insofar as they were never separately served in their capacity as Trustees of the Family Trust. It is well established that a trustee must be served with process separately for each different capacity in which he is being sued. See Cochrane v. Forbes, supra at 255; New England Oil Refining Co. v. Canada Mexico Oil Co., Ltd., 274 Mass. 191, 198 (1930). Thus, where trustees were named as defendants in their official capacities and the complaint was amended to state a claim against the trustees as individuals, the trustees as individuals could not be made parties to the amended complaint without separate service of process. Cochrane v. Forbes, supra at 255; New England Oil Refining Co. v. Canada Mexico Oil Co., Ltd., supra at 198. Compare Golf v. MacDonald, 333 Mass. 146, 150 (1955) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in the absence of separate service
recognizing that because an attorney was acting in his personal capacity  and there was therefore no potential for client harm from his misconduct his actions may be viewed as less egregious than the actions at issue in cases involving attorneys acting in representative capacities holding that corporation acting as asubstitute trustee was a nominal party holding a suit against a sheriff in his individual capacity was subject to section 1146llls notice requirements because the sheriff was acting in his official capacity holding that a judgment in a suit in which a trustee was acting individually would not bind him acting in his capacity as trustee holding that bank could not bring counterclaim in its capacity as trustee