Web Of Misconduct
The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers recommends an 18-month suspension based on findings relating to efforts of Respondent’s ex-wife to secure alimony
The respondent and his ex-wife Lucretia A. Kaplan were married for 26 years, raising two sons together. Lucretia was the family’s primary wage earner, while the respondent focused on the children. At age 41, the respondent became a member of the Massachusetts bar, having attended both college and law school as an adult, education which was funded by his wife. Since 2000, Lucretia has been unable to work due to a work-related injury and has been collecting disability benefits. On November 10, 2008, the respondent filed for divorce. A judgment of divorce entered on November 3, 2009. There was no provision for alimony in the original judgment.
When his ex-wife sought alimony
After a two-day trial, on December 31, 2015, the probate court judge found, among other things, that the respondent had testified falsely, intentionally tried to conceal his income; failed to produce documents to support his claim that he had borrowed funds from the trusts to pay personal expenses; failed to list on his financial statement the funds in the Tralfaz Trust; failed to list on his financial statement property he owned at 109R Woodlawn Avene in Holbrook, Massachusetts; failed to cooperate in discovery; and was generally untruthful. (HCR ¶ 51). The judge ordered the respondent to pay alimony in the amount of $1,800 per week in addition to back alimony of $48,150.
There ensued a cascading series of complaints for contempt filed by Lucretia and notices of appeal and post-trial motions by the respondent. There were at least five of the former and ten of the latter, the first complaint arriving only a few weeks after the modification judgment. On March 31, 2016, the judge ordered the respondent to pay $4,500 on the threat of a thirty-day jail sentence, which was suspended for three weeks. Defending against the contempt complaints, the respondent argued to the probate court judge that he did not have the financial means to pay alimony and his ex-wife’s attorney’s fees. The judge rejected the defense on multiple occasions. (HCR ¶¶ 57, 59, 64). After serving a short jail sentence in 2018, the respondent satisfied the contempt judgment … only to face another contempt motion and judgment a few months later.
The disciplinary proceeding resulted in findings of multiple rule violations by a hearing committee that were sustained by the board.
Sanction
The respondent’s multiple rules violations are all connected. They form a web of misconduct. The respondent concealed his net worth, refused to produce information, filed falseor incomplete financial statements, lied to the court and opposing counsel, invented conversations that never occurred, and willfully flouted his legal obligations to pay alimony and attorney’s fees. His apparent intent was to swindle his ex-wife with no regard for the delays and waste he caused. His words and conduct displayed contempt for the probate court, his ex-wife and the administration of justice. The underlying record reveals the costs in both time and money for the court and the parties. Lucretia and her lawyer had to file multiple complaints for contempt. They had to issue subpoenas directly to banks to obtain documents that the respondent should have produced. With limited resources, the judges struggled in multiple hearings to reconcile the obviously deceitful financial statements and testimony with reality. None of this should have been necessary. An experienced probate court practitioner, the respondent knew or should have known about the critical role that financial statements play in divorce litigation. Indeed, the statements are signed under the pains and penalties of perjury. By concealing his actual income and assets, the respondent undermined the foundation of the probate court system.
Thus
we agree with the hearing committee and recommend a license suspension of eighteen months.
The hearing committee report is linked here. (Mike Frisch)