Knott v. Laythe

661 N.E.2d 1343, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 911, 1996 Mass. App. LEXIS 110
Massachusetts Appeals Court·Decided March 8, 1996·No. No. 94-P-1743·Published

Opinion

We are troubled by the filing and prosecution of an appeal in a case such as this where the matter can easily be remedied by a new notice at far less expense to the landlord and far less burden to the court system. We are also troubled by the failure of the landlord’s counsel to inform the court prior to oral argument and our questioning that the matter is moot. Because of these concerns1 we order counsel not to charge the client for any services or costs in connection with this appeal and to give his client a copy of this order. See Estate of Solis-Rivera v. United States, 993 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993); Howard v. Baumer, 519 So. 2d 679, 681 (Fla. App. 1988).

Although, when questioned at oral argument, counsel gave no satisfactory explanation for the prosecution of this appeal, counsel may, if he wishes, file an affidavit within thirty days of the date of release of this opinion setting forth facts showing why he should not be required to forego his fee.

Appeal dismissed.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Knott v. Laythe, 661 N.E.2d 1343, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 911, 1996 Mass. App. LEXIS 110 (Mass. Ct. App. 1996).

661 N.E.2d 1343 (Knott v. Laythe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Howard v. Baumer
519 So. 2d 679 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)