Reinstatement Granted

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted reinstatement to an attorney who aided a client fraud under somewhat sympathetic circumstances.

The attorney represented the mother of a 17 year old daughter who lived with her father in a southern state, The daughter (“Sally”) was hospitalized for a drug overdose while visiting the mother,

Then

On Friday night September 14, 2007, Sally’s mother managed to remove Sally from a DCF group activity. Ex. 4 (90); Tr. 13 (Petitioner). Worried that.DCF would look for Sally at her home, the mother left her near a dumpster in the rain, called the petitioner, told him she had ‘taken Sally, infom1ed him where she had left her and asked him to. pick Sally up. Ex. 4 (90); Tr. 13 (Petitioner). The petitioner did so. He did not call the police or DCF, because Sally had just had bad experiences with both. Ex. 4 (90). He advised her to go back to DCF custody .. Id. When she refused, he arranged for friends (who were actually clients) to let her stay at their house for the night. Ex. 4 (90-91 ); Tr. 13, 31 (Petitioner). The petitioner felt like this was an emergency, and his primary concem was for Sally’s safety. Ex. 4 (90); Tr. 13-14 (Petitioner).

The next day, the petitioner and his wife went to the friends’·house to speak with Sally. Ex. 4 (91 ); Tr. 14. He again encouraged her to go back to DCF; she again refused. I d.; Tr. 83-84 (Sandra Hession). Sally expressed an intention to retum to her father’s home in a southern state, and said that she would hitchhike if necessary. Ex. 4 (91); Tr. 18-20 (Petitioner). The petitioner and his wife gave Sally clothing and $300 in cash for a bus ticket to return to her father’s home. Ex. 4 (91). The mother was informed that Sally had left to go to her father’s home and, after the petitioner learned she had safely arrived, the mother was so apprised. Ex. 4 (91-92).

Days later, at the hearing on· September 19, 2007, the petitioner appeared before the new judge and told him that Sally had “apparently” left DCF custody. Ex.’ 4 (92). Asked by the judge if the mother had any idea where Sally was, the petitioner gave a vague description of Jane having received a call from Sally; explained that Jane had told him that Sally was “local”; and concluded that he didn’t think Jane knew much more than that. Ex. 4 (93).

Counsel for DCF asked to examine Jane. Id. The petitioner asked for and was allowed a brief recess to speak with her. After she was put under oath, Jane took the stand and made numerous misrepresentations, among them that she believed Sally was somewhere in the New England area; that Sally had assured her she would appear in court that day; and that Jane would contact DCF in the event Sally were to return home. Ex. 4 (94).

The court here concluded that a “humanitarian impulse” motivated the misconduct.

We note that after he was suspended, the petitioner spent the first two months working around his farm, where he and his wife raise many sheep and goats. Tr. 11, 26-27 (Petitioner). He observed that he spent time thinking about what he had done, and noted that farm work is “really good” for that. Tr. 26-27 (Petitioner). He also got a job in a carpet store, where he worked until fairly recently. Tr. 26 (Petitioner). In terms of charitable endeavors and conimunity work, the petitioner wrote that he used to engage in a great deal of such work, prior to his suspension, but since the suspension and due to extreme time constraints, his only ·community activity is church involvement. Ex. 1 (8). He did not discuss charitable work at the hearing. However, there was testimony that he.generally attends church regularly, both Saturday night and Sunday morning. Tr. 92 (Lukens)…

We are satisfied that the petitioner now has a better grasp of the proper balance between zealous advocacy and candor to the tribunal, such as to make unlikely a future lapse.4.

The suspension was for a year and a day. (Mike Frissch)