Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
HAYMOND v. LUNDY
August 31, 2001
JOHN HAYMOND, HAYMOND NAPOLI DIAMOND, P.C.-CT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Norma L. Shapiro, S.J.
In October, 1997, John Haymond ("Haymond"), Robert Hochberg
("Hochberg") and Marvin Lundy ("Lundy") formed the law firm of Haymond &
Lundy, LLP ("H&L") to practice law in Philadelphia and the surrounding
areas. Lundy had been practicing law in Philadelphia for some time, but
his previous law firm had recently been dissolved. Haymond and Hochberg
were partners in a Connecticut law firm and wished to expand
geographically. Under the Haymond & Lundy Partnership Agreement, Hochberg
was made the Managing Partner of H&L.
H&L was dissolved in October, 1999, at which time Haymond and Lundy
each filed an action against the other. The actions were consolidated,
and the parties were eventually realigned with Haymond as plaintiff.
Lundy, answering Haymond's complaint, asserted a counterclaim against
Hochberg for unauthorized practice of law. Lundy argued Hochberg, who has
never been admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: (1)
failed to apply for readmittance in Pennsylvania after his disbarment in
Massachusetts and consequent suspension in Connecticut; and (2)
repeatedly misrepresented that he was licensed to practice law in
Lundy requested relief in the form of a permanent injunction against
Hochberg. The court held a non-jury trial on Lundy's claim against
Hochberg.*fn1 In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a),
the court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. In 1996 Robert Hochberg was licensed to practice
law in both Massachusetts and Connecticut. At that
time, Hochberg was a partner in John Haymond, P.C.
Tr. Jan. 17, 2001, at 64-65. The firm practiced in
Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York. Id. Hochberg
served as the Managing Partner of that firm. Tr. Jan.
17, 2001, at 66.
2. In 1996, Haymond, Hochberg and Lundy began
discussing the formation of a partnership to practice
law in the Philadelphia area. Tr. Jan. 17, 2001, at
3. On May 7, 1996, Hochberg was indicted by a grand
jury of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on two counts of conspiracy
to commit bank fraud. Tr. Jan. 17, 2001, at 15; L.
4. Negotiations between Lundy, Hochberg and Haymond
continued over the terms of a partnership to practice
law in Philadelphia; at some point in these
negotiations, Lundy was informed of Hochberg's
indictment. Tr. Jan. 19, 2001, at 129-130.
5. On August 4, 1997, Hochberg pled guilty to one
count of the Massachusetts indictment. L. Ex. 19.
6. Haymond, Hochberg and Lundy formed the law firm of
Haymond & Lundy, LLP in October, 1997. P. Ex. 1.
7. After the formation of Haymond & Lundy, LLP,
Haymond began using the name Haymond & Lundy as a
trade name for his Connecticut firm, John Haymond,
P.C. The Connecticut firm remained a separate
corporate entity. The Connecticut firm will be
referred to as John Haymond, P.C. t/a Haymond &
8. The Haymond & Lundy Partnership Agreement provided
that Hochberg would hold a ten-percent interest in
H&L. P. Ex. 1., § 3.01. It also provided that
Hochberg would serve as Managing Partner of H&L. P.
Ex. 1., § 5.02. He was to supervise the
"day-to-day business and administration of the
Partnership." Id. After H&L's formation, Hochberg
worked at the Philadelphia office of H&L two or three
days per week. Tr. Feb 21, 2001, at 130-31.
9. Robert Hochberg is not now, nor has he ever been,
licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Tr. Jan. 17, 2001, at 15.
10. Hochberg's name was listed among the attorneys on
the sign outside H&L's office at 1600 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA. L. Ex. 25; Tr. Jan. 31, 2001, at
10-11 & 156. The sign did not specify the
jurisdictions in which he was authorized to practice
law, nor that he was not licensed to practice law in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. L. Ex. 25.
11. As the firm's Managing Partner, Hochberg directed
the lawyers at H&L. He assigned attorneys to cases and
directed when certain actions should be taken with
regard to cases. See, e.g., Tr. Jan. 31, 2001, at
154-56 (Hochberg directed an attorney not to pursue
post-trial motions and instituted a policy that all
attorneys should immediately file suit in client cases
involving a specific insurance company.). He
occasionally attended morning meetings at which the
status of H&L cases was discussed. When participating
in these meetings, Hochberg gave his advice and
opinion on case management and strategy. Tr. Jan. 31,
2001, at 11-14, 141-42.
12. Former associates at H&L testified that they felt
obligated to follow Hochberg's recommendations on
litigation strategy because Hochberg was the Managing
Partner. Tr. Jan. 31, 2001, at 45 & 142-43.
13. On November 17, 1997, Hochberg was sentenced in
Massachusetts on his plea of guilty to a conspiracy
count; he received three years probation, and was
required to pay restitution of $71,500 and a fine of
$50. Tr. Jan. 17, 2001, at 15.
14. On November 18, 1997, the Massachusetts Supreme
Court issued an order disbarring Hochberg. Tr. Jan.
17, 2001, at 15.
15. After his disbarment in Massachusetts, Hochberg's
name was removed from the Massachusetts office
letterhead of John Haymond, P.C. t/a Haymond & Lundy.
Tr. Feb 22, 2001, at 23 & 25. The lawyers in that
office were instructed that Hochberg was not to be
involved in cases or talk to clients. Tr. Feb 22,
2001, at 23.
16. On November 26, 1997, the Statewide Grievance
Committee for the State of Connecticut, initiated an
action to discipline Hochberg for his Massachusetts
conviction. L. Ex. 44, at 1-2.
17. On April 17, 1998, Hochberg's license to practice
law in Connecticut was suspended on an interim basis.
L. Ex. 44, at 4; Tr. Jan. 17, 2001, at 92.
18. In response to his suspension in Connecticut, a
meeting was held at the Connecticut office of John
Haymond, P.C. t/a Haymond & Lundy, and steps were
taken to ensure that Hochberg's name would not appear
on the Connecticut office's letterhead and that he
would not have contact with clients. Tr. Feb. 22,
2001, at 26. Haymond also notified the banks that
handled the accounts for the Connecticut and
Massachusetts offices and asked that Hochberg's name
be removed from those accounts. Tr. Feb. 22, 2001, at
19. On the date of his suspension in Connecticut,
Hochberg transferred his interest in H&L to Haymond
under a Conditional Agreement dated November 29,
1997. Tr. Jan. 17, 2001, at 91-92; Tr. Feb. 21, 2001,
at 127; P. Ex. 49.
20. Hochberg knew that, after the suspension of his
license to practice in Connecticut, he was no longer
permitted to practice law in any jurisdiction. Tr. Feb
21, 2001, at 127. Hochberg was also aware that he was
neither an owner, nor a partner of H&L after his
Connecticut license was suspended. Tr. Feb 21, 2001,
21. No meeting with H&L's staff was ever held to
discuss his disbarment in Massachusetts or suspension
in Connecticut, nor was he removed as a signatory on
the Philadelphia or New Jersey bank accounts. Tr.
Feb. 22, 2001, at 27-28.
22. Hochberg continued to work at the Philadelphia
office two or three days a week. Tr. Feb 21, 2001, at
23. Throughout his suspension and disbarment,
Hochberg's name continued to appear on the sign
listing the lawyers of H&L outside the entrance to its
Philadelphia office. Tr. Jan. 31, 2001, at 12 & 156;
Tr. Feb. 21, 2001, at 131.
24. Hochberg's name also continued to appear on H&L
letterhead with the designation "CT," as if he were
licensed to practice law in the state of Connecticut.
Tr. Jan. 31, 2001, at 77-78. He wrote to other
attorneys on this letterhead during his suspension.
See, e.g., L. Ex. 98.
25. Hochberg signed marketing agreements, leases and
other business documents on behalf of H&L as "Managing
Partner" or as a "partner." Tr. Feb. ...
Buy This Entire Record For