Back to School

An agreed reprimand has been imposed by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers for misconduct in a domestic relations matter.

From the attached summary

In 2019, the respondent filed a contempt complaint against the ex-husband on behalf of her client. The contempt complaint alleged that the ex-husband was not cooperating with the client in planning and paying for their son’s attendance at college. The Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for January 16, 2020. In preparation for the hearing, the respondent drafted a one-page affidavit for the son to sign. The purpose of the affidavit was to authenticate a spreadsheet on which the son had compiled a list of colleges.

On January 12, 2020, the respondent met with her client to prepare for the upcoming hearing. During this meeting, the client informed the respondent that the son could not sign the affidavit because he had already left for college out of state. The client called her son and the son confirmed the contents of the affidavit over the phone. The respondent listened to this phone call. Then, with the respondent’s permission, the client signed her son’s name to the affidavit. The following day, January 13, 2020, the respondent directed a paralegal in her office to notarize the affidavit. The paralegal notarized the affidavit as having been signed before her by the son on January 10, 2020.

On January 16, 2020, during the contempt hearing, the respondent offered the affidavit in court as foundation for the authentication of the spreadsheet. The respondent knew the signature and date on the affidavit were false and misleading when she offered the affidavit to the Court. The fact that the mother had signed for her son was not apparent from the face of the document. Other than the false signature and notarization, the contents of the affidavit were accurate, and the spreadsheet was authentic.

During the contempt proceedings, the client admitted that she had signed the affidavit for her son. The Court declared a mistrial and ordered the respondent to withdraw, which the respondent did. The Court subsequently ordered the respondent to pay the ex-husband’s attorneys’ fees, and the respondent complied with this order.

(Mike Frisch)