SUFFOLK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT

MASSACHUSETTS CONVEYANCERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., MASSACHUSETTS
ASSOCIATION OF BANK COUNSEL, INC.,
BRISTOL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,
FALL RIVER BAR ASSOCIATION, BAR
ASSOCIATION OF NORFOLK COUNTY,
PLYMOUTH COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION,
TAUNTON BAR ASSOCIATION, and
WORCESTER COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, C.A. NO. 96-2746-C
Plaintiffs,
v.
COLONIAL TITLE & ESCROW, INC.,
a Massachusetts Corporation, and
COLONIAL TITLE & ESCROW, INC.,
a Rhode Island Corporation, and
Defendants.

JOINT PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM

I. Agreed Facts In A Form Suitable For Submission As An Exhibit At Trial

1. The plaintiffs in this matter are the Massachusetts Conveyancers Association, Inc. ("MCA"), the Massachusetts Association of Bank Counsel, Inc. ("MABC"), the Bar Association of Norfolk County, the Bristol County Bar Association, the Fall River Bar Association, the Plymouth County Bar Association, the Taunton Bar Association, and the Worcester County Bar Association.
2. The defendant, Colonial Title & Escrow, Inc. ("Colonial Title-Massachusetts"), is a Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business in Foxboro, Massachusetts.

3. The defendant, Colonial Title & Escrow, Inc. ("Colonial Title-Rhode Island"), is a Rhode Island corporation with a principal place of business at 132 Central Street, Foxboro, Massachusetts.

II. Brief Statement By Each Party
Plaintiffs' Statement:
The Massachusetts Conveyancers Association, Inc. and seven other bar associations (the "Bar Associations") filed this action on May 17, 1996. The plaintiff Bar Associations allege that the defendants are engaged in the practice of real estate conveyancing in violation of the unauthorized practice of law statute, G.L. c. 221, §§ 46 and 46A. The plaintiff Bar Associations seek a declaratory judgment that the acts of the defendants constitute the unauthorized practice of law in violation of G.L. 221, §§ 46 and 46A. The plaintiff Bar Associations further request a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from the practice of real estate conveyancing in Massachusetts and from holding themselves out to the public as able to perform such services.

Conveyancing, which is a short-hand way for referring to the various functions relating to the creation, transfer or termination of an interest in real property, constitutes the practice of law. Opinion of the Justices, 289 Mass. 607, 613 (1934); Massachusetts Association of Bank Counsel, Inc. v. Closings, Ltd., (Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. No. 90-3053-C, August 30, 1993). See also In re Burton L. Schafer, No. 88-21BD (Jan. 17, 1991) (Wilkins, J.) (activities which include delivering deed, reviewing computations of closing figures, and making telephone calls to locate missing mortgage discharge, constituted practice of law); Coffee County Abstract and Title Co. v. State ex rel. Norwood, 445 So.2d 852 (Ala. 1983); State Bar of Ariz. V. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76, 366 P.2d 1 (1961), reheard, 91 Ariz. 293, 371 P.2d 1020 (1962); Florida Bar v. Irizarry, 268 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1972); Regas v. Continental Casualty Co., 139 Ill. App. 3d 45 (1985); State v. Buyers Service Co., 357 S.E.2d 15 (S.C. 1987); Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wash.2d 581 (1983). The practice of conveyancing necessarily involves judgments as to rights and obligations of others under the law. Therefore, it is in the public interest that conveyancing be performed only by persons who have been trained in the law, who have demonstrated a proficiency in the law by passing the bar entrance examination, who have been licensed by the Commonwealth, and who remain subject to the continuing oversight of the Board of Bar Overseers and the jurisdiction of the Courts of the Commonwealth.
Conveyancing encompasses all of the functions relating to the creation, transfer, or termination of an interest in real property. Without attempting to catalogue these functions, they include the following:
(a) an evaluation of title to the real estate to determine whether the interest being created, transferred or terminated is valid and complies with the parties' obligations under their agreements. See Opinion of Justices, 289 Mass. 607, 615 (1935) (practice of law includes the examination of real estate records in order to assess the legal validity of those documents and of title); In re Behenna, 92-72BD (Jan. 19. 1993) (O'Connor, J.) ("title examination, even without the rendering of advice, would constitute the practice of law"); In re James M. Oates, No. 81-11BD (Aug. 6, 1986) (Liacos, J.) ("[T]itle searching its commonly perceived by the general public to be a pursuit, if not exclusively within the realm of the legal profession, closely associated with it");

(b) the issuance of a title certification and/or a policy of title insurance, both of which are premised upon an evaluation of title to the real estate. See General Laws Chapter 93, § 70 (requiring an attorney to render a certification of title to mortgaged premises under certain conditions); United States v. City of Flint, 346 F. Supp. 1282, 1286 (E.D. Mich. 1972) (title insurance is "predicated upon careful examination of the muniments of title, an exhaustive study of the applicable law and the exercise of expert contract draftsmanship . . . . the existence of title defects will depend upon legal doctrines and judicial interpretations of various applicable statutes"); Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Association, 230 Ark. 494, 326 S.W.2d 900 (1959) (title insurance agent who reviewed title abstract to determine state of title were illegally practicing law); McLaughlin v. Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund, 61 Ill. App. 3d 911, 915-16, 378 N.E.2d 355, 359, 18 Ill. Dec. 891 (1978);

(c) the collection, drafting and review of various legal documents that effect the title to the real estate (including deeds, easements, restrictions, covenants, mortgages, instruments releasing encumbrances of record, or other documents granting rights that have binding legal effect) or impact the parties' obligations under their agreements. See Freitas v. Freitas, 349 Mass. 276 (1965) (preparation of deed by real estate broker constitutes the unauthorized practice of law); Matter of Shoe Mfrs. Protective Ass'n Inc., 295 Mass. 369, 372 (1936) (corporation which completes legal documents for others in the course of in conducting its collection business engages in the unauthorized practice of law); Calvert v. K. Hovnanian at Galloway, VI, Inc., 607 A.2d 156, 162 (N.J. 1992) (licensed real estate broker was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by filling in the purchase agreement and other conveyance forms); Kentucky State Bar Ass'n v. Tussey, 476 S.W.2d 177 (Ky. 1972) (preparation of real estate mortgages by lay-persons constituted the unlawful practice of law); State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title and Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76, 366 P.2d 1 (1961), reheard, 91 Ariz. 293, 371 P.2d 1020 (Ariz. 1961) (non-lawyers may not prepare deeds or conveyances relating to land in which they do not hold absolute or equitable ownership); People v. Sipper, 61 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 844, 142 P.2d 960 (1943) (unauthorized practice of law found when a real estate broker prepared for a fee a document to secure a loan with real property);
(d) an explanation at the closing of documents concerning the interest in the real estate being created, transferred, or terminated, or the parties' agreements, and a description of the legal significance of any such document. See Goldblatt v. Corporation Counsel of Boston, 360 Mass. 660, 665 (1971) (in reviewing a Civil Service Commission appointment, the Court observed under Section 46 that "[o]nly an attorney may advise as to the legal 'validity' of tax titles"); and
(e) ensuring at the closing or otherwise that the creation, transfer, or termination of the legal interest in the real estate occurs in accordance with the intent of the parties' agreement, including the conveyance of the interest in the real estate, the disbursement of the purchase money or other consideration for the interest, and the execution, exchange and recording of documents affecting the legal rights of the parties.

Colonial Title-Rhode Island holds itself out to lenders and members of the public as performing the functions listed above and any other functions required to convey an interest in real estate. Lenders and members of the public are encouraged to and do rely on Colonial Title-Rhode Island to provide conveyancing services and to render legal advice on all aspects of such real estate transactions. By providing such conveyancing services for one or more parties to a transaction, the defendants are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of General Laws Chapter 221, §§ 46 and 46A.
Moreover, the defendants may not perform conveyancing services indirectly by engaging attorneys or others to perform such services for their benefit or for the benefit of one or more of the parties to the transaction. Joffe v. Wilson, 381 Mass. 47, 52-53 (1980) ("lawyer should be free of direction by a third [party]"); People ex. Rel. Los Angeles Bar Ass'n v. California Protective Corp., 76 Cal. App. 354, 360(1926) (corporation that contracted with patrons to furnish legal services for a fee was engaged in unlawful practice of law). A direct attorney-client relationship must exist to ensure that the attorney exercises his judgment independently. This is not possible where the attorney is employed or retained by the defendants, is its agent and subject to its control and direction, and has no direct relationship with any party to the transaction.
Defendants' Statement:
Colonial Title & Escrow, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, has not been an active corporation and has conducted no business. Colonial Title & Escrow, Inc., a Rhode Island corporation, has conducted the normal business of a title insurance agent. Colonial is entitled under the provisions of Section 47, clause 11, of Chapter 175 of the General Laws to engage in the business activity which it conducts. Colonial provides a service to consumers which allows them to purchase homes and refinance their property at reduced rates, which service constitutes a benefit to those consumers.

III. Agreed suggested description of the case to be read to the jury during empanelment

The plaintiffs contend that no such description is required as this is a bench trial. The defendants' counterclaim has been bifurcated, by agreement of the parties, and, depending on the resolution of the plaintiffs' claims, may be moot.
Colonial Title has filed a motion seeking to have the plaintiffs' claims be submitted to a jury on special questions. Should the plaintiffs' claims be submitted to a jury, Colonial Title requests the following description of the case be read to the jury prior to empanelment:
1. Colonial expects the evidence to show that Jon S. Davis and other members of the Massachusetts Conveyancers Association, hereinafter referred to as the "MCA", and the Massachusetts Association of Bank Counsel hereinafter referred to as "MABC", interfered with Colonial's advantageous business relationship with two title insurance companies.

2. Colonial alleges that the members of the association were authorized to contact such title insurance companies and demand that those companies terminate the agency agreements and insured closing letters.

3. Colonial experts the evidence to show that Jon S. Davis and other members of the Associations told the title insurance companies that Colonial was violating the unauthorized practice of law statute and the Closings Ltd. decision.

4. Colonial expects the evidence to show that those statements were untrue and were made for the express purpose of inducing those companies to terminate their business relationships with Colonial.

5. Colonial expects the evidence to show that Colonial suffered a financial loss as a result of that interference.

6. Colonial further expects the evidence to show that the actions by the third party defendant and other members of the plaintiff associations were unfair and deceptive trade practices performed in an attempt to maintain a monopoly of the title insurance business in violation of the anti-trust laws.

IV. Statement of all Unusual Legal Issues

The parties will provide a list of any unusual legal issues for the Court's consideration prior to trial.
Colonial respectfully requests that the following issues be submitted in the form of special questions to a jury. The plaintiff Bar Associations object to any issue being determined by a jury in this matter.

Colonial acknowledges that the crux of Plaintiff's complaint is to seek injunctive relief and that Colonial is not entitled as a matter of right to a jury trial. The Court, however, has the power to empanel the jury to hear the evidence and to decide special questions.
Colonial respectfully suggests that because the allegations made by the Plaintiffs that Colonial and its employees have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, exposes Colonial's employees to the threat of criminal prosecution under M.G.L. c.221 Sections 41 and 46, that the Court should exercise its discretion and allow this matter to be tried before a jury by special questions.
Colonial respectfully suggests the following special questions.
1. Does M.G.L. c. 221 Section 46 prevent a lender from utilizing the services of a non attorney independent contractor to act as witness and notary public at a closing of a one to four family residential real estate loan?

2. Does the attorney representing the lender at a one to four family residential loan closing in Massachusetts have an obligation to explain the terms of the loan documents to the borrower?

3. May the non attorney employees of a title insurance agency act as witness and notary public at the closing of a loan secured by a one to four family residential dwelling in Massachusetts?

4. Is a title insurance company authorized to make a business corporation which employs only lay person a title insurance agent?

5. Does a title insurance agent have the power, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 175 Section 47 clause 11 to examine titles to real estate and provide information concerning the title to such real estate to persons wishing to purchase title insurance?

6. Is there a conflict of I interest when the attorney representing a lender is also the title insurance agent, if such attorney retains, as a commission or additional compensation for services, 60 to 70 percent of the title insurance premium?

7. Can attorneys be title insurance agents if there is a conflict of interest between their duty to their client to examine titles and their natural desire to retain 60 to 70 percent of the title insurance premium?

8. If an attorney representing the lender has an obligation to explain the loan documents to a borrower at closing, does that create a conflict of interest? If there is such a conflict, is the attorney allowed to explain the documents?

9. Does the Massachusetts practice of requiring the borrower to pay the lender's attorney's fees in a residential loan transaction prevent the borrower from retaining his own counsel, and if so should that practice be prohibited so as to permit borrowers to retain their own legal representation?

10. Does the financial benefit to consumer from the reduced fees offered by Colonial Title outweigh any detriment from the u se of non-attorney settlement agents at a residential closing?

11. Does H.R.10 pre-empt the issue of whether a business corporation may sell title insurance?

12. Does the public interest require that the purchase of a residential property be deprived of the right to choose to proceed without a lawyer?

13. Does the public interest require that a commercial mortgagee be represented at the closing of a single family residential loan by an attorney instead of by the lay employee of a title insurance agency?

14. When a person who is an attorney engages in the sale of title insurance is such person acting as an attorney or acting as a title insurance agent/businessman?

15. Does the public interest require that the commercial lender in a residential loan transaction be represented by an attorney?

16. Does the practice of requiring a residential borrower to pay the lender's counsel fee prevent the residential borrower from retaining his or her own attorney to represent his or her own interest at closing? If so should that practice be prohibited?

17. Can a commercial lender utilize its own non-attorney employees to close its loan?

18. What explanation of the terms of the loan documents can be given to a borrower before that explanation constitutes the giving of legal advice?

19. Do the provision of Rule 5.7 of Rule 3.07 of the Supreme Judicial Court constitute a determination by that body that the business of selling title insurance is a law related activity but not the practice of law?

V. The name and address of each witness to be called by each party
Plaintiffs' Anticipated Fact Witnesses:
The plaintiffs submit the following incomplete list of their trial witnesses and reserve their right to amend this list to add additional witnesses as the discovery in this matter is not completed.

1. John Sweeney
132 Central Street
Foxboro, Massachusetts.

2. Joseph Parente
132 Central Street
Foxboro, Massachusetts.

3. David B. Carroll, Esq.
132 Central Street
Foxboro, Massachusetts.

4. Mortgage Lenders. The plaintiffs intend to call one or more of the following witnesses (or others depending on the date of trial and the witnesses' availability) to testify as to their dealings with Colonial Title & Escrow, Inc. and to testify as to practices and procedures in the mortgage lending industry generally. The plaintiffs retain their right to identify additional witnesses following the completion of the outstanding discovery, to which Colonial objects.

A. Randall J. Gasbarro, President
Tri-Valley Mortgage Services, Inc.
89 Main Street, Suite 104
Medway, MA 02053

B. Michael Hanson, President
East Coast Mortgage Corporation
30 Eastbrook Road, Suite 402
Dedham, MA 02026

C. Eric Risley, President
Advantage Mortgage Corporation
775 Main Street
W. Dennis, MA 02670

D. Ely F. Harary, President
Anchor Mortgage Co., Inc.
Building 4, Suite D
3821 Route 28
Marston Mills, MA 02648

E. Equicredit Corporation of MA
200 Friberg Parkway, Suite 1002
Westborough, MA 01581

F. Paul Palmer, President
New England Capitol Mortgage Corporation
10 Forbes Road
Braintree, MA 02184

5. Title Insurers The plaintiffs intend to call one or more persons from the following title insurance companies (depending on the date of trial and the witnesses' availability) to testify as to their dealings with Colonial Title & Escrow, Inc. and to testify as to practices and procedures in the title insurance industry generally. The plaintiffs retain their right to identify additional witnesses following the completion of the outstanding discovery, to which Colonial objects.

A. First American Title Insurance Company

B. Old Republic Title Insurance Company

C. Stewart Title Guaranty Company

D. Commonwealth Land Title Company

E. Fidelity Title Insurance Company

6. Others. The plaintiffs intend to call one or more of the following persons who have been present at a closing of a residential real estate mortgage conducted by Colonial Title & Escrow, Inc. or its agents. The plaintiffs retain their right to identify additional witnesses following the completion of the outstanding discovery, to which Colonial objects.

A. Craig Martin, Esq.
Craig J. Martin and Assoc., P.C.
109 Dean Street
Taunton, MA 02780

B. Bryan J. Stevens, Esq.
1372 Hancock Street
Quincy, MA 02169

The plaintiffs may also call additional witnesses for the purpose of authenticating documents to be introduced as exhibits at trial.

Defendants' Anticipated Fact Witnesses:
1. Colonial is unable at this time to answer this question completely because there is outstanding discovery asking for among other information the names of the members of the MCA and MABC.

2. Colonial expects also to add as witnesses, members and other persons who are identified in answers to interrogatories previously propounded to the MCA and MABC and to the third party defendant.

3. John Sweeney

4. Joseph Parente

5. Randall J. Gasparo of Tri Valley Mortgage Company

6. Michael Hanson of East Coast Mortgage Company

7. Thomas Flynn of Stewart Title Company

8. Peter Norden of First America Title Ins. Company

9. Louis Prevesa of Commonwealth Land Title Company

10. Atty. Robert Hoffman

11. Atty. Jon S. Davis

12. Atty. Joel Stein

13. Atty. Stephen P. Bik, 255 Park Avenue, Worcester

14. Atty. Michael E. Rubin, 430 Bedford Street, Lexington

15. Atty. William J. Pudlow, 7 Park Drive, West Springfield

16. Atty. Andrew S. Jepsky, 100 Franklin Ridge Drive, Franklin

17. Atty. Michael P. Healy, 770 Washington St., Holliston

18. Atty. Steven J. Kellem, 412 Nantasket Avenue, Hull

19. Keeper of the Records of Braintree Co-operative Bank, 1010 Washington St., Braintree MA.

20. Keeper of the Records of Bridgewater Credit Union, 34 Chapman St., Quincy, MA.

21. Keeper of the Records of Brookline Co-operative Bank, 264 Washington St., Brookline, MA

22. Keeper of the Records of Brookline Savings Bank, 160 Washington St., Brookline, MA

23. Keeper of the Records of Abington Savings Bank, 523 Washington St., Abington, MA

24. Keeper of the Records of South Shore Savings Bank, 1530 Main St., So. Weymouth, MA

25. Keeper of the Records of Dedham Co-operative Bank, 402 Washington St., Dedham, MA

26. Keeper of the Records of Dedham Institution for Savings, 65 Elm St., Dedham, MA

27. Keeper of the Records of Hingham Institution for Savings, 55 Main St., Hingham, MA

28. Keeper of the Records of Hyde Park Savings Bank, Dedham Plaza, Dedham, MA

29. Keeper of the Records of Mass. Co-operative Bank, 561 Adams St., Milton, MA

30. Keeper of the Records of Sharon Co-operative Bank, 70 South Main St., Sharon, MA

31. Keeper of the Records of Middlesex Bank and Trust, 233 Boylston St., Newton, MA

32. Keeper of the Records of Middlesex Savings Bank, 180 Linden St., Wellesley, MA

33. Keeper of the Records of Mt. Washington Co-operative Bank, 430 W. Broadway S. Boston, MA

34. Keeper of the Records of Rockland Savings Bank, 54 Front St., Scituate, MA

35. Keeper of the Records of Randolph Savings Bank, 129 North Main St., Randolph, MA

36. Keeper of the Records of South Shore Co-operative Bank, 744 Broad St., Weymouth, MA

37. Keeper of the Records of Plymouth Savings Bank, 19 Depot St., Duxbury, MA

38. Keeper of the Records of Scituate Federal Savings Bank, 72 Front St., Scituate, MA

39. Keeper of the Records of Fleet Bank, 64 Depot St., Duxbury, MA

40. Keeper of the Records of each of the Plaintiff Bar Association

41. Atty. Vicky Scheps, Stoughton

42. James Malloy, Braintree

43. Keeper of the Records, First American Title Insurance Company

44. Keeper of the Records, Stewart Title Insurance Company

45. Atty. Sheldon Fine

46. Barbara Matta of Stewart Title Insurance Company

47. Atty. Peter Wittenborg

48. Atty. Michael Riordan

49. Atty. Whipple, Federal Title

50. Ward Graham of Stewart Title

51. Martin Loria, Esq.

52. Donald M. Jackson, II.

53. Corliss K. Wells, Esq., Quincy, MA

54. Charles Young, Esq.

55. Richard Keshian, Esq.

56. Edward Rainier, Esq.

57. Atty. Robert L. Bell

58. Atty. Stephen Clark

59. Atty. Jeff Gray

60. Atty. Henry L. Murphy, Jr.

61. Atty. Christopher Kehoe,

62. Atty. Ruth A. Dillingham

VI. Name, address and qualifications of each expert witness the parties intend to call
Plaintiffs' Expert Witnesses:

The plaintiff Bar Associations retain their rights to identify different or additional expert witnesses following the completion of outstanding discovery, to which Colonial objects. In addition, a number of persons identified as fact witnesses will likely offer opinion evidence as to certain matters within their experience. Presently, the plaintiff Bar Associations expect to have the following individuals testify as experts at the trial of this matter:

A. Robert Hoffman, Esq.
Hoffman & Hoffman
44 School Street
Boston, MA 02108

Mr. Hoffman is a partner and a practicing attorney at the firm of Hoffman & Hoffman. He is a graduate of Harvard College (1951) and Harvard Law School (1954) and was admitted to the Massachusetts Bar in 1955. He specializes in real estate law and has conducted hundreds of closings throughout his career. Mr. Hoffman was appointed a Land Court Examiner in 1979. He is a member of the Massachusetts Conveyancers Association, Inc., served as its President in 1986, and is the current Chairman of its Ethics Committee. Mr. Hoffman is also a member of the Massachusetts Association of Bank Counsel, the Massachusetts Bar Association, the Boston Bar Association, and a member of the Massachusetts Bar Foundation.

B. D. Bruce Fitzsimmons, Jr., Esq.
Gilmartin, Fitzsimmons & Ross, P.C.
376 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02116

Mr. Fitzsimmons is a partner in the firm of Gilmartin, Fitzsimmons & Ross, P.C. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College (1980) and Boston University Law School (1983). Mr. Fitzsimmons has been a member of the Bar of Massachusetts since 1983 and he is a member both of the Massachusetts Conveyancers Association, Inc. and the Massachusetts Bar Association. Mr. Fitzsimmons concentrates his law practice in the area of real estate law and has conducted thousands of residential real estate conveyances in his career.

The plaintiff Bar Associations expect that Messrs. Hoffman and Fitzsimmons will testify, based on their experience and education, as to the various functions relating to the creation, transfer or termination of an interest in real property as set forth in the Plaintiffs' Statement above.

C. Laura W. Dorfman
105 Pine Ridge Road
Waban, MA 02468

Ms. Dorfman has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Providence College (1982) and a Masters in Business Administration from Bentley College (1990). Ms Dorfman has approximately thirteen years' experience working in the mortgage lending industry. She has experience with all aspects of residential mortgage lending including the origination, closing, servicing, underwriting, and secondary marketing of residential mortgages. Most recently, Ms. Dorfman was employed by U.S. Trust as its Senior Vice President with responsibility for Residential Lending.
The plaintiff Bar Associations expect that, based on her experience and education, Ms. Dorfman will testify, from the perspective of a mortgage lender, as to various functions relating to the creation, transfer or termination of an interest in real property in connection with a residential loan and mortgage, as was as to the practices and procedures in the mortgage lending industry generally.

Defendants' Expert Witnesses:
1. William V. Hovey, Hovey & Koenig, LLP 75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109. Mr. Hovey is expected to give his opinion set forth in an article appearing in the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on October 25, 1999 as to the duties of attorneys at loan closings. A copy of that article is attached.

2. Walter H. McLaughlin, Jr., Esq. of Gilman, McLaughlin & Hanrahan, Boston, MA will testify as an expert witness based on his years as an attorney, he has observed that the practice in Massachusetts is for conveyancing attorneys not to perform full title examination of condominium units but rather to run from an existing title insurance policy or from the Master Deed of the condominium.

3. Eugene Gurvitz, Esq., Boston, MA., counsel for First American title Insurance Company and Martin Loria, Esq. of the law firm Abelson, Gold, Loria and Simmons, are expected to give the opinions set forth in the attached article entitled "The Changing Facets of Conveyancing"

VII. Estimated Length of Trial

The plaintiffs estimate that the trial of this matter will require approximately five full days if the trial runs half-days. The defendants expect that the trial will require at least ten full days.
III. Settlement Discussion
Although the parties have attempted settlement discussions, it is unlikely that these efforts will be fruitful.

MASSACHUSETTS CONVEYANCERS COLONIAL TITLE & ESCROW, INC., et al.
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.

By their attorney, By their attorney,

Douglas W. Salvesen Gerard F. Mackin, Jr.
YURKO & PERRY, P.C. 884 Washington Street, Suite 2
100 City Hall Plaza Weymouth, Massachusetts 02189
Boston, MA 02108-2105 (781) 337-0893
(617) 723-6900

Dated: May 2, 2000