General Denial Not An Answer

The full Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a single justice’s order of an administrative suspension and a second single justice’s order of contempt

On June 6, 2019, bar counsel filed a complaint for contempt, alleging that the respondent had failed to comply with the order of administrative suspension. A substituted complaint for contempt was filed on July 8, 2019. After a hearing, a second single justice adjudged the respondent in civil contempt. The respondent appeals from both orders.

The alleged basis of the administrative suspension was failure to respond to a complaint

By letter dated February 20, 2019, bar counsel provided to the respondent a copy of a Federal District Court judge’s order, and a transcript of a hearing in that court. The respondent represented the plaintiffs in that matter. Bar counsel indicated that the materials raised questions of professional misconduct, and requested the respondent to respond, with supporting documentation.

Respondent’s position

The respondent alleged that he “DID COMPLY, and DID PROVIDE AN ANSWER, and my answer was provided in a form of SILENCE. (BOOM SHAKALAKA).” He also stated that, to the extent an answer was required, he “formally den[ied], and demand[ed] a Jury Trial.”

The court

Silence in the face of bar counsel’s request for information is not, as the respondent claims, a “response” categorically protected by the privilege against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

…The respondent makes no meaningful attempt to challenge on appeal the second single justice’s order adjudging him in contempt for failing to comply with the first single justice’s order of administrative suspension. He focuses instead on his claims concerning the validity of the suspension order. We therefore consider the facts alleged in bar counsel’s complaint for contempt established for purposes of appeal.

ABA Journal reported on the federal court litigation. (MIke Frisch)