The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has upheld the suspension of a Massachusetts lawyer who allegedly used hundreds of thousands of dollars of clients’ funds to gamble and pay his personal expenses.
The suspension was ordered by a single justice of the SJC at the request of the board of bar overseers (BBO). The BBO petition submitted to the single justice asserted that the attorney
had misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars of client funds to support a gambling addiction and pay personal debts. More specifically, the petition asserted, among other things, that [the lawyer] represented a client (client A) with respect to client A’s residential property purchase; that [the lawyer] held certain of client A’s funds for that purpose in an Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA account); and that [the lawyer] misused those funds to purchase lottery tickets. In the process, [the lawyer] allegedly failed to make certain wire transfers in connection with client A’s property purchase; deposited money from other clients in the IOLTA account; and used the money from other clients to make the required payments for client A’s property purchase.
The applicable case law states that
an order of temporary suspension may be entered if (1) facts, established by a preponderance of the evidence, show that the lawyer violated a disciplinary rule of this court and (2) on a balance of the harms and consideration of the public interest, the lawyer poses a threat of substantial harm to present or future clients or in other respects.
Matter of Ellis, 425 Mass. 332, 334 (1997).
Based on the BBO’s petition and the pertinent law, the single justice issued its order suspending the attorney. The order was appealed, with the suspended lawyer claiming that the justice abused his or her discretion. The SJC rejected the abuse-of-discretion argument and upheld the lawyer’s suspension.
[The lawyer] makes little argument that he did not violate the rules. In contrast, the petition for temporary suspension was accompanied by ample supporting documents, including, among other things, a recorded statement made by [the lawyer] in connection with the board’s ongoing investigations of him; evidence regarding the failed wire transfers and returned checks in connection with [the lawyer] misuse of client A’s money; and evidence related to [the lawyer’s] failure to repay client B’s loan. The petition and its supporting documents, in other words, demonstrate that it is more probable than not that [the lawyer] violated a number of rules of professional conduct…
The full text of the opinion is attached here: