BAR COUNSEL, Petitioner,
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
v. PHILIP R. BONCORE, Esq., Respondent.
Public Reprimand No. 2025-11
ORDER OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND
This matter came before the Board on a Petition for Discipline and a Stipulation of the Parties waiving hearing and reques ting that the matter be resolved by the imposition of a public reprimand. On September 8, 2025, the Board voted to accept the s tipulation of the parties and their joint recommendation to administer a public reprimand. It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Philip R. Boncore be and hereby is publicly reprimanded. A summary of the charges giving rise to the reprimand is attached to this order. Whereupon, pursuant to Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01, Section 8(3), and the Rules of the Board of Bar Overseers, Section 3.56, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Philip R. Boncore be and hereby is PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED.
DATED:
September 26, 2025
By:
Rita Allen BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS
PHILIP R. BONCORE BBO # 048940 Public Reprimand No. 2025-11
Order (Public Reprimand) entered by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court on September 26, 2025.
The respondent stipulated to a public reprimand for failure to communicate with his client and failure to inform his client of another attorney’s involvement in the client’s matter.
SUMMARY 1 In 2018, the respondent’s law firm was retained to represent a client who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on November 29, 2017. By 2019, the attorney originally handling the matter left the respondent’s firm and the respondent, Philip R. Boncore, took over the representation. Prior to the beginning of the representation, a judgment had been entered against the client in unrelated matters involving the client’s nonpayment of rent. The attorney representing the landlord in those matters notified the attorney in the respondent’s firm of the judgment and his desire to satisfy the judgment from any proceeds that may be recovered in the personal injury case.
In September of 2020, the landlord’s attorney contacted the respondent about the status of the personal injury action because the statute of limitations was approaching. The landlord’s attorney threatened aggressive collection actions to recover the judgment against the client that included the pursuit of a civil arrest warrant. At that time, the respondent had limited administrative support in his office and did not believe he would be able to file the civil complaint in a timely manner. The landlord’s attorney offered to file a civil action on the client’s behalf and the respondent agreed to the offer to preserve his client’s claims in the personal injury action and to protect the client from the aggressive collection actions suggested by the landlord’s attorney. At the time, the respondent viewed the drafting of the complaint to be administrative in nature and he intended to be designated as lead counsel in the case. Instead, the landlord’s attorney drafted and filed the complaint, and designated himself as lead counsel and the respondent as co-counsel. The respondent did not inform the client that the landlord’s attorney drafted and filed the civil complaint.
In 2021, during discovery in the personal injury case, the client became aware of the involvement of the landlord’s attorney. The client terminated the respondent’s representation
1 Compiled by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers’ Office of General Counsel based on the record of proceedings before the board.
and retained successor counsel to represent her in the personal injury matter. The client was not harmed by the respondent’s misconduct.
By failing to communicate with the client that the landlord’s attorney was involved in the personal injury matter, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.4(a) and (b). By authorizing the landlord’s attorney to file suit on the client’s behalf without her knowledge or consent, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.2, 1.3 and 8.4(c) and (h).
The respondent was admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth in 1975 and has no prior discipline. This matter came before the Board of Bar Overseers on a stipulation of facts and disciplinary violations, and a joint recommendation for discipline. The Board of Bar Overseers accepted the parties’ recommendation and imposed a public reprimand on September 8, 2025.