Disbarment For Rape Of Child
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court accepted an attorney’s resignation
The respondent’s affidavit of resignation was accepted, and he was disbarred, based on two separate convictions for multiple counts of rape of a child. In December 2022, he was convicted in two Massachusetts state courts for engaging in felony crimes involving sexual misconduct. He pleaded guilty on December 12th to three counts of rape of a child and, on December 20th, to three counts of rape of a child and two counts of enticing a minor. He was sentenced in each case to incarceration in Massachusetts state prison for seven to eight years, to run concurrently, as well as five years of probation. He was also convicted of rape in the third degree in New York state court. All of the convictions involved the respondent meeting, and having sexual intercourse, with the same minor female.
The respondent was indefinitely suspended in 2017 following his conviction in the Clinton District Court of enticing a child under the age of sixteen for the purpose of having sex. Matter of Smith, 33 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 437 (2017).
The earlier indefinite suspension is summarized here
On October 29, 2015, the respondent, Robert Dickens Smith, who was admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth on June 23, 2005, pleaded guilty in the Clinton District Court to enticing a child under the age of sixteen for the purpose of having sex, in violation of G.L. c. 265, § 26C(b), a felony. The respondent was sentenced to two and one-half years in the house of correction, with one year to be served and the remainder suspended for five years on various probationary terms. As a result of his conviction, the respondent was temporarily suspended from the practice of law on January 27, 2016. The circumstances supporting the conviction were as follows.
In February of 2015, the respondent was in communication by text and email with a twelve year old girl known by him to be under the age of sixteen. On the evening of February 18, he encouraged her to sneak out of her house and picked her up in his car nearby, with the intent to engage in sexual activity. Approximately thirty minutes later he dropped her off at her request, where she was found by her mother.
In mitigation of the respondent’s criminal conduct, his offense did not involve any physical contact with the victim. The respondent continues to engage in sex offender specific counseling. He has been found by the Sex Offense Registry Board to present a low risk of re-offense and has been classified as Level 1, which means that his status may not be publicly disseminated by the SORB. He has expressed remorse for his criminal conduct and has cooperated with bar counsel. His misconduct did not involve the practice of law
(Mike Frisch)