Two Plus Two Equals Indefinite Suspension

The full Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the sanction imposed by a single justice for crimes and other misdeeds

Had the respondent’s criminal misconduct been the only basis for discipline (although, as set forth below, it was not), we would be satisfied that a two-year suspension would be comparable to other cases involving similar criminal convictions…

Although the respondent’s criminal convictions concerned kickbacks and unearned fees in some of the same transactions described in count one of the petition, the misconduct that is the subject of the remaining counts was different and warrants additional discipline. The hearing committee’s findings, adopted by the board, establish that the respondent violated multiple rules of professional conduct, directly or through an associate attorney, by purchasing homes from financially distressed homeowners, leasing the homes back to the homeowners under oppressive terms, and intentionally misrepresenting the terms of the transactions on HUD-1 forms. The board additionally found that the respondent prepared or caused to be prepared fraudulent documents four separate times, and caused an associate attorney to make false certifications three times. On account of this misconduct, the board recommended a two-year suspension in addition to the two-year suspension for the criminal misconduct.

 Thus

Not only did the respondent use his professional training and experience to take advantage of vulnerable homeowners in precarious financial positions, but he also violated Federal law, concealed the nature of the transactions from his lenders and his firm’s clients out of a self-interested motive, and engaged in repeated conflicts of interest.definite suspension is the appropriate sanction…The order of the single justice indefinitely suspending the respondent from the practice of law is affirmed. The respondent may apply for reinstatement nineteen months before he would otherwise be entitled to do so.

(Mike Frisch)