#84, Drano Series
 
 

 
    The Deb Sano/BBO Saga 
    A Battle in the War between Barb 
    and 
    the Office of Bar Counsel of the Board of Bar Overseers


    The Bar War: The Bar wants my license.
    • They do not like this website, 
    • they do not like that I am suing judges and lawyers, 
    • they do not like my fight to do away with judicial immunity, and 
    • they do not like my cry for court reform. 
    I am forbidden by Rules not to publish the Bar's letters to me, but, I believe, I am not forbidden to publish my letters to the Bar.  You may them in Drano Series ##80-85. 

    The last one, #85, not yet uploaded, is an account which I must yet write.  It is about the events surrounding the 24 hours I spent in jail because I said "No" to a judge who wanted to see records of my own personal finances.  He had found me in contempt of a non-existent order and I balked in paying it.  I was trying to see 26 boxes of documents . . . to get documentary proof of the fraud committed by a company against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

    So, because the fight about the website will be public -- about whether anything on here is impounded and cannot be published -- and the four-year-old contempt for not obeying a non-existent order is iffy, the Assistant Bar Counsel has re-incarnated the Sano bill saga . . . which you will find below . . . all seven parts of it:

    1. The original bill (11 December 1999)
    2. An Email to Deb in response to hers (20 December 1999)
    3. A letter to Deb Sano in response to hers (28 December 1999)
    4. A letter to the Bar in response to the Complaint (19 April 2000)
    5. The bill annotated by me (19 April 2000) (Linked)
      1. And unexpectedly, Rules 1.5 and 1.6 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct
    6. A letter to the Bar (8 May 2000)
    7. A letter to the Bar (11 September 2001)

     
    1.  The Original Bill (11 December 1999)


    Barbara C. Johnson
    Attorney at Law
    6 Appletree Lane
    Andover, MA 01810-4102
    978-474-0833 FAX upon request
    barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net

    12 December 1999

    Deborah and Harry H. Sano, Jr.
    [address deleted]

    FOR SERVICES PROVIDED Harry Sano                      10/31/99--12/5/99
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Received $350 dated 11/4/99
    Received $400 dated 11/12/99, your check #5743 
    Received $10,000 dated 11/20/99, from June Edwards 
    Total received 
    Less legal services this bill 
    Credit 
    Charge rates according to pricing.htm
    Read papers at $50 per hour
    Research at $200 per hour marked by an asterisk
    Strategized at $200 per hour marked by an asterisk
    350.00
          400.00
    10000.00
    $10750.00
    -7575.50
    $3174.50
     

     


    9/29/99, Wednesday
    Subject: Reply to guestbook comment
    Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:15:37 -0400
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Kevan Sano-O'Brien <kksano@email.com> (no charge

     
     
     

    0-00
     

    10/31/99, Sunday

    Subject: False allegations
    Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:16:48 -0500
    From: "Deborah T Sano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: <bcj@falseallegations.com> (no charge

    Subject: Re: False allegations
    Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:49:48 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Deborah T Sano <dsano@bcn.net> (no charge

    Subject: RE: False allegations
    Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:40:17 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net> 
    (no charge
     


     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     
     

    0-00

    11/1/99, Monday
    Answer latest email from Deb Sano
    Subject: Re: False allegations
    Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 00:28:38 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net> (no charge

    Review email from Deb Sano and write answer
    From: Barbara C. Johnson [mailto:barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net]
    Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 12:29 AM
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: RE: False allegations
    Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:35:30 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Phone from Deb Sano


     
     
     
     

    0-00

    2-03
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    0-26


    11/2/93, Tuesday, and 11/3/99, Wednesday
    Review email from Deb Sano and write answer

    Subject: RE: False allegations
    Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 21:19:36 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: False allegations
    Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 00:53:35 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net> 1-48 discount to 1-30 

    Subject: 1993 records
    Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:41:30 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Specific v. general request
    Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 22:38:26 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Deborah T Sano <dsano@bcn.net>
    Research: attached and sent Ellison case 

    Subject: Thanks
    Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:28:42 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
     

    2-03
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    1-30
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    0-45
     
     
     

     

    11/4/99, Wednesday
    Review email from Deb Sano and Kevan and write answer

    Subject: RE: Harry and Deb Sano
    Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 20:31:07 -0500
    From: "Geof & Kevan O'Brien" <gtobrien@mediaone.net>
    To: feedback@falseallegations.com (no charge)

    Subject: Papers
    Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 21:07:28 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net> 
    (no charge

    Subject: Re: Harry and Deb Sano
    Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 22:39:00 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson"
    <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Geof & Kevan O'Brien <gtobrien@mediaone.net> 
    (no charge)

    Subject: Re: Papers
    Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 22:44:45 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net> (no charge
     


    0-00
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     

    0-00
     

    11/6/99, Saturday

    Subject:
    Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:10:11 -0500
    From: Samantha Sano <sanos@ibm.net>
    To: "'barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net'"
            <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net> (no charge

    Subject: Re: Being Lisa's other half
    Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 15:36:14 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Samantha Sano <sanos@ibm.net> (no charge

    Subject: Re: Papers
    Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 18:00:07 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net> (no charge

    Subject: Papers
    Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:53:10 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    (no charge
     


     
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     

    0-00

    11/10/99, 11/11/99, 11/12/99, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday
    Reviewed emails from Deb Sano, wrote answers, and reviewed papers
    Wednesday: 9:15p-4:30a 
    Thursday: 8:15a-10:58a; 11:10a-1:30p, 2:00-4:40p, 6:17-8:27p 
    Friday: 12:10a-2:19a (answering email and research) [at $200] 
    Friday: 2:19a-3:40a 

    Subject: Monday meeting
    Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:49:25 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Progress report
    Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:41:18 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Deborah T Sano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: Forgot to mention . . .
    Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:46:48 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Deborah T Sano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: RE: Progress report
    Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:26:08 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Progress report
    Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 12:33:24 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: RE: Progress report
    Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 19:17:35 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Monday meeting
    Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:27:51 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: RE: Monday meeting
    Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 23:51:12 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Alisa
    Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:48:30 -0500
    From: Jeff & Amber Tufts <jeff@grillman.com>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    CC: "'Deb Sano'" <deb@wonderful-things.com>

    Subject: Re: Monday meeting
    Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:11:28 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>
    Researched: attached and sent three cases

    Subject: Re: Alisa
    Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:37:47 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Jeff & Amber Tufts <jeff@grillman.com>,
    Deborah T Sano <dsano@bcn.net>
     


     

    7-15 
           9-47 
    2-19*
    1-21 

    11/13/99, 11/14/99, Saturday and Sunday
    Preparation of attorney-client agreement (no charge
    Reviewed emails from Deb Sano, researched, wrote answer and attached cases     11:14p-4:16a 

    Subject: Letter from Rich
    Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 20:48:33 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Letter from Rich
    Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:56:08 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: RE: Letter from Rich
    Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 00:00:46 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Letter from Rich
    Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 04:16:00 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>
    Researched: attached and sent Feinberg v. Diamant case

     


    0-00 

     5-02*
     

    11/14/99 and 11/16/99, Sunday and Tuesday
    Reviewed email from Deb Sano, strategized, and answered

    Subject: RE: Letter from Rich
    Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 09:24:00 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Meeting
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:48:30 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Meeting
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 03:23:07 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Reviewed and answered emails from Deb Sano

    Subject: RE: Meeting
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 09:47:22 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Simons
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:17:06 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Meeting
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:35:17 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>
     


    0-43*
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    0-40*

    11/18/99, Thursday
    Reviewed and answered email from Deb Sano

    Subject: No news Good news?
    Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 00:38:11 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: No news Good news?
    Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:04:39 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>


    0-14*
    11/19/99, Friday
    Reviewed email from Deb Sano. Phone to and from Richard Simon, answered email from Deb Sano 3:40p-3:54p; 4:47p-5:29p 

    Subject: Simons
    Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 08:44:56 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Simons
    Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 15:54:03 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>
     

    0-56*
    11/19/99, 11/20/99 Friday and Saturday
    Reported on conversation with Simons. Received and reviewed emails from Deb Sano and answered with more strategy

    Subject: Re: Simons
    Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 22:57:20 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: Second Bright Spot
    Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 00:01:07 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: RE: Simons
    Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 01:24:06 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Simons
    Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 20:54:42 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>
     

    2-10*
    11/22/99 Monday
    Received and reviewed emails from Deb Sano and answered with
    more strategy.  Calls to attorneys for criminal representation: William Newman, Frank Mondano, Bill O'Neill, and David Hoose

    Subject: RE: Simons
    Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 11:35:35 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Simons
    Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:36:52 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: More instrucs for L's visit
    Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:23:25 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: RE: Simons
    Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:38:30 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Simons
    Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:30:57 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: RE: Simons
    Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:36:52 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Simons
    Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:43:38 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>
     


     

    4-35*

    11/23/99 Tuesday
    Phone from William Newman. Phone to David Hoose. Phone from Frank Mondano.  Phone from Bill O'Neill. Phone to Deb and Harry Sano. Received and reviewed email from Deb Sano and answered.

    Subject: Simons
    Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:27:17 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Simons
    Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 21:40:59 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>
     


     
     

    3-48*

    11/24/99 Wednesday
    Phone from Amber. Wrote email to Samantha. Reviewed three emails from Deb Sano and answered

    Subject: Re: Lisa
    From: Barbara C. Johnson [mailto:barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 11:11 PM
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: Re: Lisa Vist
    Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 15:19:57 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Samantha Sano-Gross <sano-gross_samantha@aclink.org>

    Subject: Lisa
    Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 22:24:29 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Lisa
    Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 23:11:17 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: RE: Lisa
    Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 23:31:48 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Lisa
    Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 23:39:29 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>
     

    2-57*
    11/25/99, 11/26/99 Thursday (Thanksgiving) and Friday
    Received and reviewed Deb Sano's email and answered 
    (no charge)

    Subject: End of Day
    Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 23:34:22 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: End of Day
    Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 01:29:05 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>
     

    0-00
    11/28/99, Sunday
    Received and reviewed email from Deb Sano and answered it

    Subject: Visit
    Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 00:05:23 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Visit
    Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 22:20:35 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>
     


    0-28*
    11/29/99, Monday
    Received and reviewed emails from Deb Sano and Samantha and answered them. Moved to change date of court hearing from December 9th to December 13th to accommodate the Sanos and gave notice to other side and determined mutually convenient date (six phonecalls to court and opposing counsel) <dsano@bcn.net> 

    Subject: RE: Visit
    Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:13:57 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Visit
    Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:39:02 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: RE: Visit
    Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 01:16:38 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Any time on Dec 9th is fine
    Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:37:12 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano@bcn.net

    Subject: lisa
    Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:03:41 -0500
    From: Samantha Sano-Gross <sano-gross_samantha@aclink.org>
    To: "'Barbara C. Johnson'" barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    CC: "'Amber'" <Amber@Grillman.com>, "'Kevan'" <kksano@email.com>, "'deb'" <dsano@bcn.net>, "'shop'" <Deb@wonderful-things.com>

    Subject: Other e-mail
    Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:15:20 -0500
    From: Samantha Sano-Gross <sano-gross_samantha@aclink.org>
    To: "'Barbara C. Johnson'" barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: lisa
    Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:56:06 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Samantha Sano-Gross <sano-gross_samantha@aclink.org>
     


     
     
     
     

    4-24*

    11/29/99--11/30/99, Monday and Tuesday
    Received and reviewed emails from Deb Sano and answered them

    Subject: RE: Any time on Dec 9th is fine
    Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:30:47 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject: Re: Any time on Dec 9th is fine
    Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 02:40:40 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Subject: RE: Any time on Dec 9th is fine
    Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 08:46:26 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
     

    1-16*
    12/1/99, Wednesday
    Received and reviewed email from Samantha and answered

    Subject: RE: lisa
    Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 08:54:02 -0500
    From: Samantha Sano-Gross <sano-gross_samantha@aclink.org>
    To: "'Barbara C. Johnson'" barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    Subject:
    Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:04:21 -0500
    From: Samantha Sano-Gross <sano-gross_samantha@aclink.org>
    To: "'Barbara C. Johnson'" barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    CC: "'deb'" <dsano@bcn.net>, "'shop'" <Deb@wonderful-things.com>

    Subject: Re: lisa
    Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 23:46:48 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: Samantha Sano-Gross <sano-gross_samantha@aclink.org>
     

    0-20*
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    0-00 

    12/3/99, Friday
    Received and reviewed email from Deb Sano. (no charge

    Subject: Days to forget
    Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:20:59 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson"<barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net> 
    (no charge)

    Subject: Last couple days
    Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:46:08 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    CC: "Jeff & Amber Tufts" <jeff@grillman.com>,
    "Samantha Sano-Gross" <sano-gross_samantha@aclink.org>,
    "Kevan and Geof O'Brien" <gtobrien@mediaone.net>
    (no charge)

    Subject: Re: Last couple days
    Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 20:27:40 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net> (no charge

    Subject: RE: Last couple days
    Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 22:41:27 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    CC: "Samantha Sano-Gross" <sano-gross_samantha@aclink.org>,
    "Samantha Sano" <sanos@ibm.net>, "Jeff & Amber Tufts" <jeff@grillman.com>, "Kevan and Geof O'Brien" <gtobrien@mediaone.net> (no charge)

    Subject: Re: Last couple days
    Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 01:53:34 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net> (no charge

    Subject: RE: Last couple days
    Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 09:02:34 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net> 
    (no charge)

    Subject: Re: Last couple days
    Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 12:52:31 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net> (no charge

    Subject: RE: Last couple days
    Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 00:33:35 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net> 
    (no charge)
     


    0-00
     
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     

    0-00
     
     
     
     

    0-00
     

    SUMMARY
    $50 per hour
    2-03
    0-26
    2-03
    1-30
    0-45
    7-15
    9-47
    1-21
    22 hours 602 minutes = 32 hours 2 minutes = 32.03 hours

    32.03 hours * $50 per hour = $1601.50 for reviewing papers
    (pleadings, transcripts, reports, investigation, chronology,
    letters, etc., and discussing by email with Deb Sano)

    $200 per hour
    2-19    3-48
    5-02    2-57
    0-43    0-28
    0-40    4-24
    0-14    1-16
    0-56    0-20
    2-10    23 hours 412 minutes = 29 hours 52 minutes = 29.87 hrs
    4-35

    29.87 hours * $200 per hour = $5974.00 for researching,
    strategizing, advising, counseling, and communicating, etc.,
    with the Sanos 

    32.03 hours * $50 per hour = 
    29.87 hours * $200 per hour = 
    Subtotal = 

    Payment received = 
    Less legal services = 
    Credit = 

    Dear Deb:
    Please find the photos enclosed with the check for $3174.50.
    I sincerely wish your family the very best. And may next year be happier than this one.

    Barbara C. Johnson


     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    $1601.50
    5974.00
    $7575.50

    $10750.00
    -7575.50
    $ 3174.50
     


     
    2.  An Email to Deb Sano in Response to Hers 
    (20 December 1999)




    Subject: Re: Retaining check
    Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 21:25:31 -0500
    From: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>
    To: dsano <dsano@bcn.net>

    Dear Deb:

    I am sorry that you "are very angry , upset and hurt by [my] bill for legal services. " I'm sorry that you believe that I was taking "advantage" of you at "such a vulnerable time in [your] life."

    Lawyers ALWAYS work with people at a time during which they believe they are vulnerable and lawyers ALWAYS hope, if not expect, to get paid for
    their work.  And although we are lawyers, we, too, must pay our bills.

    Yes I did state: "But I warn you, all of this costs money." I tried to spell it out quite clearly. I've put my explanation of costs quite openly on my website at http://falseallegations.com/pricing.htm. There I explain the difference between consulting and representation. The essence of the difference is whether I must file a "Notice of Appearanace" in court and must appear physically in court. If I do, I need a signed contract, because then I am "representing" you.

    With consultation, I do not intend to appear in court; I intend only to advise and consult with other attorneys who are representing you and who would control the progress of the case and write briefs and argue them in court.

    Because of the distance between Andover and Pittsfield, in this case, I
    anticipated only being a consultant. For instance, from the beginning, you wanted me to advise (a) Harry's counsel, Richard Simons, on the criminal case and (b) your niece Karen Schultz Breda on Lisa's existing case, and (c) possibly Karen and some other attorney who had been contacted by your family on a potential civil case.

    Then you were going to terminate Simon's services and replace him with
    David Hoose, with whom I also spoke.  For a while, it was not clear
    whether Karen would continue representing your family because of
    personal reasons.

    > And now you have charged us for double your time. Or for 32 hours.
    > $1601.50.

    All time and tasks are outlined in the bill.

    (1) Are there any tasks which you believe I did not do?

    (2) Are there any tasks with which you were displeased?

    (3) Are there any tasks which you believe should not have been done?

    (4) Are there any tasks which you believe took too much time for me to do them?

    (5) Are there any emails of yours or the girls which I should not have read?

    (6) Are there any emails of yours or the girls which I should not have
    answered?

    (7) Are there any phone calls I should have not made in searching for a
    replacement criminal attorney for Harry?

    (8) Is there anything I told you having to do with Harry's and Lisa's cases (not the bill - that is discussed below -- just the cases) which you have since learned was incorrect or wrong?

    > We began asking you to be on the case November 13, 1999. On November > 20, 1999 you received a check for $10000 from my sister June Edwards. 
    > Your were to hold that until you received the signed agreement.

    That is not accurate. In your email with the heading:
    Subject: RE: Visit
    Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:13:57 -0500
    From: "dsano" <dsano@bcn.net>
    To: "Barbara C. Johnson" <barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net>

    You wrote: "We have been neglect full in that I just found the client
    agreement under a stack of papers from Falesallegations printouts. Karen read it and her only comment was to have an statement that `in event client elects to
    terminate this agreement, the unused portion of the retainer be returned
    within 10 days to client.' We don't see this happening, but if you are
    in agreement we will add and send signed copies tomorrow."

    I responded, "No problem" meaning that I had no problem returning the
    unused portion of the retainer. . . ." And I did just that: I gave an accounting and returned the unused portion.

    There was also nothing in any email that I received any instruction to "hold that until you received the signed agreement."

    As you know I never signed returned to you a copy of the attorney-client
    fee agreement, because it never became clear what the extent of my
    involvement was to be, that is, whether I was being retained solely for
    consultation -- which I believed the case to be -- or for representation.

    > The only time you can charge us for is from November 30, 1999 through
    > December 3, 1999. Or for 1 hour and 36 minutes. And not 29 hours 52
    > minutes.

    The proposed contract does not define the time period for which I can
    charge. I am entitled to be paid for the services I performed under a theory of quantum meruit. Those services included but were not limited to the following: I

    (1) strategized the case for you, told you about a McCarthy motion (to
    challenge the two indictments for the alleged 1993 action),

    (2) told you who had to be deposed,

    (3) told you that there was a civil case (which you did not even realize) under which you could depose the various private and agency workers as well as Elaine,

    (4) explained evidentiary matters to you,

    (5) brought to your attention legal issues about which no other attorney had informed you,

    (6) described how deposition transcripts are priced (so you'd understand the costs involved),

    (7) etc. There were so many things that it is inefficient to include a list of them here. Just review the emails and make a list of them. In sum, I educated you and Harry about what had to be done to defend him -- and possibly you -- properly.

    > Everything we did and said was in good faith and we really believed that 
    > you had the same intentions.

    I did have the intention of working in good and DID work in good faith.

    > Looks like we were wrong.

    You weren't wrong. You are only upset because the cost of advise cost
    you evidently more than you had anticipated.

    > We need to resolve this matter immediately as we have major expenses to
    > meet. We feel that you owe us a balance of $6425.50.

    If you will go to the items numbered (1) through (8) at the top of this email and answer them individually, maybe we can work out a further reduction. As my accounting shows, there are a considerable number of emails and/or tasks which I did NOT charge for.

    > We would really like to settle this amicably.

    I would too.

    > Sincerely.
    > Deborah and Harry Sano

    Sincerely,

    Barbara
    --
    Barbara C. Johnson


     
    3.  A Letter to Deb Sano in Response
    (20 December 1999)

    Barbara C. Johnson
    Attorney at Law
    6 Appletree Lane 
    Andover, MA 01810-4102
    978-474-0833 FAX upon request
    barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net

    28 December 1999                                                                       BY EMAIL
    Deborah and Harry H. Sano, Jr.
    [address deleted]

    Dear Deb and Harry:

    I'm quite disappointed that you've chosen not to settle this fee dispute amicably but to defame me instead by sending your letter to three and possibly four (your niece Karen) attorneys who do not represent you in this matter. None of them had a need to hear any disparaging or character-assassinating remarks you made about me. That is defamation.

    After receiving your emailed letter of the 16th, I answered almost immediately (excluding only the weekend) on the 20th. Yet you chose to still send, on the 21st, your original letter to my colleagues without either my emailed response or the accounting itself. 

    Without letting them consider either my response or the accounting, you deprived them of the ability to see both sides of the dispute. The only conclusion is that you intended to defame me. If you wanted to gain sympathy, that was not the way to do it.

    With that said, I would like to make sweet lemonade from the sour lemon of your act. Perhaps those four attorneys -- Simons, Schultz-Breda, Hoose, and Reddington -- will agree to act as a voluntary informal or unofficial fee arbitration board.

    To do that, I would expect that you send them a full and complete copy of the 11-page detailed accounting I sent you and an unaltered copy of my December 20th emailed response to you. 

    Those documents speak for themselves. Only one comment you made and I answered would I add to: You wrote, "And now you have charged us for double your time. Or for 32 hours. $1601.50." I answered, "All time and tasks are outlined in the bill."

    I would add that if you look closely at the bill you will see that I was trying to separate the tasks into those for which I was charging only $50 per hour -- an unheard-of low legal fee -- and those for which I was charging $200 an hour. In so doing, I grouped tasks other than just reading or reviewing your papers into the $50 category. I thought I was doing you a fantastic favor. You thought I was pulling a fast one. 

    In sum, I believe I gave you excellent advice at an extremely fair price . . . which makes me suggest that you send the four attorneys all the emailed correspondence between us.  In that way, they can reach a fair determination of whether my assessment of my work product is valid and the charges reasonable.  If you are missing any of the emails, let me know and I'll FAX them to the attorneys.

    In ending, I must add that I understand the extreme stress you are under at this time and appreciate that that may have fed into your professed upsetness with me and my accounting.

    Hoping that you saw Lisa on Christmas and that New Year's Eve proves to be further relaxing, I remain,

    Barbara C. Johnson

    cc: In alphabetical order:
          Attorney Hoose by FAX
          Attorney Reddington by FAX
          Attorney Schultz-Breda by FAX
          Attorney Simons by FAX


     
    4.  A Letter to the Bar in Response to the Complaint (19 April 2000)

    Barbara C. Johnson
    Attorney at Law
    6 Appletree Lane 
    Andover, MA 01810-4102
    978-474-0833          FAX upon request
    barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net

    19 April 2000
    Susan Strauss Weisberg
    Assistant Bar Counsel 
    Office of the Bar Counsel 
    75 Federal Street
    Boston, MA 02110
    Re: BBO File No. B2-00-0078 (Harry & Deborah Sano)
    Dear Attorney Weisberg:

    I am in receipt of your letter dated 7 April 2000 to me regarding Deborah and Harry Sano's letter to the Office of Bar Counsel.

    As to your request for two sets of a chronology and two copies of all documents, I believe that the following sets of documents should be responsive:

    1. Because of both the considerable written communications between Deb Sano and myself and the detailed accounting I provided the Sanos, perhaps the sanest way of my providing you the corresponding documentation is to interweave each letter (whether by email or snail-mail) between each task identified on the accounting. Given that the accounting was chronological in structure and that each letter was called out in the accounting, the interweaving should not leave any doubt both as to the chronology and as to which letter is being discussed. I have attached the "interwoven" document to this letter;

    2. As for the documents supplied me by the Sanos for review, I had them copied and enclose them herewith this letter. When I received the documents from Deb Sano, they were neither in chronological nor in categorical order; they were somewhat like a shuffled deck of cards;

    3. Significantly, the Sanos did not send to the OBC what I consider to be very important letters, to wit, the letters I sent to Deb in response to (a) her first complaint to me, (b) the second letter which she sent me and cc'd to several attorneys, and (c) her follow up email to me. Copies of her omitted letters and my answers to them are also included herewith this letter. Because saving the emails as ".text" files causes them to lose formatting, I have in a few instances tried to emulate the originals by changing the type sizes. I did this where Deb copied letters into the emails. 

    4. As to my Website: 

      (a) You wanted a hard copy of each page on my site as of the day the Sanos first saw it. Only they would know that date. Her daughter Kevan wrote in my guestbook in September. [See accounting.] I received an email from Deb Sano herself on 10/31/99. Your package to me included the one relevant page -- the pricing page -- which the Sanos had the good sense to print out, evidently on November 27th;

    (b) I have never had a hard copy of my webpages (equal to about 650 paper pages), for I never had the need to print more than a few of them out . . . given that almost all the files were prepared once and have remained static except for the addition of a line or two in the header and a word or line addition or two in the footer. The header and footer are identical on all webpages;

    (c) Because of the size of the website, it didn't lend itself to being saved to a floppy disk. I would have needed a dozen disks or more each time were I to have saved a whole set, so I came to consider the copy at the host provider as the second, or backup, copy. It would have been highly unlikely the host provider's computer and mine to crash on the same day.


    5. As to changes made to my webpages since the Sanos visited. See the attachment of the computer-generated log. As it shows, only a few files have changed from time to time; for example, including, but not limited to, the following:


    (a) index.html is the entry or "home" page. It changes as I add
    "news" or announcements or updates,
     
    (b) book.htm changes when I add new titles to the list of books I recommend for a fun read,

    (c) pricing.htm changed on 11/27/99 at four minutes after midnight (apparently roughly nine hours before the copy you have was printed out by the Sanos) and on 3/17/00, several months after the Sanos printed out the copy you have. 

    If I remember correctly, I thought I could review papers at $1 a page or $50 an hour. As papers came in, I saw that some pages had a few lines on them, others were scribbled, and still others were typed single-space, and almost no one sent them in any organized fashion. I decided I could not review them profitably at that price.

    People also were asking, I have X number of pages, how long will it take to review? It was almost impossible to answer the question. 

      So in March, I made a price and policy which tried to reflect the reality of offering a win-win low-priced service to people who wanted not only the review of their case-related documents but also immediate answers to scores of questions simultaneously with the review: $2 for reviewing and answering the inevitable questions and $3 for if I had to organize the papers as well.

    Those same people who did not organize papers were the very ones who either could not focus or didn't have a clue as to what the system was or how it operated . . . and, of course, had loads of questions. 

    The Sanos are a good example of those people.
     

    6. As for deposit slips: I don't keep them after I balance my bank statement. Were I to keep them, I would have three for this case. In any case, there is no dispute between the Sanos and me as to what monies I received and returned. Notwithstanding the absence of a dispute, I state, as shown on the accounting provided the Sanos, that I received (a) a $350 check dated 11/4/99, which I deposited on 11/15/99, (b) a $400 check dated 11/12/99, which I deposited on 11/24/99, and (c) from a relative of Deb Sano, a $10,000 check, which I deposi-ted on 11/22/99. The total I received was $10,750, of which I returned $3174.50 to Deb Sano. 

    7. As for canceled checks: I have one canceled check related to this matter: the $3174.50 check which reflects the money I returned to the Sanos, and the receipt of which the Sanos acknowledged in their letter to the OBC. The Sanos would have the other canceled checks. The amounts of money received and sent are also not disputed. The only issue appears to be whether the services I provided were worth what I charged.

    I think I've addressed -- both above and in the boldfaced annotations inserted about and below the attached documents -- all your questions. If I have inadvertently skipped any, please let me know and I will do my best to respond. 

    That which I haven't discussed is the nature of the caseS. Harry Sano, a retired school teacher of Japanese extraction, is facing four indictments for attacking his daughter Lisa in the shower and burning her with a cigarette, as well as raping her. 

    Lisa is a 29-year-old who has a mental age of a toddler. She was born a "normal" child but had a stroke at the age of 15 months and was never expected to be anything more than a vegetable. But with considerable devotion and care and home "schooling" by her parents and siblings, she walks and plays and is verbal to the extent that she responds monosyllabically. She has, however, no understanding of time and space. That is, she can not distinguish a memory from 10 years ago from one several weeks ago. She is also highly suggestible. Her severe limitations in communicating have precluded her from being a candidate for intelligence testing, although remarkably she was deposed in the Care & Protection case.

    As she grew into puberty and adulthood, her hormones were evidently as strong as those of any other lass her chronological age, but she was at a loss as to what they were and became sexually aggressive with males. 

    As her older sisters (Kevan, Amber, and Samantha "Sam") married and left the family home, Lisa managed to communicate that she wanted to emulate them and leave, too. Harry and Deborah were also getting older, and thought it would be a wise idea to put her in the care of the state -- the Department of Mental Retardation, etc. -- so she could learn independent living. Lisa was placed in one and then a second home, both selected by the state agency. This all began in the early '90s.

    What is strange is that Harry and Deb in lo the many years prior to Harry being indicted never made any effort to see Lisa's room in either of the homes -- although they do contend that they sent her furniture for her room and many clothes and products for personal hygiene.

    By the time one of the sisters (Kevan) and Deb Sano contacted me, the Sanos had already hired Attorney Richard Simons, the son of the retired Judge Simons. I was not informed of this initially.

    A deposition of Lisa had been taken by a worker in the presence of her guardian ad litem. There was no certified transcriber present and the record of that deposition is horrendous. Literally scribbles. They tried to interpret what Lisa's physical actions meant. The competence of the GAL, who is also a lawyer, was, to me, clearly questionable.

    I read all the documents and gleaned that Lisa was sexually aggressive toward the husband in the first home placement. He may have helped her shower. The wife then wanted Lisa out of that house. She was then placed in a second home, where her windowless room was in a basement. She was separated from a second bedroom in the basement by a shared bathroom. According to Deb Sano, a severely retarded male of pre-Viagra age lived in that second bedroom. Much later, one of the sisters informed me that it was a different retarded male who lived in that second bedroom. There was also a husband in the second house who helped Lisa with "living."

    Neither Simon nor Carlson nor anyone else seemed to be concerned about whether there were alternative explanations for Lisa's apparently undisputed change of personality. Everyone merely said, Oh, yes, something must have happened to her . . . and everyone except Harry, Deb, and their daughters pointed to Harry as the culprit, the perpetrator.

    An action for the Care and Protection of Lisa had been started in Probate and Family Court. Lisa's lawyer in that action was Deb's niece, Karen Breda Schultz, who herself is apparently a victim of domestic violence. Under that C&P caption, the Sanos - with the help of Karen -- could depose the state workers and all of Lisa's caretakers. 

    Those depositions would be extraordinarily helpful to Harry's criminal defense attorney. Simon hadn't a clue when I spoke to him of the value of having available a civil case in which to depose potential prosecution witnesses -- who are not deposable in a criminal action absent exceptional circumstances. Whether Simon understands now is unclear. The only hint that he might now know is in Deb's letter to the OBC, in which she spoke of Simon having spoken to people. Whether she meant depositions was also unclear. 

    Simons also refused to bring a McCarthy motion or a motion to dismiss two of the indictments. I discussed those in my emails to Deb, so there is no sense repeating the significance of those motions here. I think it was on the phone when she told me that Simon wanted to keep those two indictments in place so the jury could hear how incompetent the district attorney was. My opinion was and still is that Simon's strategy outrageously jeopardizes Harry's future liberty. 

    The proposed consultancy between myself and the Sanos ended when they learned about the two problems I had with Judges McHugh and Lopez, both of which the OBC is well aware. McHugh's opinion has been the "first case" in some MCLE book on depositions and I have evidently been brushed broadly with the title of being an uncivil lawyer. While I perceive myself as being zealous, aggressive, and sufficiently forthright to be perceived as blunt or brutally frank on occasion, I do not perceive myself as uncivil. I have lots of other frailties I would admit to if confronted with them, but incivility is not one of them. 

    Only one other repercussion resulted from the Lopez debacle: another opposing counsel went looking to find out why Lopez later recused herself sua sponte from one of my cases which had been assigned to her session. When finding Lopez' writing, he then filed it in that case. He got the desired impact, but then the appeals court reversed the negative impact and found in my client's favor.

    Other matters in which you might be interested are covered sufficiently, I believe, in the many emails accompanying this letter.

    One caution only: I hope you are familiar with emailing. Text which begins in the first space on a line is the new text and is largest in size. Text which begins with a ">" is the old text and is a bit smaller in size. Text which begins with "> >" is even older text and even smaller in size. And text which begins with "> > >" is even older older text and is the smallest in size. You can see this in the few emails which were printed out when they were still in my Message Center on the Net. Most of them, how-ever, I simply read online and saved, or wrote online and saved.

    When one is online reading the email, the different sizes of the text can sometimes be helpful, but that differentiation is lost when one SAVES the message on one's computer. The carats do, however, remain. 

    Further, on occasion, people do not take care that the ">" be retained in the old text to which they are responding. Deb Sano was one of those people. As a result, some of her emails are quite difficult to read because the ">" and the "> >" and the "> > >" get all mixed up and the it becomes quite confusing to differentiate who wrote which text. Not wanting to alter the emails in any way, I can wish you only good luck in reading them. The only change I made from time to time -- actually very rarely -- was to move one lone word back to the previous line so as to save having a page with only one line on it.

    In ending, I want to add one self-serving remark: I have been almost retired for quite some time. The information on my website is given free of charge, and I'm proud to say that I have received and saved hundreds of thank-you letters for trying to develop a clearinghouse of information for the thousands upon thousands of families adversely impacted by the law in the area of false allegations. 

    Sincerely,

    Barbara C. Johnson


     
     
    5. The Annotated Bill (19 April 2000)
    Click here to go to the annotated version

    It took the Bar one day exactly to discover that I uploaded Drano Series ## 80-84 on Thursday, 19 December 2002, and was about to upload #84a (the annotated version of the original bill) and #85.  The Bar considers the publication of all these documents on my website as a violation of my obligations under the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 1.6, and shall hold me accountable for same.

    I disagree with the Bar in this instance.  It operates secretly.  Its decisions to prosecute are secretly made.  I dislike Kangaroo Courts and I liken the Bar processes to those used in such courts.

    Once accused of something, the accused must be able to confront the accuser.  We call that due process.  Due process is non-existent in Bar Wars.  Equal protection is also non-existent in Bar Wars.  

    Bar Wars are fought according to rules promulgated by national and State bar associations, commissions, and committees.  The rules do not go far enough to help either a distressed consumer or a beleaguered counsel.  The rules are only as broad as necessary to allow the Bars to make decisions arbitrarily.  

    In Massachusetts, the Office of the Bar Counsel has often unjustifiably dismissed consumer claims, and has often used, and still does use, its power to harass decent lawyers and to forgive those committing egregious acts against the consuming public . . . or against their opponents.

    In reaction to this unconstitutional and result-oriented system, my pro-activism resulted in my developing this website.  Publishing documents filed in the court system and those in which I express my opinions allows the public to scrutinize controversies, a scrutiny which the Bar Rules do not allow.

    I shall consult other connsel -- and shall welcome all the legal help I can get -- as to whether I should publish the annotated version, which I absolutely believe shows the reasonableness of the fees I charged the Sano family.  Rule 1.5 of  the Mass. Rules of Professional Conduct sets out the factors to be considered in determining whether a fee is clearly excessive.  Rule 1.6 sets out when an attorney can disclose confidential information and when not.  

    It is Rule 1.6 which the Assistant Bar Counsel insists that I would be breaking were I to publish the Annotated Version of the Bill.  In that version, I inserted the several hundred pages worth of emails which went back and forth between the Sanos and myself.  The emails do, indeed, contain some confidential material, but it is my extensive analysis of that extremely complicated material which justifies my fees.

    I believe that I have a right to publish them under Rule 1.6(b)(1), which permits disclosure of confidential information to prevent fraudulent acts likely to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another.  

    The Assistant Bar Counsel with whom I am in contact maintains that I need the consent of the Sanos before publishing them.  That is the proverbial $64 question, Will they give it?  (It's ironic, the Sanos were being shanghaied by many in the "system."  I was trying to help them.)
     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    MASSACHUSETTS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
    RULE 1.5 FEES

    Please check an official form of these rules.  I may not have caught all the updates.


    (a) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly
    excessive fee. The factors to be considered in determining whether a fee is clearly excessive  include the following: 

      1.  the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and 
           the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; 

      2.  the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular 
           employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer; 

      3.  the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services; 

      4.  the amount involved and the results obtained; 

      5.  the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances; 
     
      6.  the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; 

      7.  the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the
           services; and 

      8.  whether the fee is fixed or contingent. 

    (b) When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall  be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.

    (c) A fee may be contingent on the outcome of the matter for which the service is rendered, except in a matter in which a contingent fee is prohibited by paragraph (d) or other law.   Except for contingent fee arrangements concerning the collection of commercial accounts and  of insurance company subrogation claims, a contingent fee agreement shall be in writing and  signed in duplicate by both the lawyer and the client within a reasonable time after the  making of the agreement. One such copy (and proof that the duplicate copy has been  delivered or mailed to the client) shall be retained by the lawyer for a period of seven years after the conclusion of the contingent fee matter. The writing shall state: 

      1. the name and address of each client; 

      2. the name and address of the lawyer or lawyers to be retained; 

      3. the nature of the claim, controversy, and other matters with reference to which the
          services are to be performed; 

      4. the contingency upon which compensation to be paid, and whether and to what extent
          the client is to be liable to pay compensation otherwise than from amounts collected 
          for him or her by the lawyer; 
     
      5. the method by which the fee is to be determined, including the percentage or
          percentages that shall accrue to the lawyer out of amounts collected; and 

      6. the method by which litigation and other expenses are to be deducted from the 
         recovery and whether such expenses are to be deducted before or after the contingent 
         fee is calculated. 

    Upon conclusion of a contingent fee matter for which a writing is required under this
    paragraph, the lawyer shall provide the client with a written statement stating the outcome of  the matter and, if there is a recovery, showing the remittance to the client and the method of  its determination.

     (d) A lawyer shall not enter into an arrangement for, charge, or collect: 

      1. any fee in a domestic relations matter, the payment or amount of which is contingent
          upon the securing of a divorce or upon the amount of alimony or support, or property
          settlement in lieu thereof; or 

      2. a contingent fee for representing a defendant in a criminal case. 

    (e) A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if,
    after informing the client that a division of fees will be made, the client consents to the joint
    participation and the total fee is reasonable. This limitation does not prohibit payment to a
    former partner or associate pursuant to a separation or retirement agreement.

    (f) The following form of contingent fee agreement may be used to satisfy the requirements of  paragraph (c). The authorization of this form shall not prevent the use of other forms  consistent with this rule.
                        

     Comment

    Basis or Rate of Fee

    [1] When the lawyer has regularly represented a client, they ordinarily will have evolved an understanding concerning the basis or rate of the fee. In a new client-lawyer relationship,
    however, an understanding as to the fee should be promptly established. It is not necessary to recite all the factors that underlie the basis of the fee, but only those that are directly  involved in its computation. It is sufficient, for example, to state that the basic rate is an hourly charge or a fixed amount or an estimated amount, or to identify the factors that may be taken into account in finally fixing the fee. When developments occur during the representation that render an earlier estimate substantially inaccurate, a revised estimate should be provided to the client. A written statement concerning the fee reduces the possibility of misunderstanding. Furnishing the client with a simple memorandum or a copy of the lawyer's customary fee schedule is sufficient if the basis or rate of the fee is set forth.

    [1A] Rule 1.5(a) departs from Model Rule 1.5(a) by retaining the standard of former
    DR2-106(A) that a fee must be illegal or clearly excessive to constitute a violation of this
    rule. However, it does not affect the substantive law that fees must be reasonable to be
    enforceable against the client.

    [1B] Rule 1.5(b) states, as the ABA Model Rule does, that the basis or rate of a fee shall be communicated "preferably in writing". Appropriate caution and ease of proof of compliance with Rule 1.5(b) indicate that the presentation of a fee arrangement to a client in writing is desirable.

    Terms of Payment

    [2] A lawyer may require advance payment of a fee, but is obliged to return any unearned
    portion. See Rule 1.16(d). A lawyer may accept property in payment for services, such as an ownership interest in an enterprise, providing this does not involve acquisition of a
    proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of the litigation contrary to Rule1.8(j). However, a fee paid in property instead of money may be subject to special scrutiny because it involves questions concerning both the value of the services and the lawyer's special knowledge of the value of the property.

    [3] An agreement may not be made whose terms might induce the lawyer improperly to curtail services for the client or perform them in a way contrary to the client's interest. For example, a lawyer should not enter into an agreement whereby services are to be provided only up to a stated amount when it is foreseeable that more extensive services probably will be required, unless the situation is adequately explained to the client. Otherwise, the client might have to bargain for further assistance in the midst of a proceeding or transaction. However, it is proper to define the extent of services in light of the client's ability to pay. A lawyer should not exploit a fee arrangement based primarily on hourly charges by using wasteful procedures. When there is doubt whether a contingent fee is consistent with the client's best interest, the lawyer should offer the client alternative bases for the fee and explain their implications. Applicable law may impose limitations on contingent fees, such as a ceiling on the percentage.

    Division of Fee

    [4]  A division of fee is a single billing to a client covering the fee of two or more lawyers who are not in the same firm. A division of fee facilitates association of more than one lawyer in a matter in which neither alone could serve the client as well, and most often is used when the fee is contingent and the division is between a referring lawyer and a trial specialist.  Paragraph (e) permits the lawyers to divide a fee after disclosure of the fact of division to, and consent by, the client. It does not require disclosure to the client of the share that each lawyer is to receive. Moreover, as under the former rule, the total fee must be reasonable to be enforced.

    [4A] Paragraph (e), unlike ABA Model Rule 1.5(e), does not require that the division of
    fees be in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer unless, with a client's written consent, each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation. Paragraph (e) is substantively the same as former DR 2-107, which was adopted by the Justices in 1972 without subparagraph (A)(2) of DR 2-107 of the ABA Code (prescribing the basis for fee division). The Massachusetts rule does not require disclosure of the fee division that the lawyers have agreed to, but if the client requests information on the division of fees, the lawyer is required to disclose the share of each lawyer.

    Disputes over Fees

    [5]  In the event of a fee dispute, the lawyer should conscientiously consider submitting to
    mediation or an established fee arbitration service. Law may prescribe a procedure for
    determining a lawyer's fee, for example, in representation of an executor or administrator, a class or a person entitled to a reasonable fee as part of the measure of damages. The lawyer entitled to such a fee and a lawyer representing another party concerned with the fee should comply with the prescribed procedure.

    [6]  Former Rule 3.05(6), with its limitations period for challenging contingent fee agreements, was eliminated as inappropriate for a disciplinary rule.

    Form of Fee Agreement

    [7]  Rule 1.5(f) provides a form of contingent fee agreement that may be used, as did S.J.C. Rule 3.05, which was repealed on the adoption of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct. The new form largely follows the language of the form that appeared in S.J.C. Rule 3.05. Inclusion of the reference to court costs and expenses of litigation in clause (3) reflects the permission granted in Rule 1.8(e)(1) to make repayment of such costs and expenses contingent on the outcome of the matter. Deletion of the reference to "reasonable compensation" that appeared in clause (4) of the former form makes no substantive change. The contingent fee must be reasonable to be enforced against the client and may not be clearly excessive in order to avoid violating Rule 1.5(a). See Comment 1A.

    [8] When attorney's fees are awarded by a court or included in a settlement, a question arises as to the proper method of calculating a contingent fee.  Rule 1.5(c)(5) and paragraph (4) of the form agreement contained in Rule 1.5(f) state the default rule, but the parties may agree on a different basis for such calculation, such as applying the percentage to the total recovery, including attorney's fees.

    Corresponding ABA Model Rule. Identical to Model Rule 1.5(b), and (d); (a) first two
     sentences based on DR 2-106; (c) different but in many respects similar to Model Rule 1.5 (e); (e) different; (f) is an expanded version of S.J.C. Rule 3:05 (7).

    Corresponding Former Massachusetts Rule. Current S.J.C. Rule 3:05, DR 2-106, 2-107.


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    MASSACHUSETTS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
    RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

    Please check an official form of these rules.  I may not have caught all the updates.


    (a) A lawyer shall not reveal confidential information relating to representation of a client
    unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly
    authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b).

    (b) A lawyer may reveal, and to the extent required by Rule 3.3, Rule 4.1(b), or Rule 8.3 [the snitch rule]  must reveal, such information: 

      1. to prevent the commission of a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably
          believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm, or in substantial injury to
          the financial interests or property of another, or to prevent the wrongful execution or
          incarceration of another; 

      2. to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a claim or defense
          on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish
          a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in
          which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding
          concerning the lawyer's representation of the client; 
     
      3. to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to rectify client fraud in which
          the lawyer's services have been used, subject to Rule 3.3 (e); 

      4. when permitted under these rules or required by law or court order. 

    (c) A lawyer participating in a lawyer assistance program, as hereinafter defined, shall treat
    the person so assisted as a client for the purposes of this rule. Lawyer assistance means
    assistance provided to a lawyer, judge, other legal professional, or law student by a lawyer
    participating in an organized nonprofit effort to provide assistance in the form of (a)
    counseling as to practice matters (which shall not include counseling a law student in a law
    school clinical program) or (b) education as to personal health matters, such as the treatment
    and rehabilitation from a mental, emotional, or psychological disorder, alcoholism,
    substance abuse, or other addiction, or both. A lawyer named in an order of the Supreme
    Judicial Court or the Board of Bar Overseers concerning the monitoring or terms of
    probation of another attorney shall treat that other attorney as a client for the purposes of this
    rule. Any lawyer participating in a lawyer assistance program may require a person acting
    under the lawyer's supervision or control to sign a nondisclosure form approved by the
    Supreme Judicial Court. Nothing in this paragraph (c) shall require a bar
    association-sponsored ethics advisory committee, the Office of Bar Counsel, or any other
    governmental agency advising on questions of professional responsibility to treat persons so
    assisted as clients for the purpose of this rule.

     Comment

    [1] The lawyer is part of a judicial system charged with upholding the law. One of the lawyer's
    functions is to advise clients so that they avoid any violation of the law in the proper
    exercise of their rights.

    [2] The observance of the ethical obligation of a lawyer to hold inviolate confidential
    information of the client not only facilitates the full development of facts essential to proper
    representation of the client but also encourages people to seek early legal assistance.

    [3] Almost without exception, clients come to lawyers in order to determine what their rights are and what is, in the maze of laws and regulations, deemed to be legal and correct. The
    common law recognizes that the client's confidences must be protected from disclosure. 

    [4] A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that the lawyer maintain
    confidentiality of information relating to the representation. The client is thereby encouraged
    to communicate fully and frankly with the lawyer even as to embarrassing or legally
    damaging subject matter.

    [5] The principle of confidentiality is given effect in two related bodies of law, the
    attorney-client privilege (and the related work product doctrine) in the law of evidence and
    the rule of confidentiality established in professional ethics. The attorney-client privilege
    applies in judicial and other proceedings in which a lawyer may be called as a witness or
    otherwise required to produce evidence concerning a client. The rule of client-lawyer
    confidentiality applies in situations other than those where evidence is sought from the
    lawyer through compulsion of law. The confidentiality rule applies not merely to matters
    communicated in confidence by the client but also to virtually all information relating to the
    representation, whatever its source. The term "confidential information" relating to
    representation of a client therefore includes information described as "confidences" and
    "secrets" in former DR 4-101(A) but without the limitation in the prior rules that the
    information be "embarrassing" or "detrimental" to the client. Former DR 4-101(A) provided:
    "`Confidence' refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege under
    applicable law, and `secret' refers to other information gained in the professional
    relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would
    be embarrassing or would likely [] be detrimental to the client." See also Scope.

    [5A] The word "virtually" appears in the fourth sentence of paragraph 5 above to reflect the
    common sense understanding that not every piece of information that a lawyer obtains
    relating to a representation is protected confidential information. While this understanding
    may be difficult to apply in some cases, some information is so widely available or
    generally known that it need not be treated as confidential. The lawyer's discovery that there
    was dense fog at the airport at a particular time does not fall within the rule. Such
    information is readily available. While a client's disclosure of the fact of infidelity to a
    spouse is protected information, it normally would not be after the client publicly discloses
    such information on television and in newspaper interviews. On the other hand, the mere fact
    that information disclosed by a client to a lawyer is a matter of public record does not mean
    that it may not fall within the protection of this rule. A client's disclosure of conviction of a
    crime in a different state a long time ago or disclosure of a secret marriage would be
    protected even if a matter of public record because such information was not generally
    known. 

    [5B] The exclusion of generally known or widely available information from the
    information protected by this rule explains the addition of the word "confidential" before the
    word "information" in Rule 1.6(a) as compared to the comparable ABA Model Rule. It also
    explains the elimination of the words "or is generally known" in Rule 1.9(c)(1) as compared
    to the comparable ABA Model Rule. The elimination of such information from the concept
    of protected information in that subparagraph has been achieved more generally throughout
    the rules by the addition of the word "confidential" in this rule. It might be misleading to
    repeat the concept in just one specific subparagraph. Moreover, even information that is
    generally known may in some circumstances be protected, as when the client instructs the
    lawyer that generally known information, for example, spousal infidelity, not be revealed to
    a specific person, for example, the spouse's parent who does not know of it. 

    [6] The requirement of maintaining confidentiality of information relating to representation applies to government lawyers who may disagree with the policy goals that their representation is designed to advance. 

    Authorized Disclosure

    [7] A lawyer is authorized to make disclosures about a client when appropriate in carrying out
    the representation, except to the extent that the client's instructions or special circumstances
    limit that authority. In litigation, for example, a lawyer may disclose information by
    admitting a fact that cannot properly be disputed, or in negotiation by making a disclosure
    that facilitates a satisfactory conclusion. Rule 1.6(b)(4) has been added to make clear the
    purpose to carry forward the explicit statement of former DR 4-101(C)(2).

    [8] Lawyers in a firm may, in the course of the firm's practice, disclose to each other information  relating to a client of the firm, unless the client has instructed that particular information be confined to specified lawyers. Before accepting or continuing representation on such a basis, the lawyers to whom such restricted information will be communicated must assure themselves that the restriction will not contravene firm governance rules or prevent them from discovering disqualifying conflicts of interests.

    Disclosure Adverse to Client

    [9] One premise of the confidentiality rule is that to the extent a lawyer is required or permitted to disclose a client's confidential information, the client will be inhibited from revealing facts that would enable the lawyer to counsel against a wrongful course of action. The implication of that premise is that generally the public will be better protected if full and
    open communication by the client is encouraged than if it is inhibited. Nevertheless, there are instances when the confidentiality rule is subject to exceptions. 

    [9A] Rule 1.6(b)(1) is derived from the original Kutak Commission proposal for the ABA Model Rules which permitted disclosure of confidential information to prevent criminal or fraudulent acts likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm or in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another. The former Massachusetts Disciplinary Rules permitted revelation of confidential information with respect to all crimes and all injuries, no matter how trivial.  The use of the term "substantial" harm or injury restricts permitted revelation by limiting the permission granted to instances when the harm or injury is likely to be more than trivial or small. The reference to bodily harm is not meant to require physical injury as a prerequisite.  Acts of statutory rape, for example, fall within the concept of bodily harm. Rule 1.6(b)(1)  also permits a lawyer to reveal confidential information in the specific situation where such information discloses that an innocent person has been convicted of a crime and has been sentenced to imprisonment or execution. This language has been included to permit disclosure of confidential information in these circumstances where the failure to disclose may not involve the commission of a crime.

    [10] Several situations must be distinguished.

    [11] First, the lawyer may not counsel or assist a client in conduct that is criminal or fraudulent. See Rule 1.2(d). Similarly, a lawyer has a duty under Rule 3.3(a)(4) not to use false evidence. This duty is essentially a special instance of the duty prescribed in Rule 1.2(d) to avoid assisting a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct. 

    [12] Second, the lawyer may have been innocently involved in past conduct by the client that was criminal or fraudulent. In such a situation the lawyer has not violated Rule 1.2(d), because to "counsel or assist" criminal or fraudulent conduct requires knowing that the conduct is of that character. See Rule 4.1,  Comment 3. With regard to conduct before a tribunal, however, see the special meaning of the concept of assisting in Rule 3.3, Comment 2A. 

    [12A] When the lawyer's services have  been used by the client to perpetrate a fraud, that is a perversion of the lawyer-client  relationship and Rule 1.6(b)(3) permits the lawyer to reveal confidential information  necessary to rectify the fraud. 

    [13] Third, the lawyer may have confidential information whose  disclosure the lawyer reasonably believes is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime that is likely to result in death or substantial bodily or financial harm. As stated in paragraph (b)(1), the lawyer has professional discretion to reveal such information. Before disclosure is made, the lawyer should have a reasonable belief that a crime is likely to be committed and that disclosure of confidential information is necessary to prevent it. The lawyer should not ignore facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that disclosure is permissible.

    [13A] The language of paragraph (b)(1) has been changed from the ABA Model Rules
    version to permit disclosure of a client's confidential information when the harm will be the
    result of the activities of third parties as well as of the client.

    [14] The lawyer's exercise of discretion requires consideration of such factors as the nature of the lawyer's relationship with the client and with those who might be injured by the client, the lawyer's own involvement in the transaction, and factors that may extenuate the conduct in
    question. Where practical, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client to take suitable
    action. In any case, a disclosure adverse to the client's interest should be no greater than the
    lawyer reasonably believes necessary to the purpose. A lawyer's decision not to take
    preventive action permitted by paragraph (b)(1) does not violate this rule, but in particular
    circumstances, it might violate Rule 3.3(e) or Rule 4.1.

    Withdrawal

    [15] If the lawyer's services will be used by the client in materially furthering a course of
    criminal or fraudulent conduct, the lawyer must withdraw, as stated in Rule 1.16(a)(1). If the
    client has already used the lawyer's services to commit fraud, the lawyer may reveal
    confidential information to rectify the fraud in accordance with Rule 1.6(b)(3).

    [16] After withdrawal the lawyer is required to refrain from making disclosure of the client's
    confidences, except as otherwise provided in Rule 1.6, Rule 3.3 and Rule 4.1. Neither this
    rule nor Rule 1.8(b) nor Rule 1.16(d) prevents the lawyer from giving notice of the fact of
     withdrawal, and the lawyer may also withdraw or disaffirm any opinion, document,
     affirmation, or the like.

    [17] Where the client is an organization, the lawyer may be in doubt whether contemplated
     conduct will actually be carried out by the organization. Where necessary to guide conduct in
     connection with this rule, the lawyer may make inquiry within the organization as indicated
     in Rule 1.13(b).

    Dispute Concerning a Lawyer's Conduct

    [18] Where a legal claim or disciplinary charge alleges complicity of the lawyer in a client's
     conduct or other misconduct of the lawyer involving representation of the client, the lawyer
     may respond to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to establish a defense.
     The same is true with respect to a claim involving the conduct or representation of a former
     client. The lawyer's right to respond arises when an assertion of such complicity has been
     made. Paragraph (b)(2) does not require the lawyer to await the commencement of an action
     or proceeding that charges such complicity, so that the defense may be established by
     responding directly to a third party who has made such an assertion. The right to defend, of
     course, applies where a proceeding has been commenced. Where practicable and not
     prejudicial to the lawyer's ability to establish the defense, the lawyer should advise the
     client of the third party's assertion and request that the client respond appropriately. In any
     event, disclosure should be no greater than the lawyer reasonably believes is necessary to
     vindicate innocence, the disclosure should be made in a manner which limits access to the
     information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to know it, and appropriate
     protective orders or other arrangements should be sought by the lawyer to the fullest extent
     practicable.

    19] If the lawyer is charged with wrongdoing in which the client's conduct is implicated, the rule of confidentiality should not prevent the lawyer from defending against the charge. Such a
    charge can arise in a civil, criminal, or professional disciplinary proceeding, and can be
    based on a wrong allegedly committed by the lawyer against the client, or on a wrong
    alleged by a third person, for example, a person claiming to have been defrauded by the
    lawyer and client acting together. A lawyer entitled to a fee is permitted by paragraph (b)(2)
    to prove the services rendered in an action to collect it. This aspect of the rule expresses the
    principle that the beneficiary of a fiduciary relationship may not exploit it to the detriment of
    the fiduciary. As stated above, the lawyer must make every effort practicable to avoid
    unnecessary disclosure of information relating to a representation, to limit disclosure to
    those having the need to know it, and to obtain protective orders or make other arrangements minimizing the risk of disclosure.

    Notice of Disclosure to Client.

    [19A] Whenever the rules permit or require the lawyer to disclose a client's confidential
    information, the issue arises whether the lawyer should, as a part of the confidentiality and
    loyalty obligation and as a matter of competent practice, advise the client beforehand of the
    plan to disclose. It is not possible to state an absolute rule to govern a lawyer's conduct in
    such situations. In some cases, it may be impractical or even dangerous for the lawyer to
    advise the client of the intent to reveal confidential information either before or even after
    the fact. Indeed, such revelation might thwart the reason for creation of the exception. It
    might hasten the commission of a dangerous act by a client or it might enable clients to
    prevent lawyers from defending themselves against accusations of lawyer misconduct. But
    there will be instances, such as the intended delivery of whole files to prosecutors to
    convince them not to indict the lawyer, where the failure to give notice would prevent the
    client from making timely objection to the revelation of too much confidential information.
    Lawyers will have to weigh the various policies and make reasonable judgments about the
    demands of loyalty, the requirements of competent practice, and the policy reasons for
    creating the exception to confidentiality in order to decide whether they should give advance
    notice to clients of the intended disclosure.

    Disclosures Otherwise Required or Authorized

    [20] If a lawyer is called as a witness to give testimony concerning a client, absent waiver by the client, paragraph (a) requires the lawyer to invoke the privilege when it is applicable. The
    lawyer must comply with the final orders of a court or other tribunal of competent
    jurisdiction requiring the lawyer to give information about the client. Whether a lawyer
    should consider an appeal before complying with a court order depends on such
    considerations as the gravity of the harm to the client from compliance and the likelihood of
    prevailing on appeal.

    [21]  These rules in various circumstances permit or require a lawyer to disclose information
    relating to the representation. See Rules 2.3, 3.3 and 4.1. The reference to Rules 3.3 and
    4.1(b) in the opening phrase of Rule 1.6(b) has been added to emphasize that Rule 1.6(b) is
    not the only provision of these rules that deals with the disclosure of confidential information
    and that in some circumstances disclosure of such information may be required and not
    merely permitted. In addition to these provisions, a lawyer may be obligated or permitted by
    other provisions of law to give information about a client. Whether another provision of law
    supersedes Rule 1.6 is a matter of interpretation beyond the scope of these rules.

    Former Client

    [22] The duty of confidentiality continues after the client-lawyer relationship has terminated.

    Corresponding ABA Model Rule. (a) identical to Model Rule 1.6(a) except that the
    information must be confidential information; (b) different, in part taken from DR 4-101 (C);
    (c) based on DR 4-101 (E).

    Corresponding Former Massachusetts Rule DR 4-101 (C), see also DR 7-102 (B).

    Cross-reference: See definition of "consultation" in Rule 9.1 (c).
     


     
    6. A Letter to the Bar (8 May 2000)

    Barbara C. Johnson
    Attorney at Law
    6 Appletree Lane 
    Andover, MA 01810-4102
    978-474-0833         FAX upon request
    barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net

    8 May 2000

    Susan Strauss Weisberg
    Assistant Bar Counsel 
    Office of the Bar Counsel 
    75 Federal Street
    Boston, MA 02110

    Re: BBO File No. B2-00-0078 (Harry & Deborah Sano)
    Dear Attorney Weisberg:

    I am in receipt of your letter dated 6 May 2002 to me regarding Deborah and Harry Sano's complaint to the Office of Bar Counsel.

    Item 1: 32.03 hours versus 25.17 hours at $50 hour. Given that my computer does the adding rather than I, and all I do is "select" the column the machine is to add, I have no explanation for the discrepancy of $343.00. It would seem to have had to be a human error, but I have no clue as to what the human error could have been. I do not have the time to check the bill today, so I am taking your word that there is a discrepancy. Of course, if there has been an inadvertent overcharge of $343, I shall, indeed, send the Sanos -- or to you to forward to them -- a check in that amount if you so determine that that is what I should do when this is over. 

    Item 2: Depositing into my account versus client escrow account. Because of the time which has passed since 1999, I can now only guess that by the time I deposited the money into my account, I had believed I had already earned it.

    Item A: Written description of standards and practices. I have no such written description. My e-commerce site automatically deposits money into an e-commerce account. Clients -- i.e., people with whom there is a fee agreement -- do not use that e-commerce site, because a fee agreement has to be signed first. I think that is clear on the pricing page. Whether someone signed an agreement and then used the buttons on my site is doubtful. No one such person comes to mind.

    As an aside, I take very, very few cases and the majority of the very few I have taken in recent years, I have taken pro bono because of the principle involved. Most cases I refer out to other attorneys. My case analyses seem to be of interest to other attorneys, who also seem to like my strategies. Moreover, because my research is thorough, those attorneys and others rely on me to research issues which arise during their motion practice. Other attorneys call me from all over the country on a consulting basis. Usually they are adapting their own pleadings from those I have uploaded to my website. So I am, primarily, an attorney's attorney, an unusual niche I've carved out for myself.

    Item B: IOLTA accounts. I do not have multiple IOLTA accounts. I have just the one I report to the Bar every year when I renew my license. You already have that information.

    Item C: Case caption of case referenced on 11/29/99 charge.  I looked on my calendar for 1999. It appears that I put white tape over the previous entry for December 9th and wrote Sano on top of the tape. I considered looking at other timeslips, but then I realized that I would not have charged the client whose date I changed, since that client would have done nothing to cause the continuance. Therefore there would be no timeslip for another client which would reflect the continuance. Further, given that I have already supplied you the only timeslips and paper I had for the Sanos and the information is not on that paperwork, and that I have no independent memory of what I did on November 29th three-and-a-half years ago, the information you seek is lost and gone forever. 

    Item D: Timeslips and backup records for Sano. See above. You should already have all of them.

    Sincerely,

    Barbara C. Johnson


     
    7.  A Letter to the Bar (11 September 2001)

    Barbara C. Johnson
    Attorney at Law
    6 Appletree Lane 
    Andover, MA 01810-4102
    978-474-0833         FAX upon request
    barbaracjohnson@worldnet.att.net


    11 September 2001 

    Susan Strauss Weisberg
    Assistant Bar Counsel 
    Office of the Bar Counsel 
    75 Federal Street
    Boston, MA 02110

    Re: BBO File No. B2-00-0078 (Harry & Deborah Sano)
    Dear Attorney Weisberg:

    I am in receipt of your letter dated 3 August 2001 to me regarding Deborah and Harry Sano's letter to the Office of Bar Counsel.

    Your first paragraph is somewhat provocative. There was no separate accounting for the Sano case. I am a sole-proprietor. I do not have a bookkeeper. I do not keep a ledger. You have whatever information I have. As I wrote in April 2000, except for the boldface, which I add now:

    ...there is no dispute between the Sanos and me as to what monies I received and returned. Notwithstanding the absence of a dispute, I state, as shown on the accounting provided the Sanos, that I received (a) a $350 check dated 11/4/99, which I deposited on 11/15/99, (b) a $400 check dated 11/12/99, which I deposited on 11/24/99, and (c) from a relative of Deb Sano, a $10,000 check, which I deposited on 11/22/99. The total I received was $10,750, of which I returned $3174.50 to Deb Sano.  I held the Sano's first check about 9 or 10 days before I deposited it. As of 11/15/99, when I did deposit the Sano's $350 check into my personal account, I had been working on their case over two weeks and had certainly earned the $350, and was therefore entitled to deposit it into my personal account.

    I held the Sano's second check almost 12 days before I deposited it. As of 11/24/99, when I did deposit the Sano's $400 check into my personal account, I had been working on their case almost four weeks and had certainly earned the $400, and was therefore entitled to deposit it into my personal account.

    I held the Sano's third check, dated 11/16/99, about 5 days before I deposited it. As of 11/22/99, when I did deposit the $10,000 check from June Edwards, the Sano's relative, into my personal account, I had been working on their case almost four weeks. I had done considerable work on it and I had earned all of it. I was therefore entitled to deposit it into my personal account. 

    Feeling generous, however, when I did the accounting for them, I -- if you will please note -- did not charge for the reading and replying to many of Deb Sano's and her daughters' emails. As a result of my deep-discounting, the total came to a few thousand dollars less than the $10,000. When I saw that after I did the full accounting, I did, indeed, make out a check from my personal account and mail it forthwith to Deb Sano on 12 December 1999. The check is dated 11 December 1999. The reason that the check is dated a day earlier than the date on the accounting is that after I completed the accounting, I went back and inserted all the headings for each of the emails. In that way, the Sanos could see at a glance exactly what I did and when and why.

    I find it both intrusive and personally offensive that you want to see the front and back of the $3174.50 check which reflects the money I returned to the Sanos. Given that the receipt of that check is acknowledged by the Sanos in their letter to the OBC, I can only conclude that you are on some sort of fishing expedition in a fishless pond: I have no other canceled checks having to do with the Sanos. 

    It is clear that the only issue appears to be whether the services I provided were worth what I charged. My personal bank statements have nothing to do with the Sanos or the Bar. If you feel otherwise, please write and tell me the basis of your position and the legal authorities supporting that position.

    If the real problem the Bar has with me is my website, which you went on about in your 7 April 2000 letter to me, then please say so. If the real problem with my website is my politically incorrect position, then please say that, too. 

    If those are, indeed, the real concerns of the Bar, then let's make those concerns public.

    Sincerely,

    Barbara C. Johnson