 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Cobb12/8/2005
Suffolk.
September 9, 2005
Present: Marshall, C.J., Ireland, Spina, & Cordy, JJ.
Board of Bar Overseers. Attorney at Law, Disbarrment. Conversion. Constitutional Law, Freedom of speech and press. Rules of Professional Conduct. Due Process of Law, Attorney disciplinary proceeding, Notice, Severity of punishment.
Information filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on March 8, 2004.
The case was heard by Greaney, J.
The case was submitted on briefs.
The respondent, Matthew Cobb, appeals from the judgment of a single justice disbarring him from the practice of law for multiple violations of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct and the former Canons of Ethics and Disciplinary Rules in three cases consolidated for hearing by the Board of Bar Overseers (board). In the first case, the respondent was found to have filed a motion containing improbable and false allegations that he failed to corroborate, thereby exposing his client to sanctions. He also made groundless representations to the judge. In the second case, the respondent filed a complaint against the attorneys for the adversaries of his clients alleging claims that he knew or should have known were groundless. He also misrepresented to his clients that they had been sanctioned, persisted in a frivolous appeal, converted his clients' settlement proceeds to pay sanctions assessed against him personally, and without good ground or support alleged in papers filed in the Appeals Court that the Superior Court judge who had sanctioned him had been improperly influenced and was biased. In the third case, the respondent settled a client's case without her authority. Additionally, he continued to represent her when their interests were in conflict, purportedly disclosed privileged client communications without authorization, and made misrepresentations to a judge and to bar counsel.
On appeal the respondent claims that the single justice abused his discretion or committed a clear error of law (1) by adopting unsupported findings of the board that he converted client funds; (2) by failing to rule that statements made by the respondent, even if unfounded, were protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (3) by failing to find that the respondent's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution were violated where, he alleges, (a) the cases were improperly consolidated, (b) he was prejudiced by assistant bar counsel's intentional delay in bringing charges, (c) the evidence did not establish conversion as pleaded, (d) the conduct for which the respondent was prosecuted is reasonably susceptible of different interpretations, (e) assistant bar counsel prosecuted the respondent unethically and with malice, (f) the punishment sought by assistant bar counsel was motivated by vindictiveness for the respondent's defense of the charge of conversion and for his criticism of public officials, and (g) bar discipline proceedings on their face, and statistically, invariably produce an arbitrary result. We affirm the judgment of disbarrment.
1. Facts
We summarize the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the hearing committee that were adopted by an appeal panel of the board, and eventually by the full board itself. The single justice determined that the evidence supported these findings of fact. He also determined that the factual findings and inferences therefrom support the board's conclusions of law, and he adopted the conclusions of law.
a. Count One
The respondent, who has been a member of the bar of the Commonwealt
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Massachusetts Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|