unless it is first factually established that [the lawyer’s] neglect was occasioned by some extenuating circumstances of sufficient significance to render it excusable. Unexplained neglect, standing alone and without more, whether it be of a party or of his attorney, will not automatically excuse noncompliance with orderly procedures.” Id. at 157, 235 A.2d at 875. There were no extenuating circumstances in this case to excuse defendants' counsel’s neglect in failing to contact Murray after his conversation with her client or her failure to attend the hearing. Therefore, that neglect was not excusable, and even if grossly negligent, it would be insufficient as a basis for vacating the default decree. See Bailey v. Algonquin Gas Transmission Co., 788 A.2d 478, 488 (R.I.2002) (<HOLDING>). As we said in Bailey, ”[t]hat fundamental law
holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client holding that when counsel was present when a trial date was announced and received written notice of the date even though the client did not receive notice the attorneys knowledge was imputed to the client holding an attorney is an agent of the client and therefore cannot conspire with the client holding that an attorneys unexplained and willful conduct was imputed to his client and that his neglect was not so extraordinary as to justify vacating the default judgment entered against the client holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client