On Tuesday, July 29, 2025, the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court publicly reprimanded attorney David John Hoey for ethical violations related to client communication and fee arrangements.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of David John Hoey,” with case number 628619.
The reprimand stemmed from a series of events involving Hoey’s representation of a client in a civil matter that began in 2010. Hoey had entered into a contingency fee agreement (CFA) that entitled him to one-third of any recovery for his client. In 2012, attorney Don Keenan joined the case, leading to the creation of a fee-sharing agreement between Hoey and Keenan in 2013. However, Hoey failed to disclose this agreement to the client or obtain her informed consent regarding the division of fees.
In 2015, Hoey suggested that the client retain Keenan as her lead trial counsel, resulting in the execution of a new CFA, which included additional fees under certain conditions. Specifically, the new agreement stipulated a 7% appellate fee if the case was settled after an appellate brief was filed, a detail Hoey did not adequately communicate to the client. When the client inquired about the new agreement, Hoey misrepresented it as unchanged, assuring her that it would not increase her costs.
Despite these assurances, the 2015 CFA contained provisions for additional fees that could significantly affect the client’s financial outcome. After a jury verdict in favor of the client, a new trial was ordered in 2016, prompting the client to engage a different attorney for the appeal. Ultimately, she won the appeal in 2019, leading to a judgment paid to Keenan.
In 2022, the client took legal action against Hoey and Keenan, arguing that they were not entitled to the 7% appellate fee since Keenan had not filed the appellate brief, contrary to the terms of the CFA. The U.S. District Court for Massachusetts ruled in favor of the client on part of her claims, determining that Hoey and Keenan had violated Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A by failing to provide clear explanations regarding the fee structure.
In 2024, following the court’s ruling, Hoey and Keenan reached a settlement with the client. The Board of Bar Overseers concluded that Hoey’s actions constituted multiple violations of professional conduct rules, including a failure to communicate effectively with the client and charging an excessive fee.
The public reprimand serves as a formal acknowledgment of these violations and emphasizes the importance of clear communication and ethical practices in legal representation.
According to Avvo, Mr. Hoey is a nursing home abuse and neglect lawyer in North Reading, MA. He acquired his law license in Massachusetts in 1995.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
