Oh, Those Drug Charges?
An attorney who was able to secure early termination of probation for his client in Massachusetts by concealing a recent New Hampshire arrest was suspended for 15 months by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
On February 7, 2007, the motion to terminate early was conducted at side bar and was presented upon the representation of the respondent. During the presentation, the respondent represented that his client was doing “very well,” was employed in the successful family business and had a need to travel in connection with the family business. The judge made inquiry of the client as to his ongoing treatment for substance abuse issues. The respondent interceded before the client spoke and stated that “he took care of those issues a long time ago.” In his presentation, the respondent did not disclose any facts in connection with the New Hampshire proceeding including that his client has been physically present in New Hampshire and had been arrested, and arraigned on serious drug charges.
On February 7, 2017, the Court allowed the motion, terminating probation. A few days later, the probation officer received papers from the Salem, New Hampshire, Police Department disclosing the pending criminal charges. The probation officer called the respondent and informed him of her receipt of the New Hampshire papers. The respondent professed surprise about the New Hampshire charges. As a result of the pending New Hampshire charges, the termination the client’s probation was rescinded, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to jail for one year.
He should not have been surprised as he was handled the New Hampshire charges.
He stipulated to the violations
By seeking affirmative relief from a court by knowingly concealing facts from the probation department and the court, including known violations of the terms of probation, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c), (d) and (h). By affirmatively informing the court that that his client was doing “very well” and representing that he had put those issues behind him as described above, the respondent made statements of fact that were knowingly false and misleading, in violation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c), (d) and (h). By attempting to conceal his misconduct by professing to the probation officer ignorance of the New Hampshire charges, the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 4.1 and 8.4(c), (d) and (h).
(Mike Frisch)