No. BD-2016-059
Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Botsford on January 20, 2017. 1
SUMMARY2
On January 20, 2017, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County entered an order suspending the respondent, Chantelle T. Hasham, for nine months, effective immediately, with a requirement to petition for reinstatement pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18(4), for neglect, failure to communicate with her client, submitting fabricated evidence to bar counsel, making intentionally false statements to bar counsel in the course of an investigation, failure to cooperate with bar counsel’s investigation, and failure to comply with the resulting administrative suspension.
The respondent was admitted to the bar of Massachusetts on November 15, 2011. On April 16, 2013, the respondent was retained to represent a client in a personal injury claim arising from a car accident he was involved in on April 3, 2013. The other driver was found by her own insurance company to be 100% at fault for the accident. By letter dated April 16, 2013, the respondent notified both her client’s and the adverse driver’s insurance companies of her representation and requested written disclosure of the adverse driver’s policy limits. After the respondent sent these letters to the insurance companies, she failed to performed any other work of substance on her client’s case.
Between August 2013 and September 2014, the adverse driver’s insurance company sent the respondent letters requesting her client’s medical and wage records to evaluate the claim. The respondent failed to reply to any of the letters and did not forward any of the requested information.
From August 27, 2013, through September 2014, the client called the respondent on numerous occasions to obtain information about his case. The respondent failed to respond to his inquiries. By letter sent by certified mail dated September 10, 2014, the client requested an update of his personal injury case. The client also advised the respondent that he was being held in the Plymouth County Correctional Facility and provided his address. The respondent received her client’s letter on September 25, 2014, but failed at any time to respond.
On October 14, 2014, bar counsel received a complaint from the client alleging that the respondent had been unresponsive to his requests for information about his case. On October 15, 2014, an assistant bar counsel contacted the respondent to inquire about her communication with the client. The respondent informed the assistant bar counsel that she had recently written her client a letter that contained a status update of his case. The respondent knew that she had not sent such a letter and that this statement was false, deceptive and misleading.
On November 25, 2014, the insurance company closed the client’s personal injury claim without payment due to inactivity.
On December 19, 2014, bar counsel received the respondent’s written answer to her client’s complaint. The respondent included in her answer a letter purportedly sent by her on September 18, 2014, to her client at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility. In fact, the respondent knew that she had not sent this letter to Santos. The respondent presented the letter to bar counsel to bolster the misrepresentation she made on October 15, 2014, that she had sent a letter to the complainant.
On November 17, 2015, the respondent answered questions under oath at the Office of Bar Counsel. At that time, the respondent submitted to bar counsel two letters, dated August 26, 2015, and November 2, 2015, which she stated she had sent to the insurance company on behalf of her client. In fact, the respondent had not sent either letter to the insurance company.
By email dated February 5, 2016, the respondent represented to bar counsel that Santos’s personal injury claim was “in the stage of request for settlement from the insurer. The insurer has approximately 20 days left to make an offer of settlement.” The respondent, in fact, had not been in contact with the insurer and knew that this statement was false, misleading and deceptive.
On April 3, 2016, the statute of limitations expired on the client’s personal injury claims. The respondent failed prior to that date to file an action with the court or negotiate a settlement with the insurance company. The respondent’s failure to provide the services for which she was retained violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2 (a) and 1.3.
The respondent’s failure to maintain reasonable communication with her client and her failure to sufficiently explain the status of her work regarding the representation violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.4(a) and (b). The respondent’s conduct in making intentionally false statements to bar counsel in the course of bar counsel’s investigation violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.1(a) and 8.4(c), (d) and (h). The respondent’s conduct in knowingly submitting fabricated letters to bar counsel during the course of bar counsel’s investigation violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.4 (b), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) and 8.4(h).
By April 2016, the respondent stopped cooperating in bar counsel’s investigation. By failing without good cause to comply with bar counsel’s requests for information, the respondent violated S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 3, and Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4(d), 8.4(g), and 8.4(h). On May 12, 2016, the respondent was administratively suspended for non-cooperation by order of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 3(2). Thereafter, the respondent intentionally failed without good cause to comply with the order of administrative suspension, in violation of S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 17, and Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.4(c), 8.4(d) and (h).
On July 22, 2016, bar counsel filed a petition for discipline against the respondent alleging the misconduct described above. The respondent failed to file an answer to the petition for discipline and was defaulted. On November 14, 2016, the Board of Bar Overseers voted to suspend the respondent from the practice of law for nine months. On December 23, 2016, the respondent was served with notice directing her to appear before a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court on January 11, 2017. On January 11, 2017, the respondent failed to appear and the single justice (Botsford, J.) issued an order suspending the respondent for nine months with reinstatement to the practice of law contingent upon petition pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18(4).
1 The complete order of the Court is available by contacting the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County.
2 Compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the record filed with the Supreme Judicial Court.
SUMMARY2
On January 20, 2017, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County entered an order suspending the respondent, Chantelle T. Hasham,for nine months, effective immediately, with a requirement to petition for reinstatement pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18(4), for neglect,
failureto communicate with her client, submitting fabricated evidence to bar counsel, making intentionally false statements to bar counsel in the course of an investigation, failure to cooperate with bar counsel’s investigation, and failure to comply with the resulting administrative suspension.
The respondent was admitted to the bar of Massachusetts on November 15, 2011. On April 16, 2013, the respondent wasretained to represent a client in a personal injury claim arising from a car accident he was involved in on April 3, 2013. The other driver was found by her own insurance company to be 100% at fault for the accident.By letter dated April 16, 2013, the respondent notified both her client’s and the adverse driver’s insurance companies of her representation and requested written disclosure of the adversedriver’s policy limits. After the respondent sent these letters to the insurance companies, she failed to performed any other work of substance on her client’s case.
Between August 2013 and September 2014, the adverse driver’s insurance company sent the respondent letters requesting her client’s medical and wage records toevaluate theclaim.
The respondent failed to replyto any of the letters and did not forward any of the requested information.
FromAugust 27, 2013, through September 2014, the client calledthe respondent on numerous occasionstoobtaininformation about his case. The respondent failed to respond to his inquiries. By letter sent by certified mail dated September 10, 2014, the client requested an
update of his personal injury case. The client also advised the respondent that he was being held in the Plymouth County Correctional Facility and provided his address. The respondent received her client’s letter on September 25, 2014, but failed at any time to respond.
1Thecompleteorder of theCourt isavailableby contacting theClerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk
County.
2CompiledbytheBoard ofBar Overseers based ontherecord filed with the Supreme Judicial Court.
On October 14, 2014, bar counsel received a complaint fromtheclient alleging that the respondent had been unresponsiveto his requests for information about his case. On October 15,
2014, an assistant bar counsel contacted the respondent to inquire about her communication with the client. The respondent informed the assistant bar counselthat she hadrecently written her client a letter that contained a status update of his case. The respondent knew that she had not sent such a letter and that thisstatement was false, deceptive and misleading.
On November 25, 2014, the insurance company closed the client’spersonal injury claim without payment due to inactivity.
On December 19, 2014, bar counsel received the respondent’s written answer to her client’s complaint. The respondent included in her answer a letter purportedly sent by her on September 18, 2014, to her client at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility. In fact, the respondent knew that she had not sent this letter to Santos. The respondent presented the letter to bar counsel to bolster the misrepresentation she made on October 15, 2014, that she had sent a letter to the complainant.
On November 17, 2015, the respondentanswered questions under oath at the Office of
Bar Counsel. At that time, the respondent submitted to bar counsel two letters, dated August 26,
2015, and November 2, 2015, which she stated she had sent to the insurance company on behalf of her client. In fact, the respondent had not sent either letter to the insurance company.
By email dated February 5, 2016, the respondent represented tobar counsel that Santos’s personal injury claimwas “in the stage of request for settlement from the insurer. The insurer has approximately 20 days left to make an offer of settlement.” The respondent, in fact, had not been in contact with the insurer and knewthat this statement was false, misleading and deceptive.
On April 3, 2016, the statute of limitations expired on the client’s personal injury claims. The respondent failed prior to that date to file an action withthe court or negotiate a settlement with the insurance company.
The respondent’s failure to provide the services for which shewas retained violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2 (a) and 1.3. The respondent’s failure to maintain reasonable communication with her client and her failure to sufficiently explain the status of her work regarding the representation violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.4(a) and (b). The respondent’s conduct in making intentionally false statements to bar counsel in thecourse of bar counsel’s investigation violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.1(a) and 8.4(c), (d)and (h). The respondent’s conduct in knowingly submitting fabricated letters to barcounsel during the course of bar counsel’s investigation violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.4 (b), 8.1(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d) and 8.4(h).
By April 2016, the respondent stopped cooperating in bar counsel’s investigation. By failing without good cause to comply with bar counsel’s requests for information, the respondent violated S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 3, and Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4(d), 8.4(g), and 8.4(h). On May 12,
2016, the respondent was administratively suspended for non-cooperation by order of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 3(2). Thereafter, the respondent intentionally failed without good cause to comply with the order of administrative suspension, in violation of S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 17, and Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.4(c), 8.4(d) and (h).
On July 22, 2016, bar counsel filed apetition for discipline against the respondent alleging the misconduct described above. The respondent failedto file an answer to the petition for discipline and was defaulted. On November 14, 2016, the Board of Bar Overseers voted to suspend the respondent fromthe practice of law for nine months. On December 23, 2016, the respondent was served with notice directing her to appear before a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court on January 11, 2017. On January 11, 2017, the respondent failed to appear and the single justice (Botsford, J.) issued an order suspending the respondent for nine months with reinstatement to the practiceof law contingent upon petition pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, §
18(4).
From: |
|
To: |
|
|
Link to In the Matter of Chantelle Hashem will be added to email before message text. |
|