An agreed public reprimand was accepted by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers

The respondent was the sole trustee of a family trust. He and members of his family are the trust’s beneficiaries. In 2015, as trustee for the trust, the respondent purchased real property located at 16 East Pasture Road in Aquinnah, Massachusetts. The seller also owned a one-third interest in an abutting parcel. The respondent offered the seller $5,000 to buy the seller’s onethird interest in the abutting parcel, but the seller refused, citing a “handshake” agreement he had made with the respondent to sell the interest for $29,500. Over the next four years, the respondent made additional offers to purchase the one-third interest; these were declined. An August 20, 2020 offer attached a purchase and sale agreement offering a total of $7,500; this was also declined. Immediately thereafter, the respondent falsely told the seller that there was an abandoned rusty oil tank on the parcel, and that the seller was responsible for one-third of the cost of its removal. The respondent knew this statement was false; he knew there was no oil tank on the abutting property. He followed this with further knowingly false statements, among them that the tank may have caused contamination and that the cost to the seller to remediate would be $2,000-$3,000. After the seller requested a photo of the tank, the respondent fraudulently produced a stock image of an oil tank from the internet. Questioned by an individual acting as the seller’s broker, the respondent dug in deeper, stating falsely that he was not the owner of 16
East Pasture Road but only a trustee acting on behalf of the beneficiaries; that certain steps needed to be taken to test the soil for possible contamination; and that the remediation costs could go as high as $30,000-$50,000. These statements were false; the respondent knew that, as a beneficiary of the trust that had purchased 16 East Pasture Road, he was in fact an owner of the property. He emailed the broker photographs purporting to depict the neighboring land with the “oil tank.” He knew the photos were fake. The respondent received a voice mail message from the Chief of the Aquinnah Fire Department, seeking access to his property, 16 East Pasture Road due to reports of an oil tank. Denying permission to the Chief, the respondent invented a story that the supposed owner of his property was “recently retired intelligence” who monitored the property with several dozen cameras. All of this was bogus. Despite the warnings, the Chief toured the parcel and found no evidence of an oil tank or soil contamination.

Dissent

We disagree with our colleagues in the majority. While two factors suggest a lighter sanction than in other cases under Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4(c) and (h) (the misconduct occurred outside the practice of law and the respondent’s conduct did not cause harm to the victim), these factors do not always result in a public reprimand or admonition. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Judicial Court has suspended law licenses. Given the serious, brazen and serial nature of the respondent’s deceitful misconduct, we would reject the stipulation as too lenient and remand the case for hearing.

(Mike Frisch)