Practice After Suspension Draws Reciprocal Disbarment

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a single justice’s order imposing reciprocal disbarment based on sanctions imposed in Florida.

Respondent had been suspended for one year in Florida and then

the Florida bar subsequently filed a second petition for contempt and an order to show cause, alleging that the respondent had continued to engage in the practice of law even after his disbarment. The petition cited multiple cases in which the respondent had continued to file motions before courts in Florida. The Florida bar further noted that the respondent’s motions advanced arguments that his disbarment violated his First Amendment right to engage in “litigation-related speech.”

In Massachusetts

It was not until several years later, in January 2021, that the respondent notified the general counsel to the Board of Bar Overseers of his disbarment in Florida. Thereafter, bar counsel filed a petition for reciprocal discipline in the county court. The respondent, who represented himself, moved to dismiss the petition, and he filed upwards of thirty other motions seeking various forms of relief before the single justice. In December 2021, the single justice issued an order disbarring the respondent from the practice of law in Massachusetts. In June 2022, the respondent was permitted to file a late notice of appeal.

First Amendment

An attorney may not, by speech or other conduct, resist a ruling of the trial court beyond the point necessary to preserve a claim for appeal.” Gentile, supra. Thus, we agree with the single justice that the respondent’s First Amendment argument lacks merit.

Sanction

Most egregious among the respondent’s misconduct was his continued engagement in the unauthorized practice of law after his initial Florida disbarment. “There can be no question that the judgment of disbarment contains a clear and unequivocal command against practicing law.” Matter of Shanahan, 26 Mass. Att’y Discipline Rep. 582, 588 (2010). The unauthorized practice of law by a disbarred attorney is itself “sufficient basis for a judgment of disbarment.” Matter of McInerney, 389 Mass. 528, 536 n.11 (1983). Here, the respondent’s misconduct is further aggravated by his abject refusal to appreciate the wrongful nature of his behavior. See Matter of Bailey, 439 Mass. 134, 152 (2003), and cases cited. Indeed, he appeared to be unwilling to pay the monetary sanctions imposed upon him for his discovery-related misconduct, even years after the order of sanctions had been affirmed on appeal. At the same time, no
special mitigating circumstances are present in this case.

(Mike Frisch)