Posts tagged "Manning"

Lubin & Meyer, P.C. v. Manning (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-065-17)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS   SUFFOLK, so                                                                                            SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION 2017-02352-BLS2     LUBIN & MEYER, P.C., Plaintiff   vs.   JOHN J. MANNING, Defendant     MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER  ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIVE (5) COUNTS OF DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM   This action arises from disputes between a law firm, plaintiff Lubin & Meyer, P.C., and a former associate, defendant John Manning.  Plaintiff alleges that Manning breached his fiduciary duties to the firm and also made false representations.  It alleges that as a result of these actions, Manning forfeited his rights under a referral fee agreement entered into at the time of his departure.  Manning has counterclaimed.  The case is now before the Court on the plaintiff’s Motion to dismiss certain counts of that counterclaim, specifically:  Count II (for defamation), Count III (for invasion of privacy), Count V (for intentional infliction of emotional distress), Count VI (for abuse of process) and Count VII (alleging a violation of 93A claim).  This Court concludes that the Motion must be Allowed as to all counts except for Count VI, which will remain in the case. BACKGROUND Manning was employed as an associate at Lubin & Meyer from 2012 through February 23, 2016, when he was terminated.  At the time of his departure, the firm provided Manning with a letter confirming that he was entitled to payment on two cases that he claims to have generated while at the firm (the Referral Fee Agreement).  According to the Complaint, the firm later discovered that Manning had engaged in certain conduct which breached his fiduciary duties to the firm:  in particular, he failed to inform certain clients that the firm had rejected their claims and misled them as to the status of their cases.  Lubin & Meyer also alleges that Manning represented to it  that he had caused one of the clients covered by the  Referral Fee Agreement to retain Lubin & Meyer when in fact that was not the reason for the client’s decision.  Lubin & Meyer subsequently lodged a complaint about Manning with the Board of Bar Overseers (BBO) and then filed this lawsuit against Manning – a fact reported by the Boston Business Journal.    In his counterclaim, Manning alleges that Lubin & Meyer made false and defamatory statements about him.  These statements are contained in the Complaint that Lubin & Meyer filed and that were later repeated in the Boston Business Journal article, which was based on information “garnered directly” from the Complaint.  ¶¶ 7 and 23-24 of Counterclaim.  These same allegations form the basis for Manning’s claims that Lubin & Meyer invaded his privacy and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.  As to the abuse of press count, Manning […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 8, 2018 at 7:10 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,