Sea Change

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinstated an attorney who had failed to disclose criminal charges pending at the time of admission.

From the Hearing Panel report

On April 5, 1999. Curtis petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court for admission to the Massachusetts bar. Along with the petition, the petitioner completed and filed the required questionnaire, which asked him to disclose whether or not he had ever been charged with or been the subject of any investigation for a felony or misdemeanor other than a minor traffic charge. The petitioner intentionally did not disclose the pending felony indictments in Norfolk County. Nor did he amend his questionnaire once he was charged with the Suffolk County felonies. In addition, the petitioner was subsequently charged in Suffolk County with one count of tax evasion and one count of willfully filing a false tax return under oath. These crimes are also felonies, and the petitioner failed to disclose them on his bar application. Before his admission to the bar, the petitioner never notified the Board of Bar Examiners or the Supreme Judicial Court that. there were criminal charges pending against him. The petitioner was admitted to the bar on December 13, 1999. He was temporarily suspended from the practice of law on October 5, 2000.

He turned his life around

We credit that the petitioner faced a number of personal tragedies as a young man that led, as he said, to a distortion of his moral compass, leading to a sense of self justification and entitlement (“the world owed me something because I was deprived”), resulting in selfishness and greed that were fueled by alcoholism and depression. In turn, these contributed to his misconduct, before becoming a lawyer, that resulted in his criminal convictions. The petitioner has been sober since 2008 and has remained so with the assistance of, and his participation in, Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, Alcoholics Anonymous, and psychotherapy. Moreover, we credit that the petitioner now recognizes the danger of trying to handle all of his problems unassisted and note that he has developed a support system. He has also met with the Law Office Management Assistance Program and will continue to Work with them.  Attorney Peter Flynn has agreed to mentor the petitioner if he is reinstated and bar counsel is amenable to this. In part because of this support system, we find that the misconduct is not likely to be repeated. (citations to record omitted)

He was permitted to work as a paralegal in 2014 and presented a significant amount of favorable character evidence.

In our judgment, reinstating the petitioner will not erode public confidence in the profession. To be sure, his misconduct violated fundamental duties to his employers (albeit before he was admitted to the bar) and to the profession. Still, we have received compelling evidence that the petitioner allowed himself to succumb to circumstances, evidenced by conduct for which he accepts responsibility, and that he has reformed himself by effective affirmative efforts, including real changes to how he approaches his life. In our judgment, the public will recognize, as do we, that the petitioner has earned the privilege of once again practicing law in Massachusetts.

(Mike Frisch)