Suspension Imposed Rather Than Reprimand

A justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court imposed a 30 day suspension with a requirement that the attorney take and pass a professional responsibility examination within 18 months in a case that involved misconduct committed while under extraordinarily stressful circumstances:

Bar counsel filed a petition for disciplinealleging that Stella B. Angwafo, the respondent, intentionallymisrepresented the amount of her assets on her personal financialstatement filed in the Probate and Family Court, and that sheintentionally misrepresented her marital status in a motion for childsupport and continued health insurance coverage for her child andherself. After an evidentiary hearing, a special hearing officer foundthat the respondent made intentional misrepresentations to the Probateand Family Court by (1) misrepresenting on her financial statement thatshe had no bank accounts when in fact she did; and (2) misrepresentingin a motion for child support and continued health insurance coverage that shewas married when in fact she was not. The special hearing officerfound, in mitigation, that at the time the respondent misrepresentedher assets she experienced fear and stress as a result of domesticabuse. He recommended that she be suspended from the practice of lawfor two months.

The respondent appealed to the Board of Bar Overseers (board). Theboard adopted the special hearing officer’s findings of fact andconclusions of law, but concluded the special hearing officer had”vastly understate[d]” the type of stress experienced by the respondentat the time she completed the financial statement in question. Thespecial hearing officer had compared it to the stress of practicinglaw. The board noted that the stress associated with the practice oflaw is “typical,” and entitled to little weight in the determination ofa sanction, see Matter of Alter,389 Mass. 153, 156-157 (1983), but concluded that there was nothing”typical” about the fear and stress felt by the respondent. When shefilled out her financial statement the respondent was sitting besidethe man who was the father of her three year old son and who recentlyhad driven his Toyota Land Cruiser into the driver’s side of her ToyotaCamry sedan while she and her son were inside. The board assessed herfear as “understandable terror,” “transcend[ing] ‘typical’ mitigation,”and recommended a public reprimand.

The court imposed a suspension because, in its view:

The mitigating circumstances here are verypowerful. The respondent had been subject to what the special hearingofficer and the board found was a “frightening and grave incident ofabuse” on July 13, 2001, following nearly six years of physical andemotional abuse. At the time the respondent prepared her financialstatement of July 27, a family service officer of the Probate andFamily Court directed the respondent and Taboh to the same area. Thisshould not have happened. We find this particularly disturbing, andagree with both the special hearing officer and the board that she wasunder considerable stress and fear while preparing the financialstatement, placed about five feet away from her abuser by the verycourt from whom she sought protection.

Nevertheless, we cannot overlook the fact that the respondent hadenough presence of mind to itemize her school loans and provide a totalof liabilities, while providing utterly no information as to her bankaccounts. She was aware of the existence of her accountsand she at least could have mentioned the names of the banks, andperhaps placed a question mark after each name. Instead, she omittedall reference to them. Although the respondent was, in effect, exposedto her abuser at precisely the time she was preparing her financialstatement, she provided all the requested information except that whichshe seemingly thought was the weakest link in her case for childsupport: her bank accounts. The special hearing officer wrestled withthis. In the final analysis he recommended a two-month suspensionbecause he found that the respondent’s financial statement was more theproduct of her intentionality than it was carelessness, fear, orstress. We accept this finding.

The case is Matter of Angwafo, decided today. (Mike Frisch)