Turtleboy special prospector Ken Mello disciplined by Board of Bar Overseers at least three times
"aggravated by the fact that he received an admonition in 2006 for similar misconduct"
Attorney Ken Mello, appointed as the special prosecutor in the Aidan Kearney aka “Turtleboy” witness intimidation case, has at least three instances of discipline against his law license according to records publicly available and in one matter Mello “did not comply until bar counsel opened an investigation into the issue.”
In 2016 the Board of Bar Overseers publicly disciplined Mello for performing “very little work of substance” on case over a three year period resulting in the personal injury lawsuit being “dismissed without prejudice” Mello did not inform his client of the dismissal.
Mello “was retained by a client to file and prosecute a personal injury action. Over the next three years, the respondent performed very little work of substance on the case. With the statute of limitations looming, he did file a complaint in the superior court. However, a judgment nisi followed because the complaint failed to allege damages in excess of $25,000, as required by M.G.L. c. 212, § 3. The respondent did not advise his client of the judgment nisi or take any other action in response to it. As a result, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice. The respondent never informed his client of the dismissal. The client ultimately contacted the court on her own and learned of the dismissal for the first time.”
Also in 2016, Mello was publicly discipled for failing to return a client’s file and for failing to file notice of an appeal. Mello “did not, however, return the client’s file in order to enable him to pursue the appeal himself or retain other counsel. The respondent also failed to file a notice of appeal for the client or to withdraw from the case, contrary to the requirements of Rule 65 of the Superior Court, which provides that defendant’s counsel in a criminal case that has gone to trial is responsible for perfecting and prosecuting the appeal unless counsel is relieved of the responsibility after a hearing on a motion to withdraw.”
The client later demanded the return of his files, but the respondent did not comply until bar counsel opened an investigation into the issue. In summary, the respondent’s failure to (a) file a notice of appeal or alternatively obtain the allowance of a motion to withdraw and (b) promptly return his client’s files, violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.3 and 1.16(c) and (d).
Mello’s “misconduct in the above cases was aggravated by the fact that he received an admonition in 2006 for similar misconduct (specifically, he failed to prosecute a client’s case resulting in its dismissal and failed to communicate with his client).”
An admonition according to the BBO: “is a form of non-public discipline which declares the attorney's conduct improper, but does not limit the attorney's right to practice…serves as an aggravating factor should the lawyer face later disciplinary proceedings.”