Can board fine owner for cc'ing building lawyer?

Not illegal. The accountants and lawyers are service providers to the board and/or managing agent, and are engaged by them, not the tenants. A tenant, unless they are a board member, doesn't have the authority to request professional services for building matters. If a tenant needs paperwork (e.g., recent financials), they should request those of the managing agent.

They can, of course, hire the accountant or counsel on their own dime (and understand any potential conflicts of interest). What unholy dramas are going on in the building that tenants are calling the lawyer or accounant?

just to be clear, the question isn't about requesting professional services but cc'ing them on a communication to the board or managing agent

Why would you initiate cc'ing a lawyer who is not your lawyer?

Yes the Board can bill you for the actual costs that they're billed for handing the matter that you initiated with their lawyer. Just as they can bill you if you insist that any building staff performs services for you that are outside the scope of their employment. It's in the standard House Rules.

@Riversider: Same answer, even if some tenant is only cc:ing the accountant or counsel. A possible exception would be if the tenant is responding to some inquiry in which the accountant or counsel was initially included, and so the tenants cc: would be reasonable to keep all parties informed of the tenant's response. But if tenant is including acct or counsel in a response to the board or managing agent just because the tenant thinks it's necessary, tenant is both 1) wrong and 2) should expect to be charged. Why is the tenant doing this?

Just to play devil's advocate:
In Woodstock Owners v Dunne the court ruled the Coop rules that the Coop can only pass along attorneys fees to the shareholder if they are successful in litigation

I guess Riversider can sue

Only a board can engage 3rd party professionals on behalf of a building and not renters or owners. There would be zero expectation of claiming this is an engagement. It's not. Its simply intimidation.

Not so fast. Sending an email is engaging them, especially if you've been told not to. It might also be intimidation but it is 100% a sign to hire and pay for your own counsel.

> Sending an email is engaging them, especially if you've been told not to. It might also be intimidation but it is 100% a sign to hire and pay for your own counsel.

That's hilarious. Without anything in agreement in writing or verbally between the owner and the lawyer about the actual service and the actual amount of charge, just sending email can be called "hire" or "engagement".

A lawyer is probably receiving junk emails million times a day, if he could call "receiving email" as a "hire" or "engagement" (especially with a prior warning not doing so) and can actually bill the sender and get the money, he would be super rich.

Why can't the lawyer simply ignore the junk email sent by the owner since there is no relationship established? The lawyer has no obligation to answer the questions from the owner. The lawyer's only obligation is to answer the emails from the board or the management company due to their contract.

I would think from the lawyer's point of view, this owner's email should be considered as a junk email. Probably the board asked the lawyer to look into it. The lawyer has no right to bill the owner, but can bill his time on the board or the management company, who then turn around to fine the owner to recover the lost money.

The questions remains who gives the lawyer's contact information, who asked the owner to cc the lawyer? Usually, an owner has no information on the lawyer's email or has the need to cc the lawyer.

The attorney could simply ask the managing agent for instructions.

A lawyer has to be careful about errors & omissions. So if they don't properly read every email that relates to a matter on which they are engaged, they risk being sued by their client or even disbarred. Hence yes you're engaging the Board's lawyer when you email them about a building-related matter, which has a cost to the Board (lawyers bill clients for everything, even thinking about their case while taking a isht), which they rightfully put back to you.

George:
Logic fault. Your above statement has the attorney as already engaged at the time they receive the email from the shareholder.

OP refers to "the buildings lawyer" [sic]. That implies that they are engaged by the Board to work on behalf of the shareholders. Hence they face E&O risk if they don't read and consider shareholder communication.

Lawyers can't have 2 clients. If they are engaged by the board already, they can not be engaged by a shareholder on the same matter. They can't bill a shareholder for doing a job the Board hired them to do. As far as the Board billing the shareholder, see the case I already posted and explain how this isn't covered by that.

Rephrase: lawyers can't represent parties with adverse interests.

I'll add that all the shareholder needs to do is get an attorney to write the same letter and all of this is probably moot.

In addition, the building accountant works for the shareholders, not the Board. Having a fully audited annual financial statement is to insure the shareholders that the Board and Managing Agent aren't pulling shenanigans. I'm doubtful a court would rule shareholders didn't have an unfettered right to ask the accountant questions regarding the annual financial statement in the same way they have the right to unfettered access to the book and records of the corporation.

If you're referring to Bianca Razzano v. Woodstock Owners Corp, it doesn't say what you think it says. It says Boards can't make changes to rules that treat shareholders differently based on arbitrary distinctions - in that case, the date of acquisition of a unit 20 years ago. Not at all the case here.

This is very simple. The Board represents shareholders and hires professionals like accountants and lawyers and engineers to help the Board manage or conduct the affairs of the building. The shareholders have no right of action to engage these professionals directly at the Board's expense. The shareholders' recourse is to the Board. A shareholder who wishes to contact the Board's professionals should do so through the Board. Otherwise, if the shareholder's action results in expense to the Board after the shareholder is reminded of the proper protocol, the Board has the right in most governing documents to escalate such costs to the shareholder.

To be clear, the Board might choose to have the building's accountant come to the annual meeting to present and answer questions about the financials. But a shareholder who has questions on the financials should direct such questions to the Board who might then engage their accountant. While some buildings might allow shareholders to contact the accountant directly, this isn't best practice since the shareholder and the accountant have a relationship with each other only via Board.

I guess one question is what is an owner to do in the presence of a knowingly lying board?

For example at a previous years annual meeting the board president stood up defending blowing out the budget and argued that one vendor he switched services to (which did work in his apartment first..) were cheaper than the previous. This was, on its face, obviously false given local guy to big name brand switch.

An email to management found that yes the annual fixed charge was 10% less, but the new vendor was actually 3x the previous vendor due to "one time charges" which we managed to incur 2 consecutive years. Not unrelated, the board fired that management company a few months later.

Also - one delay/opacity tactic I've seen is that beyond generalities, management companies usually insist you come into their office M-F 10a-4p to see more granular financials like monthly financials, etc.

So I don't think as general course of business I'd expect owners email escalating like the OP mentions, but certainly see reasons they might in the extremes.

A shareholder's recourse is to the Board, and if necessary to the courts by suing the Board. When you buy in a condo or coop, you subject yourself to the governance of people who might be greedy, incompetent, or just plain assholes. Don't like it? Rent or buy a single family with no HOA.

Yes George, when I wrote Woodstock Owners v Dunne, a case which is EXACTLY what I say it is, I actually meant Bianca Razzano v. Woodstock Owners Corp, a case which has nothing to do with the point I made. How about Marbury vs Madison? Why don't you tell me how that case also doesn't mean what I think it does?

Explain to us what the purpose of a fully audited annual financial statement is, and whose interests are being protected, as well as who the accountant is making representations to? I find it patently ludicrous that you claim when the building accountant comes to the annual meeting to explain the annual financial statement that shareholders should ask questions of the Board, rather than the accountant who is specifically there for that purpose, and then the Board should filter those questions and only actually ask the accountant the questions which make them look good and refuse to ask the accountant any questions they don't feel like the shareholders should have the answers to.

It's also hysterical that you're all over the building attorney's professional obligations and quite mute on those of Certified Public Accountants (or accountants in general).

I'll restate:
"I'll add that all the shareholder needs to do is get an attorney to write the same letter and all of this is probably moot"
so that it's clear when you don't respond a second time it's because you don't have an answer consistent with you premise.

Also, the courts have long held that if a lease provides that a landlord can charge a tenant for attorneys fees, then it's implicit that it goes both ways and if the tenant prevails the landlord must pay tenants attorneys fees. Since the Coop/shareholder relationship is Landlord/tenant the same thing holds. So the Coop can tack on whatever fees they want to a shareholder's bill, they aren't going to be able to actually collect unless either the Coop is successful in litigation or the Coop and shareholder come to some settlement.

@30 - exactly, and how about a board that has repeatedly released audited financials with such delay, and required so much prodding, that financials aren't even available in time for the annual meeting?

The average NYC condo/coop is run much more poorly than some here would like to believe.

I can't find any reference anywhere to Woodstock Owners vs. Dunne.

When the accountant comes to the annual meeting, at least at the ones I attended when I was an owner, it was clear that the accountant was hired by the Board and answered questions as a service to owners but not as the owners' accountant. That's the subtle but meaningful distinction here. Everyone in the building - from the porter to the lawyer - is employed by the corporation that owns the building which is governed by the Board, and does not work for the individual owners.

I've been involved with a lot of litigation with Coops over the past 40 years. Now, based on what you are reading here, you would assume that I would have paid a lot of legal fees. And I have - 7 figures. But you know how much Coop attorneys fees make up out of that? Almost zero. Because judges don't subscribe to the nonsense being posted in this thread and don't award them.

The terrazzo in the lobby is dirty so the super hires a guy to clean the terrazzo floor. According to George they work for the super because he hired them. I say they work for the Coop and the super was acting as an agent of the Coop. George similarly confuses who hires someone vs who they work for.

Wow 30yrs_Blah_blah_blah_ChipsAhoy, that's not at all what George said.
I'm not sure if your response is bad faith or you are that stupid. I tend to think bad faith.

>I've been involved with a lot of litigation with Coops over the past 40 years.
Not the brag you think it is.

Rinette,
Your total lack of knowledge about Real Estate is only exceeded by your stupidity in general. It's like playing chess with a pigeon. But since you lack the cognitive skills to even understand my response I'm not surprised you reverted to "monkey throwing shit" mode.

30 and I agree that the terrazzo cleaner works for the coop via their employee/agent the superintendent. Now, suppose a shareholder demanded that the cleaner come to the shareholder's apartment to inspect his terrazzo, and suppose this happens after the shareholders are all told "don't molest the terrazzo guy", and as a result the coop has a higher terrazzo cleaning bill. Then it would be perfectly reasonable to put the extra cost to the shareholder who caused it.

>It's like playing chess with a pigeon.

Such a humble brag. What else are you going to tell us? You share pizza with rats? You are certain that your squirrel also doesn't have rabies?