Sex Texts, Lies And Threats Get Lawyer Suspended

A suspension of a year and a day was imposed by a justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as a result of conduct described in this summary.

The attorney was appointed to represent a client charged with armed robbery

In February 2015, the respondent communicated with the client’s fiancée. Without the client’s consent, the respondent divulged confidential information to the client’s fiancée relating to the representation of his client including, but not limited to, statements by his client and details of his client’s case.

He “repeatedly sent sexually explicit messages and a picture to the fiancée and asked her to meet him at a hotel,” presumably not with the intention of preparing her testimony.

The client pleaded guilty to larceny and received a 2 1/2 year prison sentence.

When the fiancee learned of the disposition, she complained

The next day, the respondent’s supervisor at Hampden County Lawyers for Justice contacted the respondent by text and requested that he meet with him at his office regarding the complaint and told him to feel free to call him. That day, the respondent telephoned the supervisor and falsely claimed that he “doesn’t even know them.” After the supervisor reminded the respondent that the client pled guilty the previous day, the respondent admitted that he knew the client, but stated that he didn’t know the fiancée. The following day, the respondent texted the supervisor and asked him what to bring to the meeting. The supervisor instructed the respondent to bring his file and his phone. The respondent texted that he had already cleared his phone when the case ended. The respondent failed to provide the supervisor with his file.

In March 2015, the respondent sent the supervisor threatening texts.

In May 2015, successor counsel requested that the respondent provide him with the client’s file, but the respondent failed to do so.

As to sanction

In mitigation, the respondent has a history of alcoholism, and at the time of the misconduct, the respondent was drinking heavily. The weight of this mitigation is limited because the respondent has not shown that his alcoholism caused his misconduct or that he has maintained sobriety for a significant period of time.

In their stipulation, the parties agreed that the appropriate discipline for the respondent’s misconduct was a suspension of a year and a day, and on August 8, 2016, the board voted unanimously to accept the stipulation and to recommend that the respondent be suspended for one year and a day.

(Mike Frisch)