Divorce Misconduct Draws 18 Month Suspension
An attorney’s missconduct in her own divorce drew an 18-month suspension by Justice Lowy of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This matter comes before me on the information and record of proceedings filed by the Board of Bar Overseers (board). The board recommends that the respondent, Maude Laroche-St. Fleur, be suspended from the practice of law for eighteen months. This recommendation is based on the board’s determination that the respondent committed three types of professional misconduct related to her conduct in her divorce proceedings: knowingly filing false financial statements under oath, willful disregardof court orders resulting in multiple judgments of contempt, and engaging in frivolous litigation. After hearing, upon consideration, and for the reasons that follow, I find that substantial evidence supports the board’s findings and agree with the board’s recommendation. I therefore order an eighteen month suspension from the practice of law.
The false financial statements
As to count one, the board found that the respondent made misrepresentations on financial statements submitted to the trial court during her divorce proceedings. The respondent admits to falsifying personal financial statements submitted to the trial court. Specifically, she admits entering a mortgage amount into the financial statement despite knowing that the mortgage on the family house had been paid in full. Her assertion that her misrepresentations were justified — e.g., that the reason she entered a mortgage amount was to conceal the money she owes her son so he would be less of a target for kidnappers in Haiti — may have possible relevance as a mitigating factor, but does not change the fact that the misrepresentations occurred. I therefore find that there is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that the respondent knowingly and intentionally misrepresented material facts regarding her finances…
Court orders and contempts
the violations of the court orders that led to the three contempt judgments each have ample support in the record, and I therefore find that there is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.4(c) and 8.4(d).
Frivolous claim
The record reveals no support for the respondent’s contention that her Rule 60 motion is timely, and her arguments therein have already been repeatedly heard and rejected, by both trial and appellate courts. Consequently, I find that there is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.1 and 8.4(d)
The court imposed the recommended sanction. (Mike Frisch)