The time .expended by counsel on matters pertaining to the threatening telephone calls and the accommodation for the kirpan, however, are not sufficiently related to the litigation to warrant an award of attorneys’ fees. To be sure, attorneys owe to their clients a host of fiduciary duties, Sentinel Prods. Corp. v. Platt, No. Civ.A. 98-11143-GAO, 2002 WL 1613713, at *2 (D.Mass. July 22, 2002) (O’Tople, J.), and competent counsel are expected to tend to their clients’ concerns broadly. Nevertheless, in deciding whether to honor a request for attorneys’ fees, a court must be assured that the time expended by counsel was actually in furtherance of the underlying litigation. Cf. Specialty Retailers, Inc. v. Main St. NA Parkade, LLC, 804 F.Supp.2d 68, 74 (D.Mass.2011) (Neiman, M.J.) (<HOLDING>). Counsel’s efforts to deal with threats made
holding that attorneys and not clients choose the arguments to present holding party should have segregated attorneys fees for fraud claim from attorneys fees for contract claim based largely on the difference between the essential elements of each claim holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees holding attorneys deemed parties for purposes of paying attorneys fees resulting from frivolous lawsuit they filed without clients authority holding that attorneys fees were not warranted for inter alia counsels resolution of potential conflicts of interest between his two clients