No. 01-9006



Alphonse Mourad, on behalf of himself. Pro Se
Alphonse Mourad 125 West Street HydePark,Ma02136


No. 01-9006

In re:
BAPNo. MB 99-100
(A Law Partnership) AND STEPHEN GRAY

Bankruptcy No. 96-10123-CJK
Adversary No. 99-1205


Now comes the Appellate, Alphonse Mourad, Pro Se, and seeks Relief from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's February 26, 2001 Order and Per Curiam Affirming Judge Kenner's November 10,1999 Decision on Motion of Alphonse Mourad For Recusal and Remand, Motion of Stephen Gray to Dismiss, and Motion of Harold B. Murphy, Donald F. Farrell, Jr., and Hanify & King P.C. To Dismiss.
Judge Kenner had denied all counts of Mourad's Complaint except for count 6 which had been remanded back to the Suffolk Superior Court. Mourad appeals t< the United States Court of Appeals and requests that all counts regarding all Defendants be remanded back to the Suffolk Superior Court. Or, if the Court finds it appropriate, Mourad requests that all counts concerning only Hanify & King, Harold H. Murphy, and Donald Farrell be remanded back to Suffolk Superior
Court, and to remand all counts concerning only Stephen S. Gray to the Federal Court because he is a Federal Bankruptcy Trustee. In Support, Mourad says as follows:
1. In the Panel's 2/26/01 Per Curiam, the Panel neglects to specify why the remaining counts should not be remanded back to Suffolk Superior Court, but rather focuses primarily on the recusal matter in which Mourad's arrests and conviction' for Violating Judge Kenner's Order Barring Mourad from the Bankruptcy Court is brought to light Mourad's arrest and conviction has no relevance in this matter.
2. On March 31,1999, Mourad timely filed a State Court legal malpractice and conspiracy lawsuit (See Exhibit "I") in the Suffolk Superior Courl Case No. 99-1470-C, against Harold Murphy, Donald Farrell, Hanify & King, and Stephen Gray.
3. Harold Murphy, Donald Farrell, and Hanify & King unjustly refused to accept service of the State Court Complaint served to them by the Suffolk Count Deputy Sheriff, at their One Federal Street, Boston office. Deputy Sheriff Igo told Mourad "This is the first time any law firm or attorney has refused to accept servici from me."
4. Mourad was forced to file an emergency motion entitled- MOURAD'S
' Mourad was found guilty in U.S. v. Mourad. U.S District Court. No. 1:99CR10200-001. for violating 18 U.S.C. §401 (3), contempt of court The Court assessed a fine of $1000.00 and a special assessment of $10.00. This case currently pending appeal.
5. Judge Diane M. Kottymyer allowed Mourad's Motion, and Ordered the Defendants to appear on May 11,1999, at 2:30 pm, at the Suffolk Courthouse, Room 227, to hear argument on said Motion.
6. At the hearing. Judge Kottymyer Ordered the Defendants to accept service. It wasn't until Judge Kottymyer ordered them to accept service that said parties complied.
7. Also, during the hearing, J. Ethan Jeffery, attorney for Hanify & King, Murphy and Farrell, told Judge Kottymyer that the case had been transferre to the Bankruptcy Court, and that she no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case. This was to Judge Kottymyer's surprise, see May 11,1999 Transcript, attached as Exh. "3."
8. On May 5,1999, Stephen Gray had caused the State Court action to be removed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, claiming Mourad's lawsuit challenged Gray's actions as the Court-appointed Trustee, and therefore, it was appropriate to remove the case to this Bankruptcy Court
9. Mourad disputes that position, and asks the Court to remand all counts back to the Suffolk Superior Court, as allowable under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 9027(d), on any equitable ground, or to at least remand all counts concerning only Hanify & King, Harold Murphy, and Donald Farrell.
10. Mourad says that the State law claims are best heard in State Court, and that the Suffolk Superior Court can hear such cases. In Palmer v. Murphy, 42
Mass App CL 334, 677 N.E. 2d 247 (1997), the Court allowed the joinder of the trustee in bankruptcy, Harold Murphy, a defendant here, to be added as a party to a State Court lawsuit.
11. The March 12,1999 dismissal and closing ofV&M Management, Inc.'s. bankruptcy case. No. 96-10123-CJK, is an equitable reason to remand this
12. On December 23,1998, the Bankruptcy Court (Kenner, C.J.) granted Trustee Gray's Motion For Final Decree and ordered the V&M Management, Inc. Bankruptcy Case, No. 96-10123-CJK, to be closed upon the outcome of Mourad's appeal.
13. In her December 23,1998 Memorandum of Decision on Amended Motion For Final Decree, the Court stated it would ^overrule the objections and allow the motion, with final decree to enter upon resolution of(l) the matters presently under appeal and (2) the recently-decided matters as to which the appeal period has not lapsed. Except as to those matters, the case shall be deemed closed upon entry of the order allowing this motion.'" Judge Kenner goes on to say: ^Asidefrom an appeal filed recently by Alphonse Mourad and one recently decided matter as to which the appeal period has not lapsed, this case is ready to be closed, and there is no impediment to entry of the final decree. Because of the pending appeals and unloosed appeal period, this case must remain open as to those matters and those matters only. For all other purposes, however, the Court will close this case forthwith Judge Kenner's December 23,1998 Memorandum of Decision on Amended Motion For Final Decree is attached as Exhibit "4."
14. Mourad says that his appeal, BAP No. MB 98-104, in which the Bankruptcy Court had awaited the final outcome to close V&M Management's bankruptcy case, was dismissed on March 12,1999. See March 12, 1999 Judgemen attached as Exhibit "5."
15. Accordingly, V&M Management's bankruptcy case. Case No. 96-10123-CJK, was closed on that day, March 12,1999.
16. Mourad further says that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court has no or questionable jurisdiction to rule upon any matters regarding the State Court malpractice suit Hied in the Suffolk Superior Court, and that the Bankruptcy Cour should have remanded the State Court action back to the Suffolk Superior Court.
17. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court should not preside over a State Court malpractice lawsuit where the corporate V&M bankruptcy is no longer open, and where this State Court case was commenced by a non-bankrupt party, Alphonse Mourad, personally. The Chapter 11 debtor, V&M Management, Inc., is not a pan to the State Court lawsuit.
18. Trustee Gray, in his May 26,1999 Memorandum and Motion to Dismiss, is wrong to assert that "Mourad lacks standing to bring this action." Mourad can rightfully complain about a conspiracy plotted against him between Mourad's and V&M's attorneys and the Court-appointed Trustee.
19. Mourad says that he (not V&M Management, Inc.) filed the State Court malpractice suit personally, after V&M Management's bankruptcy case hac been dismissed. Mourad has standing for his personal losses and irreparable harm caused by the actions of above mentioned Defendants to the State Court action.
20. Also, Mourad says he has standing, in that he can prove (at a jury trial through appraisals and commitment letters from banking institutions) that he (Mourad), as the sole shareholder and owner, had personal equity in V&M Management, and would have recovered his equity had he been given the fair opportunity to refinance and pay all of the creditors in full, which would have left Mourad with millions of dollars in profit, after 15 years of investment in V&M Management, Inc.
21. H&K Defendants argue that "Mourad had failed to state a claim upo which relief may be granted." Mourad says that statement is completely false, and that he clearly stated a claim against the Defendant's in his original complaint. The following are the claims stated against Defendants Hanify & King, Harold Murphy and Donald Farrell in the first paragraph of the complaint:
"Alphonse Mourad complains against attorneys Harold H. Murphy and Donai E. Farrell, and the law firm/partnership of Hanify & King for professional malpractice, negligence, failure of representation, failure to appeal the Bankruptcy Court's April 1, 1996 appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee over V&M Management, Inc., breach of duty, breach of contract, fraud, excessive fee charging and conspiring, with Stephen Gray, the Court-appointed Chapter 11 Trustee, to deprive Mourad of his property and rights to have reorganized his solely owned subchapter S corporation, V&M Management, Inc. and come out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, free of its mortgage corporate debts and the unfair, excessive urban G.L. c. 121 A excise tax. As a result of the (misrepresentation, negligence, and breach of duties, and conspiracy with Stephel Gray, Mourad lost his and his family's fifteen year, multi-million dollar investment in
V&M Management, Inc. which, after refinancing and having eliminated the restrictions of Section 8 housing, would have yielded him approximately $10 million ii profit in the thriving 1990's real estate market
22. In 1996, Stephen Gray claimed that the 276 unit, 5 1/2 acre development, was only worth between $100,000 and $500,000. Mourad was able to acquire a commitment letter from the Multi-Loan Network for S5.5 million dollars (Exh. "6") to refinance the development Mourad asked Murphy, who was still the counsel of record for V&M and Mourad, to represent Mourad and to submit his bii for S5.5 million, which had been the only offer in the Bankruptcy Court at the time, and, to date, is still the largest amount of money offered to the creditors of the estate.
23. Murphy refused to comply with Mourad. Also, Gray and Judge Kenner declined to accept Mourad's S5.5 million offer without explanation, and stalled for months giving Gray enough time to put together a reorganization plan of his own in conjunction with Beacon Residential Properties which only paid the creditors of the estate 9 cents on the dollar, as opposed to Mourad's plan which would have paid them 100% of the money owned to them. Please see Creditor Arthur H. Goldsmith's Motion to Dismiss attached as Exh. " 7."
24. Further, bankruptcy attorney Leonard M. Krulewich gives his expert opinion and states in his March 2,1998 Affidavit (See Exh. "8") that *'// is quite inconceivable that the Debtor's counsel (Hanify & King) failed to make an appeal fron the appointment of the Trustee. There were so many errors in the Court's findings
based upon the objectionable evidence that, not only would the District Court have reversed the decision, but there would have been a possibility the District Court would have retained the case and revolted the transfer to the Bankruptcy Court,"
25. Also, H&K Defendant's argue that "As counsel to the Chapter 11 Debtor, the H&K Defendants owed a duty to the Debtor corporation and not to its individual officers or shareholders." The Court failed to take into account the fact that the Debtor, V&M Management, Inc. is a Sub Chapter S. corporation, in which standard Chapter 11 corporate debtor rules do not apply.
26. Mourad is the sole shareholder of V&M Management, Inc., and is personally responsible and liable for any debt the Sub Chapter S corporation accrues, and had to sign for all loans made to V&M Management personally. As thi sole shareholder in this Sub Chapter S corporation, only Mourad can be subject to income, loss, deductions, or credits, and the filing of bankruptcy does not change this.
27. Because Mourad is personally liable for all loans made to V&M Management, he (Mourad) has suffered personal grievance as a result of Hanify & King's negligence and conspiracy with Stephen Gray.
28. Also, Mourad is personally responsible to pay V&M Management's income taxes for the profit V&M accrued in the approximate amount of $2.7 million, for the years 1997 and 1999/, even though Mourad had not received any money from V&M Management, Inc. for those years, and had no control over V&M Management (See Exh. "9," U.S BAP April 12,2000 Judgment and Order, along
with 6/14/00 Procedural Order on Remanded Motion ofAlphonse Mourad To Allo Administrative Claim Late and 10/31/01 Pretrial Order on Remanded Motion...).
29. As a result of the claims made against the Defendants' in the complaint, the taxes owed for the $2.7 million dollars in profit V&M Management amassed for the years 1997 & 1999 are to be paid by Mourad. This is just one example of the harm and grievance caused to Mourad personally, which gives him (Mourad) standing and the constitutional right to bring his complaint.
30. Further, Attorney Krulewich also goes on to say in his March 2,1998 Affidavit (again see Exh. "8") ^Counsel (Murphy) cannot argue that he did not represent Mr. Mourad because he had a conflict (as a result of representing V&M). H never disclosed to Mr. Mourad that he did not represent Mr. Mourad, nor did he recommend that Mourad retain independent counsel. Instead, he (Murphy) told Mourad not to file a proof of claim. As a result of not filing the claim, the Bankruptcy Court (as well as the District Court), determined that Mourad had no right to argue any motion in Court, again".
31. Hanify & King's representation of Mourad and V&M brought no benefit to the V&M estate, or its creditors. The Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on April 1,1996 for hearing the BRA Motion for a trustee.
32. At the April 1,1996 hearing in the Bankruptcy Court Harold Murph] failed to rebut or challenge Examiner Alan Braunstein's conclusion that Mourad took $923,000 in 1995, and failed to object to the Court's refusal to allow Examiner Braunstein to finish his investigation.
33. As a result of Murphy, Farrell's and Hanify & King's negligence and (misrepresentation ofV&M Management, and failure to obtain necessary discovery, the Bankruptcy Court made erroneous, unsupportable findings that Mourad had mismanaged V&M during the years of 1983 and 1984 when in fact, Mourad did not manage the property at that time. Abrams Management and State Street Management managed the property from 1982-1987 and were responsible foi any losses accumulated during that time period. Murphy, Farrell, and Hanify & King failed to correct, or object to these findings, in that Mourad did not manage V&M during this 1983-1984 period of mismanagement, and the statue of limitation! had expired for any inquiry into this period, much less judicial reliance to support a Trustee appointment
34. The Court's finding that Mourad was guilty of gross mismanagement and the Court's appointment of a Trustee, were appealable issues that Hanify & King had an obligation to appeal or secure other counsel to appeal. Mourad asked Murphy and Hanify & King to appeal the Bankruptcy Court's April 1,1996 allowance of the Motion to appoint a chapter 11 Trustee. Murphy and Hanify & King refused to timely notice an appeal. Hanify & King failed to advise Mourad to retain new counsel to appeal. Counsel must take all reasonable steps to ensure that a client's rights are properly protected, and the proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal within ten days of the Court's April 1,1996 order under Bankruptcy Rule 8002 was a required action to protect V&M's and Mourad's rights. Hanify & King refused to appeal because they did not want to offend Judge Kenner who appointed the firm and its partners to lucrative Trusteeships. Hanify & King should have filed
the appeal (to timely protect V&M's rights), then sought permission to withdraw. and not done so until successor counsel was retained.
35. Hanify & King negligently refused to notice an appeal and failed to take all necessary and timely steps to protect Mourad's and V&M's rights, because the Court (Kenner, C.J.), on April 2,1996, approved the U.S. Trustee's recommendation to appoint Stephen Gray as Chapter 11 Trustee. Murphy and Hanify & King had previously represented and continued to represent Stephen Gray in an ongoing bankruptcy case. In Re Patriot Paper Corp., Chapter 7, Case No. 93-12482-CJK, yet failed to disclose this representational connection to the U.S. Trustee, Mourad or the Court.
36. Murphy and Hanify and King refused to appeal Judge Kenner's appointment of Gray, a Chapter 11 Trustee, because Murphy and Hanify & King knew that a successful appeal would dislodge Gray from a lucrative trusteeship appointment.
37. Harold Murphy did not object to the Court's erroneous findings and conclusions, and failed to preserve Mourad's right to an appeal by not doing so. Also, after the Trustee was appointed. Murphy refused to file a Motion For Reconsideration to the appointment of a Trustee, as was requested by Mourad.
38. Attorneys Murphy and Farrell and Hanify & King committed professional negligence and failed to represent V&M Management zealously, in violation ofDR 7-101(A)(1); failed to represent the client (V&M) within the bounds of the law, in violation ofDR 7-102; failed to refute and dispute the factual and legal basis for the BRA Motion For the Appointment of a Trustee; failed to litigate the
issues addressed in Mourad's Affidavit; failed to obtain discovery against the three moving governmental entities; failed to litigate the issues addressed in Ederland Duncan's February 29,1996 Memorandum; failed to object to the introduction of stale (1983-1984) evidence at the April 1,1996 hearing on the Motion to appoint a Trustee; and failed to object to Attorney Saul Schapiro's appearance, who had submitted an Affidavit, in support of the BRA Motion For the Appointment of a Trustee, and spoke on behalf of the three governmental moving parties as its lead counsel at the April 1,1996 hearing while simultaneously testifying and representing the BRA in the same case. Here, BRA attorney Saul Schapiro breach< this most basic of evidentiary and ethical rules (DR 5-101(B), DR 5-102). Schapiro should not have simultaneously represented the governmental entities while testifying, and Murphy negligently made no objection to Schapiro's appearance as witness, as well as his tainting statements.
39. Rather than file the notice of appeal themselves as counsel to V&M, Murphy had Farrell draft a Notice of Appeal for Mourad to sign and File. Mourad was not advised that he, a non lawyer, could not sign and prosecute an appeal on behalf of a corporation, or that only a licensed attorney could represent a corporation, or that Mourad did not have standing to appeal because Mourad was not a party opposing the Motion For Appointment of a Trustee, or that Mourad himself did not personally oppose the appointment of a Trustee. Mourad testified against and opposed the Appointment of a Trustee at the April 1,1996 hearing. Murphy negligently allowed Farrell to draft an appeal Notice for Mourad to sign, (See Exh. "10"), knowing that Mourad lacked standing to file the Notice Pro Se. It
was not until after Mourad timely prosecuted and filed his statement of issues, Appendix and 44 page brief with the U.S. District Court that three Governmental entities jointly moved, on August 5,1996, to dismiss Mourad's appeal on the allegec ground that Mourad lacked standing.
40. Murphy violated DR 3-101(A) by aiding a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law.
41. Hanify & King remained in the bankruptcy case as counsel for V&M Management until October 10,1996. On October 10,1996, Attorney Leonard Krulewhich called and faxed Murphy an October 10,1996 letter (See Exh. "II"), asking Murphy to assist in protecting Mourad's appeal or substituting V&M as the appellant.
42. Rather than help. Murphy and Hanify & King filed a Motion to Withdraw from the case on the same- October 10,1996 date as Krulewich's letter, and the Bankruptcy Court promptly allowed that Withdrawal Motion on the same October 10,1996 day, without an opportunity for V&M or anyone to file an opposition, without an opportunity for V&M to secure successor counsel, and without further explanation of its actions by Hanify & King. Murphy violated D.R. 2-110(A)(2) by seeking to withdraw from employment before he took reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to his clients rights.
43. Had Murphy, Farrell and Hanify & King obtained the requested discovery against the BRA, DOR, and City of Boston; had they argued and presented the points researched and set forth in their Memorandum; had they argued the point set forth in Mourad's March 30,1996 Affidavit that they had filed
had they argued the point set forth in their own Memorandum prepared by Edderiland Duncan (See Exh. "12"); had they objected to and disqualified BRA Attorney Saul Schapiro from offering an Affidavit, and simultaneously being a witness and attorney advocate in the same case; had they introduced the December 1989 Greystone Financing Commitment and shown how the DOR refused to accept 51,000,000; had they properly defended V&M and Mourad from false accusations of mismanagement; had they moved for alternation, amendment and for reconsideration of the Court's erroneous April 1,1996 findings and conclusions;
and had they timely taken an appeal on behalf of the Corporation, the Court would not have appointed a Trustee, or said appointment would have been reversed on appeal.
44. Furthermore, Murphy and Farrell consciously advised Mourad not t file his proof of claim as a creditor for the approximate amount of $130,000 in the Bankruptcy Court for the reason, as stated by Murphy, that "Judge Kenner would be biased to Mourad." Murphy recommended that Mourad wait, and file his claim in State Court. As a result of following Murphy's negligent, poor advice, Mourad had no standing as a creditor to the Debtor, V&M Management, and lost his right 1 participate in, and file Motions in the V&M bankruptcy.
45. Hanify & King, Murphy, and Farrell clearly delivered a political victory to the three governmental agencies (BRA, DOR and City of Boston) at the expense of V&M Management, Mourad and his family, V&M's creditors, the residents, and the administration of justice.
46. Murphy and Hanify & King also filed an excessive fee application with the Bankruptcy Court for its negligent representation providing no benefit to V&M Management.
47. Murphy and Hanify & King later filed an application for additional fees of approximately $104,000 (Hanify & King was paid a Court-authorized $25,000 retainer). Such a fees request was unreasonable and excessive for the less than two months of work devoted to the case that failed to benefit the Debtor's estate or the creditors interests'. Furthermore, Hanify & King refused to appeal the Court's April 1,1996 order appointing a Trustee, thus leaving the Mourad family and V&M's creditors to hang in the wind, and then drafted a notice of appeal for Alphonse Mourad to sign. Hie, and prosecute when the non-lawyer (Mourad) had n standing to represent the interests of the corporate debtor, V&M Management Hanify & King's representation fell far below acceptable standards of nonnegligent advocacy, much less the vigorous degree of advocacy ethically required of counsel, particularly in a case involving many public entities, and with clear political features involving a Debtor battling the BRA, DOR, and The City of Boston.
48. Murphy and Hanify & King further committed fraud and deceit in representing to Mourad that they could win a reorganization before Judge Kenner for V&M, a corporation with a steady cash flow of tenants' rents and a HUD Subsidy, but with too much debt and inappropriately taxed.
49. Murphy and Hanify & King further failed to disclose their prior representation of Stephen Gray, the appointed Chapter 11 Trustee for V&M to Mourad, the U.S. Trustee Office and the Court, and continued to represent Gray ir
the Patriot Paper case, and in June 1997, came to represent Gray as the Court Appointed Trustee in the In Re. American Shipyard Corp., Case No. 11-96-11753, i the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Rhode Island.
50. Murphy, Farrell, and Hanify & King's actions constitute fraud, deceit, breaches of professional, ethical, and fiduciary duty, and of contract.
51. Murphy, Farrell, and Hanify & King owed Mourad and V&M Management duties of due and professional care, and failed to fulfill those duties.
52. As a result of Murphy's, Farrell's, and Hanify & King's actions, negligence, breaches, deceit, and fraud, Mourad and the Mourad family suffered th loss of their fifteen year, S20 million investment in V&M Management.
53. Murphy and Hanify & King further conspired with Gray to deprive Mourad of his rights and investment in V&M Management, Inc.
54. Finally, the Defendants argue that "Mourad's claims are barred by Doctrines of Collateral Estoppel and Res Judicata." Mourad says that although these issues were heard before the Bankruptcy Court (Kenner, C.J.,), the Court has been and continues to be biased towards Mourad, and that Mourad never received fair hearing. Also. Judge Kenner is directly involved in this conspiracy, in that she allowed Stephen Gray to commit two counts of perjury by signing two Verified Statements stating that he (Gray) had no connection to the Debtor or its attorney's, knowing that Hanify & King and Murphy were representing Gray at the very sanu time in the Patriot Paper Corp. case in her very same court room.
55. There are no equitable reasons to keep this case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and there are equitable and constitutional grounds to remand the action.
56. The fact that issues of collateral estoppel or res judicata may arise does not warrant federal removal; such issues can be heard in State Court.
57. Mourad says that Judge Kenner knew that Hanify & King represented Stephen Gray in the Patriot Paper Corn. bankruptcy case, (See Exh. "13"), because the Patriot Paper Corp. case was before Judge Kenner at the very same time the V&M bankruptcy case was before her. Judge Kenner did nothing about Stephen Gray's perjury when Gray filed two (April 5 and April 10,1996) Verified Statements (See Exh. "14") stating he had no connection to the debtor's (V&M's) attomev(s), when, in fact. Gray had a very significant connection by beinj represented by Hanify & King in another bankruptcy matter at the same time (before Judge Kenner no less).
58. Trustee Gray removed this action as a forum shopping tactic to find ;
friendly, favorable forum. He should not be allowed to take advantage of this devici That is why remand is the appropriate and equitable remedy to employ. Title 28, § 959 states that a Trustee may be sued in any aspect of running a development or property, and he may be sued in State Court
WHEREFORE, Mourad, the Appellant, seeks Relief from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's February 26, 2001 Order and Per Curiam Affirming Judge Kenner's November 10,1999 Decision on Motion ofAlphonse Mourad For
Recusal and Remand, Motion of Stephen Gray to Dismiss, and Motion of Harold B Murphy, Donald F. Farrell, Jr., and Hanify & King P.C. To Dismiss, and requests that all counts concerning all Appellees be remanded back to the Suffolk Superior Court Or, if the Court finds it appropriate, Mourad requests that all counts concerning only Hanify & King, Harold H. Murphy, and Donald Farrell be remanded back to Suffolk Superior Court, and to remand all counts concerning only Stephen S. Gray to the Federal Court because he is a Federal Bankruptcy Trustee.
Respectfully Filed,
Alphonse Mourad, Pro Se 125 West Street Hyde Park, MA 02136 (617) 312-4919
January 7,2002


No. 01-9006 BAPNo. MB 99-100

In re:
Bankruptcy No. 96-10123-CJK
Adversary No. 99-1205
(A Law Partnership) AND STEPHEN GRAY

I, Alphonse Mourad, hereby certify that I have properly served, by first class mail, the following parties my Summary of Argument and Claim For Relief on this 7th day of January, 2002:
Paul D. Moore, Esq. Anthony J. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Mobina F. Mohsin, Esq. Duane, Morris & Hechscher LLP 470 Atlantic Avenue, Suire 500 Boston, MA 02210 (617)289-9200
Ethan Jeffrey, Esq. Attorney for defendants, Harold H. Murphy, Esq. and Donald Farrell, Esq. Hanify & King One Federa; Street Boston, MA 02110