Doctor Conflict Leads To Lawyer Reprimand

A public reprimand for a conflict of interest by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers

The respondent was admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth in 2008. Previously, he was licensed to practice medicine in Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. The respondent has not been licensed to practice medicine in any jurisdiction since June 30, 2012.

In June of 2013, a defendant was indicted in New Hampshire on fourteen counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault. The alleged victim was the former stepdaughter of the defendant. The assaults allegedly took place between May 1992 and May 1994, when the victim was ten to twelve years old. At the time of the alleged assaults, the defendant was living with the victim’s mother, the victim, and the victim’s younger sister.

The respondent was friends with the defendant around the time of the alleged assaults. The respondent acted as physician to the victim, her sister, and her mother at various times in the past. The respondent socialized with the defendant and attended social gatherings at his house where the respondent interacted with the victim, her sister, and her mother.

The criminal case was scheduled for trial beginning on May 5, 2014. On or about March 10, 2014, the respondent filed an application to appear pro hac vice in New Hampshire as counsel for the defendant in the pending criminal matter. When the respondent filed his application to appear pro hac vice, he did not perceive or understand there to be a conflict of interest in his representation of the defendant in the New Hampshire prosecution.

Notwithstanding that perception

There was a significant risk that the respondent’s representation of the defendant would violate his duty of confidentiality as a physician to the victim who was his former patient, and might require the respondent to testify as a witness. There was also a significant risk that the respondent’s representation of the defendant would be materially limited by the respondent’s responsibilities to his former patient.

On March 21, 2014, the Court granted a motion for the respondent to appear pro hac vice as counsel to the defendant, together with local counsel. At the pre-trial conference on April 25, 2014, the State raised concerns that the respondent had served as the physician for the victim, and was a family friend of the victim, her mother, and her sister during the time frame alleged in the indictments. The State also raised concerns that the respondent might be called to testify as a witness. The State moved on the record, in essence, to disqualify the respondent as counsel to the defendant.

At the pre-trial conference, the respondent acknowledged that he had treated the victim as a physician. The respondent asserted in open court that the victim had never disclosed her sexual assaults to him in his capacity as her physician.

He was removed as counsel

In mitigation, where the respondent’s pro hac vice admission was vacated before trial and the defendant was represented thereafter by other counsel, there was no ultimate harm caused to any affected third parties. The respondent did not act out of self-interest, as he was planning to represent the defendant on a pro bono basis because the defendant was a friend. The respondent also did not conceal his prior medical treatment of the victim and her family from the Court, and in fact filed pre-trial motions that brought to the attention of the Court and prosecution that he had previously treated the victim and her family.

The New Hampshire Union Leader reported on the criminal case.

A judge removed the defense team for an ex-Lawrence, Mass., police officer facing charges that he sexually assaulted a Salem girl in the early 1990s.

Judge Marguerite Wageling dismissed two Massachusetts lawyers for Carlos Gonzalez, 48, just as he was about to go on trial in Rockingham County Superior Court on 14 counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault.

Gonzales was expected to go on trial this month until county prosecutors raised concerns about close personal connections the defense team once had with the girl and two other witnesses in the case. 

Defense lawyers Walter and Alexandria Jacobs, who are father and daughter, were close friends with Gonzalez for several years and also knew the alleged victim and two other witnesses in the case, according to court records.

Walter Jacobs, a former medical doctor, also served as the girl’s primary care physician as a young girl, Assistant County Attorney Kirsten Wilson said in court papers. 

Wageling concluded that because of the past relationship the defense lawyers had with the witnesses, including the victim, they had to be barred from representing Gonzalez.

(Mike Frisch)