- 34 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 7 (2018)-In the Matter of Sybil Helena Barrett
- 19 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 12 (2003), 439 Mass. 134 (2003)-In the Matter of F. Lee Bailey
- 35 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 97 (2019)-In the Matter of Olayemi Isaac Falusi
- 901 NE 2d 113, 453 Mass. 233 (2009)-In the Matter of Ngobeni
- 21 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 369 (2005), 444 Mass. 65 (2005)-In the Matter of George E. Kersey
- 19 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 127 (2003)-In the Matter of Steven E. Fel
- 906 NE 2d 340, 453 Mass. 1026 (2009)-IN THE MATTER OF MITRANO
- 439 Mass. 134, 786 NE 2d 337 (2003)-IN THE MATTER OF BAILEY
- 29 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 196 (2013)-In the Matter of Brian G. Doherty
- 33 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 537 (2017)-In the Matter of Anthony V. Zeolla
- 36 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 145 (2020)-In the Matter of Jennifer Anne Elcock
- 35 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 343 (2019)-In the Matter of Steven Lang
- 35 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 75 (2019)-In the Matter of John Patrick Contini
- 25 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 384 (2009), 453 Mass. 1026 (2009)-In the Matter of Peter Paul Mitrano
- 470 Mass. 582, 24 NE 3d 566 (2015)-IN THE MATTER OF DWYER-JONES
- 17 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 399 (2001)-In the Matter of Thomas M. Mangan
- 859 NE 2d 423, 448 Mass. 151 (2007)-IN THE MATTER OF GROSSMAN
- 23 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 232 (2007) -In the Matter of James T. Grew
- 24 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 236 (2008)-In the Matter of Brian J. Dobie
- 444 Mass. 65, 825 NE 2d 994 (2005)-IN THE MATTER OF KERSEY
- 20 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 143 (2004)-In the Matter of S. Edward Firestone
- 25 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 415 (2009), 453 Mass. 233 (2009)-In the Matter of Paul Mpande Ngobeni
- 423 Mass. 753, 672 NE 2d 517 (1996)-In the Matter of Lebbos
- 30 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 389 (2014)-In the Matter of Noah Starkey
- 15 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 279 (1999)-In the Matter of David A. Jones
- 31 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 53 (2015)-In the Matter of Paulus H. Chan
- 22 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 691 (2006)-In the Matter of William C. Sheridan
- 28 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 80 (2012)-In the Matter of Michael W. Burnbaum
34 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 7 (2018)-In the Matter of Sybil Helena Barrett
At page 9
fact"; and d) whether imposing reciprocal discipline in
Massachusetts would result in a grave injustice.
~ The order also
At page 12
impose the identical discipline unless . . imposition of the
same discipline would result in grave injustice . . ‘.’). S .J.C.
Rule 4:01, § 16(3). See Matter of Bailey, 439 Mass. 134, 136
19 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 12 (2003), 439 Mass. 134 (2003)-In the Matter of F. Lee Bailey
At page 2
purposes of a disciplinary proceeding in the Commonwealth." S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 16 (5), as
appearing in 425 Mass. 1319 (1997). In reviewing reciprocal discipline, "[t]he judgment of suspension or disbarment shall be conclusive evidence of the misconduct unless bar counsel orthe respondent-lawyer establishes, or the court concludes, that the procedure in the otherjurisdiction did not provide reasonable notice or opportunity to be heard or there was significant infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct." S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 16 (3), as appearing in 425 Mass. 1319 (1997). In deference to the procedures of other States, "we generally give effect to the disciplinary decisions of another jurisdiction without undertaking the often difficult and protracted task of redoing the inquiry which has already been concluded there." Matter of Lebbos, 423 Mass. 753, 755 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1275(1997). However, the imposition of reciprocal discipline is not automatic. Id. at 755-756, citing Matter of McCabe, 411 Mass. 436 (1991). Rather, "Rule 4:01, § 16, implicitly adopts a modified rule of res judicata whereby the disciplinary action taken by a foreign jurisdiction will be adopted unless: ‘(a) the procedure in the other jurisdiction did not provide notice or opportunity to be heard; (b) there was significant infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct; (c) imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice; or (d) the misconduct established does not justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth.’" Matter of Lebbos, supra at 756, quoting S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 16 (3). Accordingly, our inquiry "is generally limited to determining whether the attorney received a fair hearing at which sufficientevidence was presented to justify our taking reciprocal disciplinary action." Matter of Lebos,supra.
2. Fairness of the Florida proceedings. The Florida proceedings provided Bailey a fair hearing.
35 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 97 (2019)-In the Matter of Olayemi Isaac Falusi
At page 5
appropriate sanction to be imposed in a petition for reciprocal discipline, I "may impose the
identical discipline unless (a) imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice;
(b) the misconduct established does not justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth; or ( c)
901 NE 2d 113, 453 Mass. 233 (2009)-In the Matter of Ngobeni
At page 5
the third sentence, which in substance limits that discretion by conditioning any order of reciprocal discipline
on a determination that entering such an order would not result in grave injustice, or set a level of discipline
that is substantially different from established standards of discipline in the Commonwealth for the type of
At page 5
provides in its final sentence that identical reciprocal discipline will not be imposed if "(a) imposition of the
same discipline would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does not justify the same
discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct established is not adequately sanctioned by the
At page 7
not deciding that an attorney who has resigned in another jurisdiction while disciplinary charges were pending may never challenge the
imposition of reciprocal discipline on the ground that such discipline would result in grave injustice. In this case, however , as bar counsel
points out, the respondent’s allegations of fraud and abuse by disciplinary counsel in Connecticut are unsupported by any affidavit or
21 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 369 (2005), 444 Mass. 65 (2005)-In the Matter of George E. Kersey
At page 2
In deference to the procedures of other States, "we generally give effect to the disciplinary
decisions of another jurisdiction without undertaking the often difficult and protracted task of redoing the inquiry which has already been concluded there." Matter of Lebbos, 423 Mass.753, 755 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1275 (1997). However, the imposition of reciprocal discipline is not automatic. Id. at 755-756, citing Matter of McCabe, 411 Mass. 436 (1991).Rather, S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 16 (3), implicitly adopts a modified rule of res judicata whereby the disciplinary action taken by a foreign jurisdiction may be adopted unless: "(a) imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does notjustify the same discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct established is not adequately sanctioned by the same discipline in this Commonwealth."
3. Grave injustice. The New Hampshire proceedings provided the respondent a fair hearing.
At page 3
The imposition of the same sanction for the conduct established in the New Hampshire
Supreme Court would not represent a grave injustice.
4. Appropriate sanction. The purpose underlying procedures under the reciprocal discipline is
19 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 127 (2003)-In the Matter of Steven E. Fel
At page 1
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire suspended the respondent, Steven E. Feld, from the
practice of law in New Hampshire for one year. Feld’s Case, 815 A. 2d. 383 (2002)(Feld II),cert. denied, New Hampshire Professional Conduct Committee v. Feld, 021666 (deniedOctober 6, 2003). Bar counsel filed a petition for reciprocal discipline pursuant to Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01, § 16, in which he seeks a one year suspension from the practice oflaw. The respondent has opposed the petition, contending that imposition of the samediscipline would result in a grave injustice, there was infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct, and that the established misconduct does not justify the same discipline in theCommonwealth of Massachusetts.
Background.Emile Bussiere sold a 76-unit apartment building in Manchester, New Hampshire to Stephen
At page 3
Discussion. A bar discipline judgment in another jurisdiction is considered conclusive evidence in
reciprocal discipline cases. See Matter of F. Lee Bailey, 439 Mass. 134, 136 (2003). A single justice may afford deference to the sanction imposed by another jurisdiction unless: ‘(a) ‘the procedure in the other jurisdiction did not provide notice or opportunity to be heard; (b) there was significant infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct; (c) imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice; or (d) the misconduct established does not justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth.’ Id.
- Unfairness of New Hampshire Proceeding. The respondent asserts that his case before the
At page 3 Supreme Court of New Hampshire was irrevocably tainted by judicial misconduct and that the charges against the respondent should be dismissed to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. The respondent also argues that he was denied due process of law because the Supreme Court of New Hampshire declined to grant him a new hearing to determine whether judicial impropriety prejudiced his case. The court rejected the respondent’s unfairness claim both when the respondent made his motion to vacate the earlier decision and again in the second case which was based upon the referee’s findings. As the court stated, the second case was heard by none of the justices involved in the first case and was based on the referee’s findings, not those of the panel tainted by misconduct. The United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in the case. New Hampshire Professional Conduct Committee v. Feld, 021666(denied October 6, 2003). Dismissal is not required because the respondent has not shown thathe has suffered grave injustice. 2. Comparable Discipline. In reciprocal discipline cases a single justice is charged with
906 NE 2d 340, 453 Mass. 1026 (2009)-IN THE MATTER OF MITRANO
At page 2
the misconduct established is not adequately sanctioned by the same discipline in this Commonwealth." Id.
There is no grave injustice here. Disbarment or indefinite suspension is the presumptive sanction in this
Commonwealth for Mitrano’s misconduct, the intentional misuse of client funds resulting in actual
439 Mass. 134, 786 NE 2d 337 (2003)-IN THE MATTER OF BAILEY
At page 2
was significant infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct; (c) imposition of the same discipline would
result in grave injustice; or (d) the misconduct established does not justify the same discipline in this
Commonwealth.’" Matter of Lebbos, supra at 756 , quoting S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 16 (3). Accordingly , our
29 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 196 (2013)-In the Matter of Brian G. Doherty
At page 5
proof establishing the misconduct. The court may impose the identical discipline unless
(a) imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct
established does not justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the
At page 6
§ 16(3) remains to be answered- that is, whether "(a) imposition of the same discipline [as the
Florida Supreme Court imposed] would result in grave injustice; [or] (b) the misconduct
established does not justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth." With respect to (b), I
33 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 537 (2017)-In the Matter of Anthony V. Zeolla
At page 3
identical discipline unless (a) imposition of the same discipline
would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established
does not justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c)
36 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 145 (2020)-In the Matter of Jennifer Anne Elcock
At page 8
the identical discipline unless (a) imposition of the same
discipline would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct
35 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 343 (2019)-In the Matter of Steven Lang
At page 5
appropriate sanction to be imposed in a petition for reciprocal discipline, I "may impose the
identical discipline unless (a) imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice;
(b) the misconduct established does not justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth; or ( c)
35 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 75 (2019)-In the Matter of John Patrick Contini
At page 5
11may impose the identical discipline unless (a) imposition of the same discipline would result in
grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does not justify the same discipline in the
Commonwealth; or ( c) the misconduct established is not adequately sanctioned by the same
25 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 384 (2009), 453 Mass. 1026 (2009)-In the Matter of Peter Paul Mitrano
At page 2
We turn briefly to the sanction of disbarment imposed by the single justice. Under our rules,
"[t]he court may impose the identical discipline unless (a) imposition of the same disciplinewould result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does not justify the samediscipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct established is not adequatelysanctioned by the same discipline in this Commonwealth." Id
. There is no grave injustice here.
470 Mass. 582, 24 NE 3d 566 (2015)-IN THE MATTER OF DWYER-JONES
At page 3
is appropriate in this Commonwealth, we consider independently whether applying the same restriction
would "result in grave injustice," and whether the disability established elsewhere would warrant the
identical restrictions here. Matter of Lebbos, 423 Mass. 753, 756, cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1275 (1997)
17 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 399 (2001)-In the Matter of Thomas M. Mangan
At page 1
The judgment of suspension or disbarment in another jurisdiction shall be conclusive evidence
of misconduct unless the procedure in the other jurisdiction fails to provide reasonable noticeor opportunity to be heard, or there was significant infirmity of proof establishing themisconduct. See S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 16, as appearing in 425 Mass. 1319 (1997). Absent such a showing, the court may impose the identical discipline unless (a) imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does not justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct established is not adequately sanctioned by the same discipline in this Commonwealth. See id. The exercise of discretion in reciprocity is informed, however, by our "deference to the lawful procedures [and decisions]of our sister States." See Matter of Watt, 430 Mass. 232, 236 (1999) (quotation and citationomitted).
The respondent does not seriously contend that he did not receive reasonable notice or
859 NE 2d 423, 448 Mass. 151 (2007)-IN THE MATTER OF GROSSMAN
At page 7
demonstrated); Matter of Dvorak, 580 N.W .2d 586, 592 (N.D. 1998) (refusing to dismiss or reduce sanction unless respondent
demonstrated that delay resulted in "grave injustice or that the purpose of protecting the public would not be served" by imposing
discipline).
23 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 232 (2007) -In the Matter of James T. Grew
At page 3
"[W]e generally give effect to the disciplinary decisions of another jurisdiction without undertaking the often difficult and protracted task of redoing the inquirywhich has already been concluded there. But because the consequences for the attorney are grave and the responsibility of judgment is still ours, such deference does not automatically lead to reciprocity. See Matter of McCabe, 411 Mass. 436(1991). We consider whether the proceedings accord with our notions of fairness and whether the grounds for the discipline correspond to our own criteria of attorney probity. Rule 4:01, § 16, implicitly adopts a modified rule of res judicata whereby the disciplinary action taken by a foreign jurisdiction will be adopted here unless
‘ [(a) imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice;(b) the misconduct established does not justify the same discipline inthis Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct established is not adequatelysanctioned by the same discipline in this Commonwealth.]’ SJ.C. Rule
4:01, §16(3)."
24 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 236 (2008)-In the Matter of Brian J. Dobie
At page 1
Lebbos , 423 Mass. 753, 755-756 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1275 (1997). Our rule provides
that "[t]he court may impose the identical discipline unless (a) imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does not justify thesame discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct established is not adequatelysanctioned by the same discipline in the Commonwealth." S.J.C. Rule 4:01 § 16 (3), asappearing in 425 Mass. 1319 (1997). See generally Matter of Watt
. 430 Mass. 232, 234 (2000)
At page 3
In the circumstances, and pursuant to Rule 4:01, § 16 (3), I conclude that the respondent’s
conduct in Oregon does not warrant in the Commonwealth the two year period of suspension imposed in Oregon, and such a level of discipline would result in grave injustice. I furtherconclude that in light of the three matters at issue, a suspension of six months would be appropriate, effective on the date an order of suspension enters in this court.
ORDER
444 Mass. 65, 825 NE 2d 994 (2005)-IN THE MATTER OF KERSEY
At page 2
judicata whereby the disciplinary action taken by a foreign jurisdiction may be adopted unless "(a)
imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does not
justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct established is not adequately
At page 3
The imposition of the same sanction for the conduct established in the New Hampshire Supreme Court
would not represent a grave injustice.
4. Appropriate sanction. The purpose underlying procedures under the reciprocal discipline is set out clearly
20 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 143 (2004)-In the Matter of S. Edward Firestone
At page 1
Bar counsel contends that the reciprocal discipline of disbarment is appropriate in this case,
citing S.J.C. Rule 4:1, § 16, as appearing in 425 Mass. 1319 (1997), which provides in these circumstances that the court may impose: "identical discipline unless (a) the imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does not justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct established is not adequately sanctioned by the same discipline in this Commonwealth."
There is little question that disbarment in Massachusetts is routinely imposed for felony
At page 1 convictions. Matter of Concemi, 422 Mass. 326, 329 (1996). Certainly, standing alone,disbarment for engaging in a fraudulent scheme that extended over a lengthy period of time resulting in substantial financial loss, in violation of the Federal mail fraud statute, would not "result in a grave injustice," Matter of Kennedy, 14 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 384 (1998); Matter of Kronich, 15 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 334 (1999). The respondent argues, however, that he should not be disbarred at this time, because he will
25 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 415 (2009), 453 Mass. 233 (2009)-In the Matter of Paul Mpande Ngobeni
At page 4
the identical discipline unless (a) imposition of the same discipline
would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does not
justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct
At page 5
, 423 Mass. 753, 755-756 (1996). Section 16
(3) provides in its final sentence that identical reciprocal discipline will not beimposed if "(a) imposition of the same discipline would result in grave injustice; (b)the misconduct established does not justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct established is not adequately sanctioned by the same discipline in this Commonwealth." The respondent argues strenuously that in the particular circumstances of his case — where he claims the allegations contained in the presentment against him are fraudulent or otherwise unsupported,and challenges the right of the disciplinary counsel in Connecticut to proceed against him at all because the presentment was not heard within sixty days of its filing — imposition of reciprocal discipline would be gravely unjust.
We disagree. The respondent voluntarily chose to resign in Connecticut in exchange
423 Mass. 753, 672 NE 2d 517 (1996)-In the Matter of Lebbos
At page 2
absence of proof establishing her misconduct, the misconduct does not warrant similar discipline here, and,
finally , disbarment would work a grave injustice.
II
At page 3
evidence was presented supporting the charges, the remaining questions are whether the misconduct
justifies the same discipline here as in California and whether grave injustice would result by its imposition.
The respondent mounts a vigorous argument that not only are the grounds for her California disbarment not
At page 4
or opportunity to be heard; (b) there was significant infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct; (c) imposition of the same discipline
would result in grave injustice; or (d) the misconduct established does not justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth."
30 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 389 (2014)-In the Matter of Noah Starkey
At page 8
established, as he [was] required to do pursuant to§ 16(3), that
‘• there would b~ a. grave injustice if the.Pennsylvania discipline
were imposed in Massachusetts"). In light of the respondent’s
15 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 279 (1999)-In the Matter of David A. Jones
At page 1
discipline. The current version of the rule has no such provision. The respondent also cites S.J.C. Rule 4:01, Sect. 16 (c), which
prevents reciprocal discipline where grave injustice would result. That provision still exists. The respondent does not set forth anyargument specific to that subsection, but his argument with respect to subsection (a) applies.
The respondent had a mail drop at "The Mail Annex" at that time and a partner, owner and operator of
31 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 53 (2015)-In the Matter of Paulus H. Chan
At page 2
"The court may impose the identical discipline unless (a) imposition of the same ·
discipline would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does not
.justify the same discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct
At page 2
20 15] He contends that reciprocal discipline in this case for a single incident that occuned nearly
three years ago "would result in grave injustice" under rule 4:01, § 16 (a).
Bar counsel responds that the respondent had three pt:ior reprimands, in 2008, 2009, and-
22 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 691 (2006)-In the Matter of William C. Sheridan
At page 2
special fitness in intellectual attainment and in moral character." Matter of Keenan. 314 Mass.
544, 546 (1943). Attorney discipline, and indeed reciprocal discipline, is intended not only topreserve the integrity of the bar, but also to protect the public. Matter of Kersey, 444 Mass.65, 69 (2005). Under S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 16 (3), "[t]he court may impose the identicaldiscipline [that had been imposed in the other jurisdiction] unless (a) imposition of the samediscipline would result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does not justify thesame discipline in this Commonwealth; or (c) the misconduct established is not adequatelysanctioned by the same discipline in this Commonwealth." Ultimately, the discipline shouldnot be "markedly disparate from that ordered in comparable cases." Matter of Kersey, supra at70.
The respondent requests a three to six month suspension, or "certainly no more than [a one]
28 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 80 (2012)-In the Matter of Michael W. Burnbaum
At page 5
discipline unless (a) imposition of the same discipline would
result in grave injustice; (b) the misconduct established does