Skip to content
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Assisting Unauthorized Practice Draws Suspension

A six-month suspension has been imposed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for assisting the unauthorized practice of a suspended attorney.

From the summary

The respondent practices criminal defense and immigration law. As of 2015, his law office was in the same building as another lawyer named Gail Balser. Unbeknownst to him, Balser had been the subject of disciplinary proceedings beginning in 2013.

Those proceedings led to a four suspension in 2016

As early as 2015, while her suspension was on appeal to the Board, Balser began soliciting clients to join in a multi-plaintiff toxic tort lawsuit against Texas Instruments (TI). She discussed with the respondent and his wife, also a practicing attorney renting space in the building, representation of the multiple plaintiffs she had recruited for the lawsuit. She claimed she had a conflict of interest and so could not file the complaint herself. Unaware of Balser’s pending disciplinary proceedings, the respondent agreed, in December 2015, to represent forty-eight plaintiffs, with the understanding that Balser would assist him and would bring in more experienced counsel.

Balser filed the complaint on February 16, 2016 and amended it on February 19, 2016. The respondent and his wife were identified as counsel of record. The wife had no further involvement. On April 15, 2016, the Single Justice entered an order suspending Balser for four years. Balser did not inform the respondent, and he did not learn, until almost two years later, of her suspension. The respondent relied on Balser for advice and direction in the TI litigation. In February 2018, he learned that Balser had been suspended from practice in April 2016. He permitted her to continue to provide him with assistance for several months thereafter, and to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. He did not withdraw from the litigation until September 2018.

The stipulation notes that the Respondent admitted that the conduct was “knowing” as a violation of this rule

S.J.C. Rule 4:01. Sec. 17(7) (do not knowingly employ or engage suspended lawyer)

(Mike Frisch)