- 7 -
continuance, and did not otherwise communicate his intentions to
the Court. In addition, intervenor has never responded to the
Court’s Orders of August 17, 2006, and January 10, 2007.
Intervenor has offered no cognizable reason for failing to
appear for trial.3 Instead, intervenor contends that he relied
on respondent to prosecute this matter against petitioner’s
request for relief. Intervenor’s reliance on respondent in this
regard was misplaced. Respondent was under no obligation to
represent intervenor’s interests in prosecuting this case. In
any event, according to intervenor’s own representations,
respondent’s counsel informed intervenor about 2 weeks before the
scheduled trial session that respondent was conceding the case.
Intervenor was on notice, then, well before the scheduled trial,
that respondent would not be representing his interests in this
matter. Intervenor has only himself to blame for failing to
avail himself of his opportunity to protect his interests as an
intervenor in this proceeding by appearing for the scheduled
trial.
Although intervenor has the right not to sign a decision
document with which he disagrees, he “does not have immunity from
3 In his objections to respondent’s motion for entry of
decision, intervenor suggests, with little elaboration, that
traveling to Boston for the trial might have been a financial
hardship for him. Intervenor did not move, however, to change
the place of trial or otherwise communicate with the Court
beforehand about any such financial hardship.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007