Born And Raised (But Never Admitted) In Rhode Island
Brothers who practiced law in Rhode Island for eighteen years despite being admitted only in Massachusetts have been suspended for one year by a single justice (Associate Justice Budd) of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
The respondents are both admitted to the Massachusetts bar, but neither has ever been licensed to practice in Rhode Island. In 1995, Carl formed Lovett & Lovett in Providence with his then-wife, Karen, who was licensed to practice law in Rhode Island. Once Samuel was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1996, he joined the firm as a partner. Each respondent owned 49% and Karen owned 2%. Karen worked limited and inconsistent hours at the firm and did not have supervisory power over either respondent. In 2002, the firm hired a Rhode Island attorney, John Sylvia. While an employee, Sylvia had no cases of his own and had no supervisory authority over the respondents’ work on Rhode Island cases.
The facts indicate that both respondents held managerial roles and made all the major decisions regarding the firm’s cases. Although they never signed pleadings for or filed appearances in Rhode Island courts, the respondents completed a substantial amount of legal work on Rhode Island-based cases. Among other responsibilities, the respondents drafted pleadings, communicated with clients and opposing counsel, determined case strategy, and negotiated and reached settlements.
The respondents were also responsible for the firm’s website and advertising. Although the website indicated that they were licensed to practice in Massachusetts, not Rhode Island, the site featured images of the Providence skyline and the respondent’s biographies stated that each brother was ”born and raised in Rhode Island.” Further, the firm was physically located in Providence and all of its phone numbers had Rhode Island area codes.
Bar Counsel had taken a forgiving approach, while the Board of Bar Overseers proposed a two-year actual suspension
In order to practice law in a particular state, a lawyer must be licensed in that state ( or be supervised by an attorney so licensed). The rules of each state are different. Lawyers are expected to be familiar with the specific statutes, rules and regulations of the state or states in which they are licensed to practice. That is the purpose of the licensing requirement. Here, the respondents intentionally and completely circumvented the rules by creating a system designed to evade the rules of licensure. Their surreptitious actions included having other attorneys sign documents and appear in court for cases which they themselves worked on, and failing to clearly advertise that they were not licensed in Rhode Island. They continued this pattern of conduct in an attempt to skirt the rules for at least eighteen years. The recommendation by Bar Counsel to stay a two-year suspension is little more than an opportunity for the respondents to avoid the repercussions of their misconduct, and provides no deterrence for others tempted to engage in similar behavior. On the other hand, none of the few cases cited by the Board show more than a one-year suspension for similar misconduct.
The facts were “mainly derived” from findings of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Committee on Unauthorized Practice, which conducted a four-day hearing. (Mike Frisch)