Accountant License Suspension

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a three year license suspension of an accountant convicted of a felony theft offense and false concealment of the conviction in an application for license renewal:

Based on the petitioner’s larceny conviction and his false statement on his renewal application, the board, in May, 2006,issued to the petitioner an order to show cause why it should notsuspend, revoke, or take other action against his license. Prosecutingcounsel for the division of professional licensure moved for summarydecision. See 801 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.01(7)(h) (1998). The boardallowed the motion, concluding that the undisputed evidence showed thepetitioner had been convicted of larceny over $250, and had lied aboutthat conviction on his renewal application. See G.L. c. 112, §§ 61 and87C 1/2 . The board rejected the petitioner’s claim that he hadmistakenly thought his larceny conviction had been “stayed” pendingappeal–he presented no evidence to support his claim, and the boardrejected his explanation of the different answers he gave on hisapplications to renew his accountant’s license and to become a notarypublic as “linguistic splitting of hairs.” See 801 Code Mass. Regs. §1.01(7)(h) (summary decision appropriate where no “genuine issue offact”). The board also concluded that, even if the petitioner had notintended to deceive the board, he knew or should have known that hisstatement in the renewal application was false.

A sanctions hearing took place, at which the petitioner and his defensecounsel in the larceny case testified. Thereafter, the board issued afinal decision in which it incorporated its earlier decision allowingthe motion for summary decision; found no mitigating circumstances;found aggravating circumstances (a pattern of similar financial misconduct shownby the G.L. c. 93A matter and the petitioner’s criminal charges aboveand beyond the larceny conviction; and the petitioner’s demeanor duringthe hearing); and ordered his accountant’s license suspended for threeyears.

The case is Kaplan v. Board of Public Accountancy, decided November 26. (Mike Frisch)