Brother, Can You Spare $430,000?

A justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has disbarred an attorney for conversion of funds of his incarcerated brother

The respondent, Laurence Potter Morin, was charged by the Office of Bar Counsel (bar counsel) with, inter alia, intentionally converting approximately $430,000 of his brother’s, Paul Morin’s (Paul), money that had been entrusted to the Respondent’s care by Paul while Paul was incarcerated. For the reasons set forth below, it is ordered that a judgment shall enter disbarring the respondent from the practice of law in the Commonwealth.

Proceedings below

Following considerable motion practice between the respondent, who was represented by counsel at the time, and bar counsel, a hearing was held remotely on December 5 and 6, 2022. Fifty-two exhibits were admitted, and five witnesses testified, including Paul, bar counsel’s financial investigator, and two of Paul’s friends who helped him recover some of his property from the respondent while still in prison. Approximately two weeks prior to the hearing, the respondent notified the Board that he would no longer participate in the proceedings. The hearing therefore took place in the absence of the respondent and his counsel…

The hearing committee recommended that the respondent be disbarred. The board voted to adopt the committee’s recommendation.

Before the court

An Order of Notice was issued and served on the respondent in the manner specified in S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 21, directing him to appear before this Court, via remote hearing on March 29, 2024. The hearing was held, attended by assistant bar counsel and the respondent. At hearing, the respondent requested that I reject the findings of the hearing committee, which were adopted by the board, and either conduct or order a remand for purposes of conducting an evidentiary hearing anew. Considering the respondent’s decision not to participate in the evidentiary process before the hearing committee, the respondent’s request made at hearing is DENIED.

Sanction

Considering the extended and staggering misuse of funds trusted to respondent’s care by his brother, as well as the respondent’s subsequent attempts to conceal his misconduct, I agree with the board that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in the circumstances of this case.

(Mike Frisch)