Not Denied

A justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ordered disbarment of an attorney for multiple ethics violations

Indeed, the respondent’s answer admitted most of the allegations in bar counsel’s complaint, including those related to making intentional misrepresentations to clients; issuing documents on behalf of Old Republic despite not being authorized to do so; and practicing law during his second administrative suspension. At the hearing, he similarly stated in his closing argument that he “ha[d]n’t really denied” the alleged rule violations. And the respondent did not submit competing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after the hearing, instead submitting a post-hearing brief stating that “[m]ost of the facts are not being challenged” and principally addressing the issue of mitigation, discussed infra.

There is no merit to the respondent’s sole argument before the committee in his post-hearing brief regarding the rule violations found by the committee. The respondent’s posthearing brief argued that bar counsel “inflat[ed]” the amounts in controversy, referencing as “one example” the amount allegedly misused in count VII. The respondent asserted that bar counsel omitted from bar counsel’s description of a $8,184.40 transfer from the respondent’s IOLTA account to his operating account that $5,124.00 of the transfer went to “tax stamps, recording fees and other legitimate fees.” The respondent did not dispute, however, that bar counsel proved intentional misuse. And the respondent has not disputed that, 12 at least as of August 24, 2023, the respondent had not remitted all funds owed to third parties in connection with count VII.5 Additionally, the respondent’s assertion about the composition of the funds he transferred into his own operating account underscores that, as he also admitted in his testimony at the hearing, he did commingle these funds.

The court agreed that mental health mitigation had not been established

Here, this court agrees with the board’s recommended sanction of disbarment. The respondent misused funds resulting in deprivation to multiple clients, see Matter of Schoepfer, 426 Mass. 183, 187 (1997), engaged in multiple other disciplinary violations including making repeated misrepresentations to clients and others, and, with respect to at least most of the transactions at issue, see note 4 and accompanying text, supra, failed to make restitution, see Bryan, 411 Mass. at 291-292. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for such misconduct. See id. (attorney’s repetitive wrongdoing, conversion of clients’ funds, and absence of any substantial mitigating factor collectively supported disbarment). See also Matter of Dasent, 446 Mass. 1010, 1012-1013 (2006) (imposing sanction of disbarment where attorney intentionally misused client funds, failed to repay full amount owed, committed multiple violations, and showed no special mitigating factors). The appropriateness of this most severe sanction is underscored by the respondent’s further misconduct during these disciplinary proceedings, including engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and committing additional misconduct in so doing. See Bryan, supra.

(Mike Frisch)