledge and experience, and her review of the pleadings, dis-
covery, and other materials provided to her by counsel, Attorney Higgins will offer ex-
pert opinion testimony in this matter on: (1) the standard of care applicable to a lawyer
such as plaintiff Saba Hashem, after that lawyer is arrested and imprisoned for serious
criminal conduct that is certain to lead to the lawyer’s suspension from the practice of
law, or disbarment; and (2) the standard of care applicable to a lawyer such as defen-
dant Stephen D’Angelo, when that lawyer is faced with the arrest and imprisonment of
the only other member of his law firm, and the certain suspension of that other member
of the law firm from the practice of law.
In particular, Ms. Higgins will offer the following opinions, all to a reasonable
degree of professional certainty, with respect to Mr. Hashem.
. After Mr. Hashem was arrested, imprisoned, and charged with one count
of strangulation or suffocation in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 15D(b), and one count
of assault and battery on a family/household member in violation of G.L. c. 265, §
13M(a), it would have been clear to a reasonably competent lawyer that he was
Page 28 of 35certain to be suspended from the practice of law for a significant period of time,
or disbarred;
° Accordingly, after Mr. Hashem was so charged, and no later than October
14, 2015, the date on which Mr. Hashem was ordered held incarcerated, the stan-
dard of care required Mr. Hashem to notify his clients that he would no longer be
able to represent them, and to ensure that they would have adequate representa-
tion going forward;
. Moreover, after Mr. Hashem was so charged and not released from incar-
ceration, the standard of care required him to begin making arrangements to
transfer his membership interest in D’Angelo & Hashem LLC, as a reasonably
competent attorney would have known that he could no longer have a member-
ship interest in a law firm once he was suspended or disbarred;
. Mr. Hashem’s criminal conduct constituted a breach of the standard of
care, because it prevented him from providing legal services to the client who
had retained him for that purpose;
(
° Mr. Hashem’s criminal conduct constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties
to Attorney D’Angelo, because it placed the law firm in a tenuous and challeng-
ing position, and risked serious reputational harm to Attorney D’ Angelo;
Page 29 of 35. After Mr. Hashem was suspended on December 29, 2015, he was no longer
a member of the Bar and could not practice law, and he effectively became a non-
lawyer;
. After Mr. Hashem was suspended on December 29, 2015, he was legally
and ethically prohibited from owning any interest in a law firm;
. After Mr. Hashem was suspended on December 29, 2015, he was ethically
prohibited from receiving any legal fees other than fees due on a quantum
meruit basis for work he performed prior to his suspension;
. Upon Mr. Hashem’s suspension, any contingent fee agreement that a
client had signed with Mr. Hashem or with D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC became
void.
Ms. Higgins will offer the following opinions, all to a reasonable degree of pro-
fessional certainty, with respect to Attorney D’Angelo.
. After Mr. Hashem was arrested, imprisoned, and charged with’one count
of strangulation or suffocation in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 15D(b), and one count
of assault and battery on a family/household member in violation of G.L. c. 265, §
13M(a), it would have been clear to a reasonably competent lawyer that Mr.
Hashem was certain to be suspended from the practice of law for a significant
period of time, or disbarred;
Page 30 of 35. Accordingly, after Mr. Hashem was so charged, the standard of care re-
quired Attorney D’Angelo to ensure that clients of the law firm would have ade-
quate representation going forward;
. After Mr. Hashem was so charged, Attorney D’Angelo acted in accord _
with the standard of care by consulting with outside ethics counsel, Attorney
James 5 Bolan, as to the appropriate steps to be taken in light of Mr. Hashem’s ar-
rest and certain suspension or disbarment from the practice of law;
° Attorney D’Angelo acted in accord with the standard of care by following
the advice of outside ethics counsel, and taking the following actions: (1) notify-
ing the clients of the law firm that D’Angelo & Hashem LLC would not be con-
tinuing operations; (2) organizing a new law office that did not have Mr. Hashem
as a member; (3) offering the firm’s clients a choice between transferring their
cases to Mr. D’Angelo’s new law firm, D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, or to another
attorney of the client’s choice; and (4) as to those clients that chose to transfer
their cases to D'Angelo Law Group, LLC, executing new fee agreements with
those clients.
. In taking the above actions, Attorney D’Angelo also acted in accord with
the applicable ethical rules;
° In taking the above actions, Attorney D’Angelo did not breach any fidu-
ciary duties owed to Mr. Hashem, or to D'Angelo & Hashem LLC;
Page 31 0f35 |° After Mr. Hashem’s suspension, Attorney D’ Angelo acted in accord with ,
the standard of care by refusing to share legal fees received with Mr. Hashem, a
non-lawyer;
. After Mr. Hashem’s suspension, Attorney D’ Angelo acted in accord with
the applicable ethical rules by refusing to share legal fees received with Mr.
Hashem, a non-lawyer;
. After Mr. Hashem’s suspension, Attorney D’ Angelo did not breach any
fiduciary duty owed to Mr. Hashem or D’ Angelo & Hashem LLC by refusing to
share legal fees received with Mr. Hashem, a non-lawyer.
Intervenor’s Expert Witness
L. Intervenor Plaintiff intends to call as an expert witness, Matthew Fogel-
man Esquire, of Fogelman & Fogelman, LLC, Newton, MA, (617) 559-0201, mif@fogel-
manlawfirm.com. His CV is attached hereto. His expert testimony will establish that
in the period that D’Angelo LLC received attorney’s fees compensation from November
5, 2015 through the present it was or is the customary practice in the Massachusetts le-
gal community for one third 1/3 referral fees of the ultimate legal fee recovered to be
paid to the attorney or law firm that provided services or referred the client to the attor-
ney performing the legal work resulting in the client's recovery. Intervenor reserves
right to supplement this Memorandum.
1. Estimated Length of Trial
Page 32 of 35 .5 to 10 days.
1. Settlement Certification
The parties certify that they have conferred and discussed the possibility of
settlement, and the amenability of the case to mediation or other forms of alternate
dispute resolution.
Page 33 of 35Plaintiff
by his attorney
/s/Albert Farrah
Albert Farrah, Esq.
800 Boylston Street, Suite 1600
Boston, MA 02219
617-694-1549
alf@farrah-law.com
BBO No. 159340
Defendants
by their attorney
/s[Thomas C. LaPorte
Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq.
Cossingham Law Office, P.C.
30 Massachusetts Avenue, Ste 404
North Andover, MA 01845
978-685-5686
tlaporte@cossinghamlaw.com
BBO No. 634194
Intervenor
by her attorney
/s/Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa Esq.
Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa Esq.
Rivera-Bujosa Law, PC
Shipway Place, Suite C2
Charlestown, MA 02129 USA
Telephone: (617) 398-6728
mernaysa@riverabujosalaw.com
BBO No.
Page 34 of 35TABA
Page 35 of 35
Preview
— COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT Civil Action No. 1677-CV-01419 A SABA HASHEM, individually, and as a Member of, and derivatively on behalf of, D’ ANGELO and HASHEM, LLC. Plaintiff Vv. STEPHEN L. D‘'ANGELO, D’ANGELO LAW GROUP, LLC, and D’ANGELO AND HASHEM, LLC. Defendants JENNIFER CARRION Intervenor wwe eS SS SD DS Joint Pre-Trial Memorandum 1. Agreed Upon Facts On January 12, 2000, Saba Hashem and Stephen D’Angelo, then both licensed at- torneys in good standing with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, formed D’ Angelo & Hashem LLC (“D & H LLC”), They never executed an operating agreement for D & HLLC. Each was a member entitled to a 50% share of its profits and losses. Prior to Mr. Hashem’s suspension, for nearly sixteen years they together managed D & HLLC. The practice of D & H LLC consisted almost exclusively of representing in- jured parties in civil actions against third parties causing those injuries and in matters before the Industrial Accident Board. Jennifer Carrion was an employee of D & H LLC. Page 1 of 35Jennifer Carrion has Judgment and Execution against D&H LLC and Hashem since May 2012. On November 5, 2015, Attorney D’Angelo formed D’Angelo Law Group LLC (‘D’Angelo LLC”), his wholly owned limited liability company. On December 27, 2015 Mr. Hashem’s license to practice law was temporarily suspended. On April 8, 2020, this Court entered judgment in favor of Jennifer Carrion against D’ Angelo, LLC under suc- cessor liability. Ms. Carrion has received no compensation from D’ Angelo LLC. 2. Plaintiff's Expected Evidence On January 12, 2000, Saba Hashem and Stephen D’Angelo formed D’Angelo & Hashem LLC (“D & H LLC”). They never executed an operating agreement for D & H LLC. Each was a member entitled to a 50% share of its profits and losses. For nearly next sixteen years they together managed D & H LLC. The practice of D & H LLC con- sisted almost exclusively of representing injured parties in civil actions against third parties causing those injuries and in matters before the Industrial Accident Board. By November 5, 2015, when Mr. D'Angelo formed D'Angelo Law Group LLC (“D'Angelo LLC”), his wholly owned limited liability company, it was apparent to both Mr. Hashem and Mr. D’Angelo that Mr. Hashem’s license to practice law would be temporarily sus- pended. Beginning on November 6, 2015 and continuing thereafter, clients terminated their contracts with D & H LLC and entered into agreements with D’Angelo LLC to be Page 2 of 35represented in the same matters. On December 29, 2015, Mr. Hashem’s license to prac- tice law was temporarily suspended. At that time D’Angelo LLC was formed D & H LLC was actively representing over 125 plaintiffs in pending personal injury and workers compensation actions. D & H LLC had worked on the majority of these cases for years, and many were ready for trial or settlement. All of the personal injury matters that resulted in fees to D’Angelo LLC were subject to contingent fee agreements between D & H LLC and the client where the fees were based on a contingency (securing a monetary recovery for the client) and ranged between one third and forty percent of the gross amount recovered. All of the C. 152 matters that resulted in fees to D’Angelo LLC were subject to fee agree- ments between D & H LLC and the client where the fees were based on a contingency (securing a monetary recovery for the client) and ranged between 15%-20%. By December 29, 2015 when Mr. Hashem was temporarily suspended from the practice of law, representation of virtually all 125 clients had been transferred to D’An- gelo LLC. D & H LLC and Mr. Hashem had worked on the many of these cases for years, and many were ready for trial or settlement. In most, if not all cases, D & H LLC had advanced funds to third parties as part of its customary actions representing par- ties. Such payments included, but were not limited to, filing fees, service fees, costs of depositions and expert witness fees. Page 3 of 35The switch was very profitable for Mr. D’Angelo. In the next twelve months D’Angelo LLC, operating out of the same offices, staffed by the same employees using the same furniture and equipment of D & H LLC, collected over $600,000 in fees and ex- penses from matters in which D & H LLC had represented clients, without taking a single case to trial. Since November 5, 2015, D’Angelo LLC has collected approximately $1,200,000 in legal fees representing former D & H LLC clients - again without once tak- ing a case to trial - and has paid nothing to either D & H LLC or Mr. Hashem in connec- tion with any of the 125 cases transferred from D & H LLC in which it earned fees. A list of those cases, with the amount and date D’Angelo LLC collected fees, is attached as Exhibit A. Throughout the period that D’Angelo LLC collected such fees it was the practice and custom in the Massachusetts legal community for referral fees of one third of the ultimate legal fee recovered to be paid to the attorney or law firm that provided or re- ferred the client to the attorney performing the legal work that ultimately results in a re- covery for the client and a fee for the attorney performing the work. Mr. Hashem requested an accounting from Mr. D’Angelo of the financial activity and condition of D & H LLG, and of what assets of D & H LLC he has caused to be . transferred to D’Angelo LLC, but until producing documents as part of discovery in this lawsuit, Mr. D’Angelo refused to provide such an accounting. Mr. Hashem ceased to engage in any management activities of D & H LLC well before his December 29, Page 4 of 352015 temporary suspension. On December 26, 2016 he resigned as manager of D & H LLC. At no time prior to November 6, 2015 did Mr. D’Angelo claim to Mr. Hashem that he was required by law to form a new limited liability company of which he would be sole member and to cause to be transferred to such an entity the over one hundred twenty five (125) active client matters then being handled by D & H LLC. Mr. D'Angelo never notified Mr. Hashem that D’Angelo LLC alone would re- ceive fees generated by these clients and their cases. On February 6, 2016, Mr. D’Angelo signed and filed a purported 2015 annual report of D & HLLC in which he reported that Mr. Hashem and he were “managing directors” and officers of D & HLLC. In this action Mr. Hashem seeks an order the D’ Angelo De- fendants' pay D & H LLC and him the fair and reasonable charge for their efforts a) se- curing the 125 clients, b) performing work on and c) advancing expenses in connection with those cases before Mr. Hashem’s suspension. This action for an accounting, quantum meruit and breach of fiduciary duty, among others, seeks to prevent Mr. D'Angelo and his limited liability company from unfairly profiting from D & H LLC’s and Mr. Hashem'’s efforts, efforts that paved the way for the D’ Angelo defendants to collect very substantial fees. Far from the victim of Mr. Hashem’s unfortunate transgression, as he seeks to portray himself, the record shows Mr. D’Angelo saw opportunity in Mr. 1, “D'Angelo defendants” refers to Mr. D’Angelo and his wholly owned D’Angelo LLC. Page 5 of 35Hashem’s suspension and pounced. What he had previously shared equally with Mr. Hashem, for which they had together worked, would now be his alone. Such actions are particularly reprehensible since Mr. D'Angelo owed both D & H LLC and Mr. Hashem a duty of the utmost good faith and loyalty. He violated that duty, and made a transparent grab for himself of all the benefits of the years of D & H LLC’s time, efforts and expenses, leaving his former partner, Mr. Hashem, with noth- ing? Defendants’ Brief Statement as to what Evidence will show To the extent claims have not been resolved by way of the Motions for Summary Judgment currently under advisement, D'Angelo expects that the evidence will show the following: 1. Former attorney Hashem’s inexcusable disregard of a pregnant womans (the Intervenor) rights to be free from discrimination and illegal termination of her at her workplace because she was a pregnant woman led to a civil judgment, solely against him individually, as well as against his 2-member firm. The evidence will further show that this episode of Mr. Hashem’'s conduct was a breach of his duty of care to his fellow member and to the firm, to protect the interests of the firm, and the interests of Mr. D’Angelo’s interest in the firm, as his conduct exposed the firm, vicariously, to a legal 2. As further evidence of their bad faith, despite collecting from various settlements tens of thousands of dollars in expenses advanced by D & H LLC in preparing cases pri- or to Mr. Hashem’'s suspension, the D’Angelo defendants have made no effort or offer to reimburse D & H LLC for those expenditures. Page 6 of 35liability. 2. The evidence will also show that the violent nature of his subsequent criminal actions, against another woman on October 8, 2015, for which he was soon thereafter convicted and physically separated from his 2-member law firm, in jail. These illegal activities resulted in his services being made unavailable to the firm. Further, the evidence will show that Mr. Hashem’s undisputed violent and felonious physical against this second woman was found to be sufficient evidence that Mr. Hashem was devoid of the character and fitness required of lawyers to practice law. More specifically, the evidence will show that his violently aggressive and terrifying conduct against a woman was the cause of his being suspended from practicing law after recommendation by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, by the Supreme Judicial Court for violation of Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(h) [for his committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fimess as a lawyer in other respects, and his engagement in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.], thereby publicly and adversely harming the reputation of the firm, and of Mr. D’Angelo, as well as causing the cessation and demise of the firm as it had been organized and cultivated for 16 years, " including by Attorney D’Angelo, since Mr. Hashem’s suspension then made him also legally unavailable to practice law, legally depriving the firm of his services for the foreseeable future, as he was unable to petition for reinstatement for a period of 2 years Page 7 of 35after the completion of his 2 4 (partially suspended) sentence. 1. The evidence will show that this further conduct of Mr. Hashem constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties owed to D’Angelo and D&H when he, by his acts, put his own personal interests in using his power, including physical power, his power as an attorney over a former client, and his power as a superior and employer, to violate the human and legal rights of women, to satisfy his personal interests arising out of lust or his disrespectful tendencies against woman, and/or to assuage his personal anger. The evidence will specifically show that Mr. Hashem disregarded this female victims’ rights to her personal safety, to her security behind the locked door of her apartment, and, certainly, her right to be free from physical attack and infliction of physical and psychological injury upon her person. Further, the evidence will show that Mr. Hashem’s intentional or reckless violent criminal acts constituted a breach of care to protect the firm’s interest as an ongoing concern of good repute and to Mr. D’Angelo’s rights in the firm as an ongoing concern of good repute. Moreover, Mr. Hashem’s acts demonstrated a breach of his duty of loyalty to the firm, and Mr. D’Angelo insofar as when Mr. Hashem engaged in this violence he elevated his personal interests, as discussed above, and disregarded the interests of his firm and of Attorney D’Angelo. 3. The evidence will show that Mr. Hashem’s breaches of fiduciary duties were the actual and legal cause of D&H’s cessation of business, and its later demise, damaging the financial wherewithal of the firm, and causing financial damages to Attorney Page 8 of 35D’‘Angelo, who was forced to use personal funds to pay off firm obligations, some of which he had personally guaranteed based on his reasonable expectation that then Attorney Hashem would never engage in the type of harmful breaches of fiduciary duties of care and of loyalty, discussed above. The evidence will show that Mr. Hashem’s actions caused the loss of some clients, further resulting in the loss of any fees that may have been derived from those clients’ cases. The evidence will show that Mr, Hashem’s breaches of his fiduciary duties continue to cause Attorney D’Angelo damages. 4. The evidence will also show that Mr. Hashem’s violent and criminal disregard of the law and to the rights to women by his own actions were the cause of his alleged damages since his choosing to or otherwise engage in this behavior was inevitably criminally punishable as well as of the type that would likely imperil, and did imperil, his ability to remain a lawyer. Indeed, once suspended, the contingency contracts with the firm became voided, prohibited him any right to share in legal fees, and rendered Mr. Hashem’s rights to compensation to the reasonable value of his services on a quantum meruit basis on a case by case basis, the burden to prove which is his. 5. The evidence will show that an accounting has been provided, after attempting to assert privileges based on the privacy of clients’ identities, during the course of discovery in this case. 6. The evidence will also show that prior to preparing and providing a notification Page 9 of 35to clients who had contracted with D & H, LLC, that D & H, LLC could no longer represent them, their rights to their files, and regarding their rights to choose alternate counsel, Attorney D’Angelo obtained and followed the advice and guidance, including in the form of a 7-page task list, from Attorney James Bolan. 7. The evidence will show that Attorney Bolan has extensive experience and many years in the practice of legal ethics in Massachusetts, that Attorney D’Angelo’s seeking of guidance from an attomey, James Bolan, was reasonable under the circumstances he was faced with arising out of Mr. Hashem’s conduct, and that the list’ of action items Attorney Bolan provided to Attorney D’Angelo was legally and ethically correct, and that Attorney D'Angelo understood from Attorney Bolan that the notifications, the removal of Mr. Hashem’s name from bank accounts, as well as confirmation that Mr. Hashem had filed notice of withdrawals in pending cases, amongst other tasks, had to be carried out right away. 8. The evidence will further show that Attorney D’Angelo has never had a jadgment against him arising out of her Complaint regarding pregnancy discrimination and not liable as a partner for Mr. Hashem's debt: rather he was, and is a member of a Massachusetts Limited Liability Company at all times relevant to this case, and therefore is not personally liable merely because of his status a manager and/or member of either D & H, LLC or D‘Angelo Law Group, LLC under the Massachusetts Limited Liability Act, contrary to the assertions of the Intervenor-Plaintiff. Page 10 of 359. The evidence will further show that upon his suspension, Mr. Hashem was then legally and ethically prohibited from owning an interest in a law firm, including an ownership interest as a member of D’ Angelo & Hashem, LLC), and was required to sell or otherwise legally tender his ownership interest in D & H, LLC, LLC, so that he no longer owned that interest, but he did not, and that Attorney D'Angelo was not legally obligated or bound by any ethical rule to buy Mr. Hashem’s interest, and further that Attorney D’Angelo was prohibited from sharing any collected legal fees with Mr. Hashem, as well as the fact that Mr. Hashem’s refused or failed to so tender his said interest in contravention of a legally binding ethical obligation of him to do so. 10. The evidence will further show that Mr. Hashem is not entitled to a division of a fee, including a referral fee, of any percentage, from a different law firm, including D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, because no client consented to same in writing as well as that Attorney D’Angelo was ethically prohibited from trying to continue to operate D é& H, LLC, LLC, so long as Mr. Hashem, as a non-lawyer, continued to retain his ownership interest in D & H, LLC, and that as a consequence it was impossible for Attorney D'Angelo, as owner of only one-half (50%) of the membership interest of D & H, LLC, to voluntarily dissolve the LLC. 11. The evidence will further show that neither Attorney D’Angelo nor D'Angelo Law Group, LLC transferred any assets when former clients of D & H, LLC signed contingency contracts with D’Angelo Law Group, LLC subsequent to the criminal Page 11 of 35events involving Mr. Hashem and his incarceration, since clients are not assets and lawyers do not own clients, and that Attorney D’Angelo’s provision of a choice of new counsel, including possibly D'Angelo Law Group, LLC, by letter to the clients of D & H, LLC was ethically required of him, and that he had no other choice. 12. The evidence will show that neither Attorney D’Angelo nor D'Angelo Law Group, LLC attempted to avoid a debt or harbored any fraudulent intent. 13. The evidence will further show that Attorney D’Angelo’s formation of D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC was not a breach of any governing rule of ethics, and that he no longer desired to have his last name associated with Mr. Hashem’s, for any personal or business purpose for instance, “D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC”, also was not unethical: 14. The evidence will also show that D’Angelo Law Group, LLC never assumed any liability of D & H, LLC, and that the phone number and url used by D & H, LLC was owned personally by Attorney D’Angelo and that D’Angelo Law Group, LLC installed new software and computers, and executed a separate lease. 2. The evidence will further show that there was no purchase transaction between D & H, LLC, and no use of any membership interest of D'Angelo Law Group, LLC to acquire any interest in D & H, LLC. Page 12 of 35Intervenor’s Expected Evidence Intervenor Plaintiff Jennifer M. Carrion (“Carrion”) intervenes in this action as a judgment creditor of Defendants, D’Angelo & Hashem, LLC (“D&H”) and Saba Hashem (“Hashem”). She was an employee of D&H. As of end of 2018, D&H owed nearly $600,000 in Executions to Carrion, with statutory interest that continues to accrue, arising from a 2011 jury verdict that found D&H and Hashem liable to Carrion for pregnancy discrimination. Plaintiff Hashem individually tenders partial payment. D&H & D’Angelo LLC, who are officers of the Court, have not paid Carrion one cent on her civil rights executions. Suffolk Superior Court entered Judgment in favor of Jennifer Carrion by Jury Ver- dict & attorney's fees against D&H LLC on May 29 2012, for which final Executions is- sued on her favor on June 23, 2015 after finalization of all appeals in the amount of $ 307,531.18, which consist of $100,000.00 in total discrimination damages, Trial Court At- torney’s Fees $143,374.54, Appeals Court Attorney’s Fees/Costs $ 61,075.11 and $3,081.53 in Supreme Judicial Court Attorney's Fees/Costs. At start of appeals, Suffolk Superior Court entered on July 17, 2012 a Preliminary Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff Jennifer Carrion against D&H LLC, ordering that “the Defendants, and their Associates, partners, members, employees, and agents are prohibited from: 1. Taking any unlawful action to hinder or delay, or defraud the Plaintiff from collecting the Plaintiff’s judgment in this action. 2. Transferring, alien- ating, or encumbering any assets of the Defendants other than in the course of busi- ness,” Page 13 of 35The Evidence will show that at least in 2014 & 2015 and at more times, D&H, its members, its partners, when in business, had an ability to pay Ms. Carrion’s Judgment and Executions. Rather, D&H, its members, its partners, refused to pay a known liability, Ms. Carrion’s Judgment. Since November 29, 2011, D&H, its members, its partners, alienated and dissipated monies, assets, funds able to satisfy or partially satisfy Intervenor’s Judgment. That has caused Intervenor’s Execution amounts to double in the amount with interest, in addition to attorney's fees, costs of collection by present and predecessor counsels. . The evidence will further show that Hashem’s law partner, Stephen D’ Angelo (“D'Angelo”), failed to dissolve D&H per M.G.L. and received six figure compensation from cases originating from D&H from 2016 to present, along with its to his new or successor law firm, Defendant D'Angelo Law Group, LLC (“DLG”), of which he is the sole Manager. Within one year of Hashem’s suspension, Mr. D’Angelo paid himself personally in excess of $300,000.00 in 2016 & 2017 and DLG received in excess of a million dollars of attorney’s fees from cases originating from Dé&H in 2016, 2017, 2018. This has resulted in this litigation by Hashem, Individually and as Manager to D&H. Therefore, Ms. Carrion has intervened as of right to accomplish remedy and justice, to prevent further alienation of assets, and to receive over half a million dollars in judgments owed to her. Evidence will show that Mr. D'Angelo, as Manager of D&H, & D’Angelo LLC, Page 14 of 35has at all times refused to pay the Intervenor and thatMr. D’Angelo’s willful disregard of a known liability, specifically, Ms. Carrion’s Executions, has created upon him personal liability, since July 12, 2012. Most egregiously, the Defendants, Stephen D’Angelo and the D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, refuse to follow Federal Court preliminary injunction : 1, Promptly provide Intervention Plaintiff with an accounting relating to the settlement in Lopez-Maldonando et al. v. Toll Brothers Inc, Suffolk Superior Court Case No. 1484-CV-01440-G (...) 2. Hold the balance of attorney’s fees and costs in Lopez-Maldonando et al. v. Toll Brothers Inc, Suffolk Superior Court Case No. 1484-CV-01440-G in an escrow account; 3. Hold the balance and attorneys’ fees and costs from all other cases that originated with D’Angelo & Hashem LLC, still held by or received by D’ Angelo Law Group LLC, or Stephen D'Angelo, while this Injunction remains in effect, in a escrow account 4. Defendants, Stephen D’Angelo and D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, are en- joined, directly, or indirectly, alone or in concert with others, effective immediate- ly, from making any distributions of amounts from such escrow accounts or ob- tained from any cases originating from D’ Angelo & Hashem LLC, except that D'Angelo Law Group LLC maintains the right to pay normal and customary ex- penses occurred in the normal course of business. Such expenses may not in- clude distributions to Stephen D’ Angelo, payments toward credit card balances, or for car leases. 1. By Judgment dated April 8, 2020, Essex Superior Court entered Judgment in favor of Ms. Carrion against D’Angelo LLC in the amount of $672,995.92 under theory of successor liability under Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56. Mr. D'Angelo, as managing member of D&H and D’Angelo LLC, still refuses to pay Ms. Carrion’s Executions. 2. Ms. Carrion submitted a M.G.L. Chapter 93 A Section 9 Demand Letter to Mr. Page 15 of 35D’Angelo on or before April 17, 2020 by certified & first-class mail. This formal correspondence was sent before knowing that Judgment had issued in Ms. Carrion’s favor. 3. Intervenor as Judgment Creditor to D&H and Hashem seeks satisfaction and remedy to her civil rights Executions, Carrion proves to this jury and Tribunal that the DLG is a successor by merger to D&H, and therefore liable to Carrion. Without limitation, attorney's fees due to D&H and Hashem originating from D&H cases must be reached and applied to satisfy Ms. Carrion’s execution under theory of successor’s liability. Further Ms. Carrion will show that D&H and D’Angelo as Member & partner of D& H did have ability to pay Ms. Carrion before Hashem’s suspension. Notwithstanding said ability, injunctions and Executions; D'Angelo and D&H dissipated and alienated funds away from paying Mr. Carrion under fraudulent conveyance theory, and Reach & Apply. Before D&H, Mr. D’Angelo, Mr. Hashem were able to receive six figure salaries, Ms. Carrion’s executions should have been paid first like all other D&H LLC liabilities. Defendants deny the same despite being attorneys at law. 4. Agreed Suggested Description of the Case to be Read to Jury/Empanelment In this action Saba Hashem has sued his former partner, Stephen D’ Angelo and his wholly owned limited liability company, D'Angelo Law Group LLC. Mr. Hashem seeks on his own behalf and on behalf of D & H LLC that was owned by Mr. D’Angelo Page 16 of 35and Mr. Hashem equally, for fees and expenses owed them. Mr. D'Angelo and D’Angelo LLC deny they owe any money to Mr. Hashem or D & H LLC and that Mr. Hashem has caused his own damages that he has alleged, and is not entitled to his claimed damages. Attorney D’Angelo and D'Angelo Law Group, LLC have counter sued Mr, Hashem for Breach of his fiduciary duties of loyalty and care, and for damages. Mr. Hashem denies he breached any fiduciary duty and denies he caused the D'Angelo Defendants any damages. Intervenor Plaintiff, Carrion, intervenes as Judgment Creditor to D&H, its members, partners, and Hashem to obtain remedy and compensation to her outstanding Executions against D&H. Intervenor seeks to collect her Executions against the Successor law firm D’Angelo LLC under successor liability, and Mr. D’Angelo d as recipient of six figures of counsel fees from cases originating from D&H. Mr. Hashem individually has tendered payment to Intervenor. 1. Significant Legal Issues A. Plaintiff's Significant Legal Issues Until supplying their portion of this Pre-Trial Memorandum on March 16, 2020 the D’Angelo Defendants had not listed, and still have not properly designated, any expert witness. Plaintiff will move in limine to exchide or limit the testimony by Erin Higgins as described below. Any other significant legal issues concerning the D’ Angelo Page 17 of 35Defendants’ liability have already been briefed by plaintiff in his memorandum in opposition to summary judgment, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein. B. Defendants’ Significant Legal Issues 1, Discovery has not been closed in this case, and is actually still ongoing. Plaintiffs made certain in Open Court that Expert Discovery was not cut off, which was confirmed by Justice Feeley in June 2019. More than 5 months later, and 2 ¥ years after they filed their Complaint, Plaintiffs disclosed their expert. Traditionally, Defendants disclosure and discovery of experts occurs after Plaintiffs’, and Defendants have adequately disclosed their expert herein less than 3 months later. Neither Plaintiffs nor Intervenor-Plaintiff is prejudiced, while Defendants would be materially prejudiced in their ability to present their defenses to Plaintiff's claims, and their Counterclaim against same. 2. To the extent claims have not been resolved by way of the Motions for Summary Judgment currently under advisement Defendants intend to rely upon the attached First Circuit cases regarding the issue of Imposition of Successor Liability; and, Intend to intend introduce evidence of the nature of Plaintiff’s convictions and prior bad acts for the purpose(s) of explaining to the trier of fact Attorney D’Angelo’s State of Mind, specifically business concerns about continuing to be associated with Plaintiff’s name, and legal concerns about potential further legal exposure of the firm. The same are Page 18 of 35probative of the rationale and reasons why Attorney D’Angelo did not attempt to continue D & H, LLC after those incidents. The same is relevant to Attorney D’Angelo’s defense to claim(s) and/or inferences the trier of fact could in fact make that Attorney D’‘Angelo’s failure to include D & H, LLC as an option on the notifications to clients of their rights to choose alternate counsel constituted a breach or evidence of a breach of fiduciary duty against Plaintiffs, who have alleged same individually and derivatively. The same is also relevant to rebut the claim(s) and/or inferences the trier of fact could in fact make that the cessation of operations of D & H, LLC and Attorney D’Angelo’s formation of D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC, an option provided to said clients, was a result of any attempt to avoid a debt of Intervenor or to defraud Intervenor which will likely be argued or inferred by Intervenor for the purpose of imposing Reach and Apply and Successor Liability, which she has claimed. Defendants strongly contend the exclusion of said evidence for the above-stated purposes would be unduly prejudicial to Defendants in their defenses, and would not unfairly prejudice either Plaintiff or Intervenor in arguing their claims, or otherwise. Mass Guide to Evidence R. 608(b) and 609; Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 6 Mass. App. Ct. 867, 868 (1978); Commonwealth v. Hamilton , 459 Mass. 422, 439 (2011). 3. Regarding all of the legal issues addressed in Defendants’ Motions for Summary Adjudication (except for Conversion, which has been withdrawn), and Motion for Summary Judgment, and Intervenor’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, regarding Page 19 of 35applicable ethical rules to Plaintiffs conduct and rights, as well as Defendants’ prohibitions and requirements, Defendants refer to the legal authorities set forth in their Memoranda of Law, Opposition to Cross-Motion of Intervenor, and Reply to Opposition of Plaintiff to Defendants Motion for Summary Adjudication, filed with this Court. Defendants will provide a Statement of Authorities to the extent the Summary Judgment Motion do not extinguish legal issues and if the Court so require those authorities to be listed. See also Malonis v. Harrington, 442 Mass. 692, 696-697 (2004), Liss v. Studeny, 450 Mass. 473, 478-482 (2008) [regarding compensation owed under quantum meruit theory owed to discharged lawyer when contingency occurs]; Mass R. Prof. C. 1.05(e) [regarding fee splitting]; and Meehan v. Shaughnessy, 404 Mass. 419, 535 N.E.2d 1255 (1989) [regarding non-ownership of clients, clients are not assets.] Mass R. Prof. C. 8.4(b) & (h) [regarding Mr. Hashem’s character, and fitness to continue being a Massachusetts lawyer]. See also the Massachusetts statutes identified in Defendants’ Expert Disclosure herein [regarding nature of crimes of Mr. Hashem}4. Defendants submit and intend to challenge the admissibility of proposed evidence of certain revenue figures of D & H, LLC and D’Angelo Law Group, LLC based on their relevance and pursuant to Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, Rule 403, as well as the introduction of Attorney D’Angelo’s tax returns, including Schedule K-1s, as misleading and confusing, irrelevant, violative of privacy rights, privileged under State and Federal Law, and based on Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, Rule 403. Page 20 of 355. Defendants submit and intend to challenge the relevance and admissibility of Judge Conolly’s 2012 Order, and any references to same. 6. Defendants submit and intend to challenge the relevance and admissibility any Order from the District Court of Massachusetts (Federal) Court, which lacked subject matter jurisdiction and its Orders null and void. 7, Defendants submit and intend to challenge the relevance and admissibility of any argument or statements relating to either Defendants’ ability to pay or similar thereto, as well as based on its confusion and the misleading of the jury admission would create, prejudicing Defendants. 8. Defendants submit and state that there is no personal liability of a manager or member of an LLC, because of their status as a manager or member of any such LLC, as a matter of Massachusetts law. Based upon that statement of law, and because personal liability of Mr. D’Angelo because of his status as a member or manager is not alleged in Count III of Intervenor’s Complaint, nor was that personal liability arising out of member or manager status part of the Court's summary judgment on that Count II, where the Court declared that D’Angelo Law Group, LLC was the successor in interest to D & H, LLC, only. Defendants intend to challenge, by motion in limine, and otherwise if necessary, any assertion to the jury to the contrary as any such argument or assertion is not an accurate statement under the law, not alleged in Count II, nor part of the Court's grant of Summary Judgment on Count IIL, and because allowance of same Page 21 of 35would mislead and confuse the jury, as well prejudice Defendant D’ Angelo. 9. Defendants reiterate its position in Paragraph 8, immediately above, and further submit that they will likewise challenge that the declaration of successor liability of D’Angelo Law Group, LLC in and of itself, strengthens or tends to prove any personal liability of Mr. D'Angelo under Chapter 93A, as alleged in Intervenor-Plaintiff’s 93A Demand recently served, or otherwise, insofar as the Court's allowance of Summary Judgment on Count II declaring D’ Angelo Law Group, LLC to be a successor in interest, does not equate to a finding of any personal liability of Mr. D’Angelo, and because allowance of same would mislead and confuse the jury, as well prejudice Defendant D‘Angelo. Cc. Intervenor’s Significant Legal Issues Intervenor is concerned that Defendants D’Angelo and DLG are not escrowing funds received by them from cases originating from D&H cases, despite Federal Court Injunction. Further Pre-Judgment Security is now sought again from state court to collect her Executions, in light of her high likelihood to prevail on the merits. Smith v. Kelley, SJC 12759 (annexed). Defendants D’Angelo and DLG through their maifeasances have prevented Ms. Carrion’s collection of her Executions. Mr. D'Angelo, as member/partner of D&H, willfully disregarded a known liability, which is unfair and deceptive especially when having the ability to pay. _Intervenor refers to her allowed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Summary Judgment Cross Motions in regards to Page 22 of 35successor liability, breach of Chapter 156 C in not dissolving D&H, fraudulent conveyance under Chapter 109A. Intervenor Plaintiff has Judgment against D’Angelo LLC under successor liability in the amount of $672,995.92 in this action. Intervenor Plaintiff will serve motion or action to secure Judgment. Intervenor Plaintiff has commenced claims under MGL Ch. 93A Section 9 against Mr. D'Angelo & D’Angelo LLC by Demand Letter dated April 17, 2020. Intervenor reserves the tight to supplement this Memorandum. 1, Plaintiff's Expected Witness A. Saba Hashem B. , Steven D’Angelo c. Matthew Andrade Dz Dana McCoy E. Any former client of D & H LLC who became a client of D’Angelo LLC. A. Keeper of Records Saba Coleman Hunt, LLC A. Matt Sussman A. Any witness designated by the intervenor or the defendants. Defendants’ Expected Witnesses A. James Bolan, Esq. B. Matthew Andrade, Esq. GQ Matthew Sussman, Esq. Page 23 of 35A. B. D. Richard Mestone, Esq. E. Saba Hashem F. Steven D'Angelo, Esq. G. — Jennifer Carrion H. — Any woman referenced in Defendant's Answers to Interrogatories L Any former client of D & H LLC who became a client of D’Angelo LLC. Any witness designated by the intervenor or the plaintiff. Defendants reserve the right to supplement this list. Intervenor’s Expected Witnesses A. B. Saba Hashem Steven D’Angelo Matthew Andrade Dana McCoy Keeper of Records Saba Coleman Hunt, LLC Matt Sussman. Any former client of D & H LLC who became a client of D’ Angelo LLC. Any former or present employee of D&H LLC, Any former or present employee of D'Angelo LLC Any witness designated by the plaintiff or the defendants. Keeper of Records — Enterprise Bank Page 24 of 35L. Keeper of Records — TD Bank M. Keeper of Records — Santander Bank NA N. Keeper of Records- Bank of America NA oO. Keeper of Records Saba Coleman Hunt PC P, Ashley Hashem Q. Hiam Hashem R. Intervenor reserves the rights to supplement this list 1. Plaintiff's Expert Witness Plaintiff intends to call Saba Hashem as an expert witness. From his admission to the Massachusetts Bar on June 14, 1999 until his temporary suspension on December 29, 2015, Saba Hashem’s practice consisted almost exclusively of representing injured parties in civil actions against third parties causing those injuries and in matters before the Industrial Accident Board. During the over fifteen years he was in active practice he was a member of the Massachusetts Bar Association (MBA), Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys (MATA), American Association For Justice (AAJ) and. the American Bar Association (ABA). At MATA, an organization of plaintiffs’ trial attorneys, Mr. Hashem held the following leadership positions, among others. He was a member of the Board of Governors, Secretary of MATA and a member of the MATA Mentor program, mentor- ing young lawyers. At the ABA he was very involved in the Tort Insurance Practice Sec- tion (TIPS) that examined issues relating to personal injury and workers compensation Page 25 of 35litigation, a member of its Workers Compensation Committee and member and past Chairman of its Auto Committee. Mr. Hashem attended numerous seminars concerning the practice of law, with an emphasis on plaintiffs personal injury matters and had many hundreds, if not thou- sands of conversations with other attorneys, including MATA and MBA members, about. plaintiffs’ personal injury practice. He knows from those experiences and his over fifteen years of active practice, and will testify that it was, and remains, the practice and custom in the Massachusetts legal community for referral fees of one third of the ultimate legal fee recovered to be paid to the attorney or law firm that provided or re- ferred the client to the attorney performing the legal work that ultimately results in a re- covery for the client and a fee for the attorney performing the work. He, and firms with which he was associated, including D & H LLC, paid and received 1/3 referral fees on at least twenty five occasions. He will testify, based on his review of the records, that since November 6, 2015, Mr. D’Angelo has caused D’Angelo LLC to collect fees and expenses advanced (includ- ing by D & H LLC) on cases where D & H LLC represented clients, and has made no payments to D & H LLC in connection with any such funds received, and that from De- cember 16, 2015 through December 29, 2016 D’Angelo LLC collected over $600,000 in fees and expenses in matters in which D & H LLC had formerly represented clients, without taking a single case to trial, since December 16, 2015, D’ Angelo LLC has collected _ well over $1,000,000 in legal fees representing former D & H LLC clients — again with- out taking a case to trial - and has paid nothing to either D & H LLC or Mr. Hashem, and since then, D’Angelo Law LLC has collected at least $190,000 in fees on matters where D & H LLC initially represented the client, including the Lopez-Maldonado mat- ter, in which D'Angelo LLC received a fee of $190,000 in October 2018. Defendants’ Expert Witness Page 26 of 35Defendants expect to call Erin K. Higgins, Esq., Partner of Conn Kavanaugh Rosenthal Peisch & Ford, LLP, 1 Federal St #15th, Boston, MA 02110, (717) 348-8223, At torney Higgins graduated from Georgetown University, cum laude, with a Bachelors of Arts Degree in 1987 as well as Boston College Law School, cum laude, with her Juris Doctorate degree in 1991. Attorney Higgins is a civil trial lawyer. During her 27 years of practice, she has focused on representing lawyers, insurance agents and brokers, and other types of pro- fessionals in defending against errors and omissions claims. She also represents lawyers in disciplinary matters, having recently completed a four-year term on the Massachu- setts Board of Bar Overseers, and advises lawyers on ethics issues. Attorney Higgins speaks regularly on professional liability and ethics topics, and writes a regular column on ethics for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. She also advises lawyers and law firms on their fiduciary and ethical obligations as partners or members of law firms, and how those obligations are impacted by a lawyer’s departure from a firm. Attorney Higgins co-chairs her firm's Professional Liability group, and also serves as the firm's Risk Management Partner. She also co-chairs the firm's Pro Bono Committee. In that role, she connects the firm's lawyers with various opportunities to provide free legal services to low-income clients, including those referred by the Women’s Bar Foundation, Veterans Legal Services, the Victim Rights Law Center, Mass- Page 27 of 35achusetts Advocates for Children, the New England Food Hub, and the Lawyers’ Clear- inghouse. Attorney Higgins’ practice areas include professional liability, product liability, business litigation, complex tort defense, and insurance coverage litigation. A complete copy of her biography is attached at Tab A. Based upon her knowledge and experience, and her review of the pleadings, dis- covery, and other materials provided to her by counsel, Attorney Higgins will offer ex- pert opinion testimony in this matter on: (1) the standard of care applicable to a lawyer such as plaintiff Saba Hashem, after that lawyer is arrested and imprisoned for serious criminal conduct that is certain to lead to the lawyer’s suspension from the practice of law, or disbarment; and (2) the standard of care applicable to a lawyer such as defen- dant Stephen D’Angelo, when that lawyer is faced with the arrest and imprisonment of the only other member of his law firm, and the certain suspension of that other member of the law firm from the practice of law. In particular, Ms. Higgins will offer the following opinions, all to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, with respect to Mr. Hashem. . After Mr. Hashem was arrested, imprisoned, and charged with one count of strangulation or suffocation in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 15D(b), and one count of assault and battery on a family/household member in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 13M(a), it would have been clear to a reasonably competent lawyer that he was Page 28 of 35certain to be suspended from the practice of law for a significant period of time, or disbarred; ° Accordingly, after Mr. Hashem was so charged, and no later than October 14, 2015, the date on which Mr. Hashem was ordered held incarcerated, the stan- dard of care required Mr. Hashem to notify his clients that he would no longer be able to represent them, and to ensure that they would have adequate representa- tion going forward; . Moreover, after Mr. Hashem was so charged and not released from incar- ceration, the standard of care required him to begin making arrangements to transfer his membership interest in D’Angelo & Hashem LLC, as a reasonably competent attorney would have known that he could no longer have a member- ship interest in a law firm once he was suspended or disbarred; . Mr. Hashem’s criminal conduct constituted a breach of the standard of care, because it prevented him from providing legal services to the client who had retained him for that purpose; ( ° Mr. Hashem’s criminal conduct constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties to Attorney D’Angelo, because it placed the law firm in a tenuous and challeng- ing position, and risked serious reputational harm to Attorney D’ Angelo; Page 29 of 35. After Mr. Hashem was suspended on December 29, 2015, he was no longer a member of the Bar and could not practice law, and he effectively became a non- lawyer; . After Mr. Hashem was suspended on December 29, 2015, he was legally and ethically prohibited from owning any interest in a law firm; . After Mr. Hashem was suspended on December 29, 2015, he was ethically prohibited from receiving any legal fees other than fees due on a quantum meruit basis for work he performed prior to his suspension; . Upon Mr. Hashem’s suspension, any contingent fee agreement that a client had signed with Mr. Hashem or with D'Angelo & Hashem, LLC became void. Ms. Higgins will offer the following opinions, all to a reasonable degree of pro- fessional certainty, with respect to Attorney D’Angelo. . After Mr. Hashem was arrested, imprisoned, and charged with’one count of strangulation or suffocation in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 15D(b), and one count of assault and battery on a family/household member in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 13M(a), it would have been clear to a reasonably competent lawyer that Mr. Hashem was certain to be suspended from the practice of law for a significant period of time, or disbarred; Page 30 of 35. Accordingly, after Mr. Hashem was so charged, the standard of care re- quired Attorney D’Angelo to ensure that clients of the law firm would have ade- quate representation going forward; . After Mr. Hashem was so charged, Attorney D’Angelo acted in accord _ with the standard of care by consulting with outside ethics counsel, Attorney James 5 Bolan, as to the appropriate steps to be taken in light of Mr. Hashem’s ar- rest and certain suspension or disbarment from the practice of law; ° Attorney D’Angelo acted in accord with the standard of care by following the advice of outside ethics counsel, and taking the following actions: (1) notify- ing the clients of the law firm that D’Angelo & Hashem LLC would not be con- tinuing operations; (2) organizing a new law office that did not have Mr. Hashem as a member; (3) offering the firm’s clients a choice between transferring their cases to Mr. D’Angelo’s new law firm, D’Angelo Law Group, LLC, or to another attorney of the client’s choice; and (4) as to those clients that chose to transfer their cases to D'Angelo Law Group, LLC, executing new fee agreements with those clients. . In taking the above actions, Attorney D’Angelo also acted in accord with the applicable ethical rules; ° In taking the above actions, Attorney D’Angelo did not breach any fidu- ciary duties owed to Mr. Hashem, or to D'Angelo & Hashem LLC; Page 31 0f35 |° After Mr. Hashem’s suspension, Attorney D’ Angelo acted in accord with , the standard of care by refusing to share legal fees received with Mr. Hashem, a non-lawyer; . After Mr. Hashem’s suspension, Attorney D’ Angelo acted in accord with the applicable ethical rules by refusing to share legal fees received with Mr. Hashem, a non-lawyer; . After Mr. Hashem’s suspension, Attorney D’ Angelo did not breach any fiduciary duty owed to Mr. Hashem or D’ Angelo & Hashem LLC by refusing to share legal fees received with Mr. Hashem, a non-lawyer. Intervenor’s Expert Witness L. Intervenor Plaintiff intends to call as an expert witness, Matthew Fogel- man Esquire, of Fogelman & Fogelman, LLC, Newton, MA, (617) 559-0201, mif@fogel- manlawfirm.com. His CV is attached hereto. His expert testimony will establish that in the period that D’Angelo LLC received attorney’s fees compensation from November 5, 2015 through the present it was or is the customary practice in the Massachusetts le- gal community for one third 1/3 referral fees of the ultimate legal fee recovered to be paid to the attorney or law firm that provided services or referred the client to the attor- ney performing the legal work resulting in the client's recovery. Intervenor reserves right to supplement this Memorandum. 1. Estimated Length of Trial Page 32 of 35 .5 to 10 days. 1. Settlement Certification The parties certify that they have conferred and discussed the possibility of settlement, and the amenability of the case to mediation or other forms of alternate dispute resolution. Page 33 of 35Plaintiff by his attorney /s/Albert Farrah Albert Farrah, Esq. 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02219 617-694-1549 alf@farrah-law.com BBO No. 159340 Defendants by their attorney /s[Thomas C. LaPorte Thomas C. LaPorte, Esq. Cossingham Law Office, P.C. 30 Massachusetts Avenue, Ste 404 North Andover, MA 01845 978-685-5686 tlaporte@cossinghamlaw.com BBO No. 634194 Intervenor by her attorney /s/Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa Esq. Mernaysa Rivera-Bujosa Esq. Rivera-Bujosa Law, PC Shipway Place, Suite C2 Charlestown, MA 02129 USA Telephone: (617) 398-6728 mernaysa@riverabujosalaw.com BBO No. Page 34 of 35TABA Page 35 of 35