# Kolmosky v. Kolmosky

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · September 20, 1993 · 631 A.2d 419

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754382

## Case

- **Full name:** Barbara KOLMOSKY v. Edward KOLMOSKY
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** September 20, 1993
- **Citations:** 631 A.2d 419; 1993 Me. LEXIS 221
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Dana
- **Judges:** Wathen, Roberts, Glassman, Clifford, Rudman, Dana
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754382

## Opinion text

DANA, Justice,
with whom ROBERTS, Justice, joins, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority concludes that a wife is not entitled to relief from a divorce judgment procured after her husband retains his lawyer to represent them both in violation of our Bar rules 1 and a recent decision of this Court 2 and the lawyer drafts the settlement agreement to minimize his personal liability for malpractice 3 and our Grievance *423 Commission finds the property settlement “substantially unequal and greatly favoring) the husband.” Assuming no prejudice to third parties, I would provide relief from judgments reached after one lawyer represents both parties in a divorce.
. The Grievance Commission of the Board of Overseers of the Bar concluded, in pertinent part, that the lawyer:
acted improperly in representing both husband and wife in a divorce action which involved minor children, significant marital assets, and a wife with no apparent job prospects. Respondent argues forcefully that he merely acted as a scrivener to memorialize the agreement which had been negotiated by the husband and wife. However, the situation in which Respondent was faced clearly called for independent advice to be rendered to both husband and wife. Under these circumstances it could, not have been obvious to Respondent that he could adequately represent the interests of both parties. See Maine Bar Rule 3.4(d). Respondent is hereby reprimanded for such violation.
. Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Dineen, 500 A.2d 262 (Me.1985).
. The attorney sought to protect himself in the settlement agreement by adding this final paragraph:
8. MISCELLANEOUS: Both Parties to this Agreement have negotiated the complete set *423 tlement arrangement and have retained the law firm of Grossman-Faber solely for the purpose of initiating the necessary paperwork to effectuate this Agreement to obtain a Divorce Judgment. Since both Parties are intimately aware of the family assets and liabilities, they do not feel it necessary to have Interrogatories served nor use any other counsel and agree to indemnify and hold harmless the said law firm of Grossman-Fa-ber from any errors in judgement or any mistakes each of them may have made in negotiating this settlement.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754382. Public record. Not legal advice.