Attorneys – Suspension

Listen to this article

Where an attorney has been suspended for 18 months, the suspension was an appropriate sanction and not “markedly disparate from judgments in comparable cases,” so it should be upheld.

“The respondent attorney, Edward J. Collins, appeals from the order of a single justice of this court suspending him from the practice of law. The matter came before the single justice on the information and record of proceedings filed by the Board of Bar Overseers (board). The board determined that in his representation of a particular client (client), the goal of which was to prevent her eviction, the respondent failed to act with diligence, consistently presented frivolous arguments, and repeatedly refused to comply with court orders. As a consequence of the respondent’s misconduct, the client forfeited certain appellate rights, was subject to default and contempt judgments, as well as a capias, and was ordered to pay significant fees and costs. Based on its findings of misconduct, as well as certain aggravating factors, the board recommended, and the single justice ordered, that the respondent be suspended from practicing law in the Commonwealth for a period of eighteen months and that he be required to petition for reinstatement pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, §18, as appearing in 453 Mass. 1315 (2009). We affirm. …

“Contrary to the respondent’s arguments, as described supra, the record contains sufficient evidence to establish that he failed to provide a written fee agreement for his contingent fee arrangement, that he failed to prosecute the client’s appeals in the Appeals Court, that he failed to move to stay the order of the bankruptcy court lifting the automatic stay despite an order issued by that court specifically instructing him how to proceed with respect to that request, that he asserted frivolous arguments and pursued frivolous appeals in the Federal Bankruptcy Court, the Federal District Court, and the First Circuit, that he continued frivolously to assert in State court proceedings arguments that had been decided against him, that he failed to keep his client apprised of the matters he was litigating on her behalf, that he knowingly disobeyed the order of the small claims court to file an affidavit proving that he still represented the client, that after the client terminated his representation, he failed to withdraw from his appeal in the First Circuit or to inform that court that he no longer represented the client, that he failed to withdraw from the Superior Court use and occupancy case, and that he refused to pay the sanctions that the First Circuit ordered him to pay.

“We conclude that the respondent has failed to meet his burden pursuant to rule 2:23, and we discern no error in the order issued by the single justice. …

“… As the board acknowledged, the respondent’s conduct broadly falls into the categories of ‘neglect’ and ‘frivolous litigation,’ and as it found, the respondent’s misconduct included the failure to comply with certain court orders.

“Where an attorney engages in repeated neglect resulting in harm to the client, a term suspension for one year and one day is an appropriate remedy. … The same is true where an attorney engages in frivolous litigation. … For willful and repeated refusal to comply with court orders, a term suspension is also ordinarily an appropriate remedy. …

“Such a suspension can be longer where, as here, the conduct was aggravated by additional factors. … In its analysis, the board found no mitigating factors and found multiple aggravating factors, all of which were supported by substantial evidence in the record. …

“For all the foregoing reasons, we agree with the single justice that it was an appropriate sanction and not ‘markedly disparate from judgments in comparable cases’ to suspend the respondent for a term of eighteen months from practicing law in the Commonwealth and, further, to require that he petition for reinstatement pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, §18. … We therefore affirm the order of the single justice.”

In the Matter of Edward J. Collins (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-105-24) (12 pages) (Rescript) (Docket No. SJC-13471) (Sept. 20, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.