In the Matter of Jamie Mauritz James

The respondent received a public reprimand for failing to adequately supervise her nonlawyer employee with respect to the signing and filing of court pleadings and other records, including three client affidavits on which the respondent’s paralegal signed the clients’ names and filed them in court.

SUMMARY

At all times relevant to the petition for discipline, the respondent was the sole partner at her firm. The respondent was responsible for making reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that her employees’ conduct was compatible with the respondent’s professional obligations.

Rule 11(a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 11(a) of the Massachusetts Domestic Relations Procedure Rules, required in relevant part that “[e]very pleading of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed in his individual name by at least one attorney who is admitted to practice in this Commonwealth.” Between at least September 2016 and October 2017, the respondent authorized her paralegal to sign the respondent’s name to multiple pleadings, motions, certifications, appearances, and other documents in client matters being handled by the respondent. Each of the documents signed by the paralegal and filed in court appeared to be signed by the respondent when in fact that was not the case.

On at least three occasions between September 2016 and February 2017, the paralegal negligently signed the respondent’s clients’ names on affidavits that were submitted to probate courts under penalties of perjury. All facts stated in the affidavits were true. Each affidavit contained the following printed instruction above the signature line: “This affidavit must be personally signed by the party listed in section 1 above, unless he/she is under 18 years of age or has been adjudged incompetent, in which case the attorney of record must sign.” In each case, the respondent’s divorce clients were over the age of eighteen and had not been adjudged incompetent. Each of the affidavits appeared to be signed by the respondent’s clients when that was not the case.

The respondent did not direct her paralegal to sign the clients’ names to the affidavits and did not know that the paralegal had done so. The respondent, however, was responsible for the paralegal’s conduct due to her failure to properly supervise the paralegal.

The respondent failed to have internal policies and procedures in place to ensure that she signed all court filings purporting to be signed by her, and that she reviewed all court filings for accuracy and propriety before they were filed in court.

By authorizing her paralegal to sign on the respondent’s behalf multiple documents filed in court in client matters being handled by the respondent, without any requirement that her paralegal indicate by her initials or otherwise that someone other than the respondent had signed the documents, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 5.3(a), 5.3(b), 5.3(c), and 8.4(d). By failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that her law firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that her employees’ conduct was compatible with the respondent’s own professional obligations, and by failing to adequately review all court filings for accuracy and propriety before they were filed in court, with the result that three client affidavits negligently signed by her paralegal on behalf of the respondent’s clients were filed in court, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, and 5.3(a) and 5.3(b).

The respondent was admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth in 1993. In aggravation, in 2016 the respondent received a public reprimand for failing to adequately supervise her employees and to properly maintain records for her IOLTA account during the period between November 2012 and June 2014. Matter of Jamie James, 32 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 282 (2016). In mitigation, there was no ultimate harm to the clients and no effect on the cases that were before the court because the pleadings signed by the paralegal in the respondent’s name were otherwise accurate, and facts stated in the clients’ affidavits concerning the names and addresses of the clients’ children were true and uncontested.

Bar counsel filed a petition for discipline on June 28, 2019. On October 30, 2019, the respondent filed a second revised answer to the petition and stipulation of the parties. The parties jointly recommended that the respondent receive a public reprimand conditioned on the respondent’s agreement to contact the director of the Law Office Management Assistance Program (LOMAP). The respondent agreed to obtain from LOMAP and provide to bar counsel, prior to January 31, 2020, a written assessment of her law office management and operations, and to comply with LOMAP’s recommendations and certify in writing to bar counsel that she had done so on or before June 30, 2020. On November 12, 2019, the board voted unanimously to accept the parties’ stipulation and their joint recommendation to administer a public reprimand to the respondent subject to the conditions noted above.