In the Matter of Moore

10 Citing cases

  1. Orehhova v. Gonzales

    417 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2005)   Cited 10 times

    htm (Mass. August 8, 2003) (decision of single justice ordering disbarment), amended by In re Moore, 442 Mass. 285, 812 N.E.2d 1197 (2004) (ordering two-year suspension from practice of law instead of disbarment). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252(b)(4)(A), a court of appeals must "decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based."

  2. In re Foster

    492 Mass. 724 (Mass. 2023)

    See Matter of Serpa, 30 Mass. Att'y Discipline Rep. 358, 362, 372-373 (2014) (sixty-day suspension for violation of rules 1.5 [a], 3.3 [a], 8.4 [c], 8.4 [d], and 8.4 [h], absent certain aggravating factors, for "respondent's reckless misrepresentations [that were] particularly troublesome because they contaminated a process that ... is likely to have had an impact on a person's liberty"); Matter of Scannell, 21 Mass. Att'y Discipline Rep. 580, 581-584 (2005) (suspension of one year and one day for neglect of three client matters in violation of rules 1.1, 1.2 [a], 1.3, and 1.4 aggravated by prior disciplinary history). See also Matter of Moore, 442 Mass. 285, 294-295, 812 N.E.2d 1197 (2004) (fact that respondent failed to appreciate gravity of misconduct and lied to committee took case "beyond the short suspensions usually imposed" and for violations of [S.J.C. Rule 3:07, Canon 1,] DR 1-101 [A], DR 1-102 [A] [4], [5], and [6], [as appearing in 382 Mass. 769 (1981),] respondent received two-year suspension).

  3. In re Williams

    491 Mass. 1021 (Mass. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Matter of London, 427 Mass. at 483, 694 N.E.2d 337. See Matter of Moore, 442 Mass. 285, 291, 812 N.E.2d 1197 (2004) ("The disputed findings were made on ample evidence and were based in large part on the credibility determinations of the hearing committee"); Matter of Macero, 27 Mass. Att'y Discipline Rep. 554, 561-562 (2011) (finding no burden shifting where, as between "natural inference" and respondent's "implausible testimony ... to explain away these facts, the committee" properly "drew the natural inference"). There was no error in the single justice's determination that the respondent engaged in the misconduct determined by the board. 4. Appropriate sanction.

  4. In re Zak

    476 Mass. 1034 (Mass. 2017)   Cited 4 times
    Taking advantage of vulnerable clients serves as aggravating factor

    As the hearing officer, the board, and the single justice all properly recognized, there were no factors that could be weighed in mitigation of the respondent's misconduct. Factors that we have considered as not rising to the level of "special mitigating factors" include a "long and distinguished career of public service and ... many pro bono services," Matter of Finneran , 455 Mass. 722, 735, 919 N.E.2d 698 (2010) ; the absence of "evil motive or racial animus," id . at 736, 919 N.E.2d 698 ; a good reputation in the community, Matter of Moore , 442 Mass. 285, 294, 812 N.E.2d 1197 (2004) ; and services to an underserved population, id . Although the respondent claims that he helped "hundreds" of clients avoid foreclosure, the record does not establish how many or to what extent those clients many have been aided, whether they were charged excessive fees for services that had little or no value to them, or whether the services could have been obtained for less or no cost. In any event, we do not weigh as a factor in mitigation that an attorney properly performed legal services for some clients.

  5. Britton v. Bd. of Bar Exam'rs

    471 Mass. 1015 (Mass. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Whether a bar applicant is of good moral character and fitness โ€œis a most serious issue,โ€ and โ€œ[q]uestions exploring this issue are not to be answered by gamesmanship.โ€ Matter of Moore, 442 Mass. 285, 295, 812 N.E.2d 1197 (2004). Finally, the record amply supports the single justice's observation that Britton's criminal history was obtained by the board through his own disclosures, including disclosures in Connecticut, and publicly available court filings.

  6. In re Matter Moore

    449 Mass. 1009 (Mass. 2007)   Cited 7 times

    Attorney at Law, Disciplinary proceeding, Contempt. In Matter of Moore, 442 Mass. 285 (2004), we vacated a judgment of a single justice of this court disbarring the respondent, attorney Michael G. Moore, and remanded the matter to the county court for "entry of a judgment suspending the respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years." Id. at 296.

  7. In the Matter of Slavitt

    449 Mass. 25 (Mass. 2007)   Cited 7 times

    The cases cited by bar counsel in support of a longer period of suspension are inapplicable because they involve misrepresentations to the BBE made by the applicants about themselves. Cf. Matter of Moore, 442 Mass. 285, 289-290, 296 (2004) (two-year suspension for failure to disclose previous positions, including as lawyer, that were intertwined with criminal accusations, sanctions by bar, and lawsuit, aggravated by lack of candor to board and failure to take responsibility for misconduct). In other cases cited by bar counsel, the respondent was involved in other serious misconduct in addition to the making of a material misrepresentation on a bar application.

  8. In re Mttr. of Discipline

    448 Mass. 819 (Mass. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    We do agree, however, that the respondent's misleading statements concerning the second payment in the letter of December 19 were at least "misrepresentations" and, therefore, a violation of DR 1-102 (A) (4) and (6). Relying on Matter of Moore, 442 Mass. 285, 292 n. 10 (2004), and Matter of Kerlinsky, 428 Mass. 656, 663, cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1160 (1999), the respondent argues that because the hearing committee found that his motive was not to deceive but to avoid a confrontation with von Wood, he lacks an intent to mislead that, he argues, is required by DR 1-102 (A) (4). We need not address whether the cases he cites state that intent is required for a violation of DR 1-102 (A) (4), because the respondent intentionally wrote the misleading letter.

  9. The Matter of Carlton J. Dasent

    446 Mass. 1010 (Mass. 2006)   Cited 6 times
    Imposing sanction of disbarment where attorney intentionally misused client funds, failed to repay full amount owed, committed multiple ethical violations, and showed no special mitigating factors

    S.J.C. Rule 4:01, ยง 8 (4), as appearing in 425 Mass. 1311 (1997). Matter of Moore, 442 Mass. 285, 291 (2004). Matter of Abbott, supra at 393-394.

  10. In Matter of Johnson

    827 N.E.2d 206 (Mass. 2005)   Cited 2 times

    Matter of Hoicka, 442 Mass. 1004, 1006 (2004). Our review of the respondent's conduct, taking into consideration the board's recommendation, the evidence offered in mitigation, and the sanctions imposed in analogous cases, Matter of Moore, 442 Mass. 285, 290-291 (2004), leads us to a result different from that of the single justice. In Matter of Guidry, supra, the conduct was similar to that of this respondent: Guidry deposited a check for the benefit of his clients into his business account, and used a portion of the funds for personal or business purposes.