IN RE: JOSEPH O. ANDERSON
NO. BD-2015-098 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Lenk on May 23, 2017.1
Page Down to View Memorandum of Decision
1 The complete order of the Court is available by contacting the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County.
SUFFOLK, ss.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY
NO. BD-2015-098
IN RE: JOSEPH 0. ANDERSON
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This matter came before me on an information and
recommendation of the Board of Bar Overseers (board) that the
respondent be suspended from the practice of law in the
Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day. for multiple
instances of neglect of his clients. The respondent did not. file
an answer in respdnse to bar counsel's petition for discipline,
and did not appear before the board at a scheduled hearing to
consider the appropriate sanction for his misconduct. ·- He
therefore was defaulted �nd the assertions in bar counsel's
petition were deemed admitted. See, e.g., Matter of Gustafson,
464 Mass. 1021, 2022 (2013); Matter of Johnson, 444 Mass. 1002,
1002 (2005). The respondent also did not appear at a duly
scheduled hearing before me on April 20, 2017, at which bar
counsel appeared.
Having carefully considered bar counsel's petition and her
representations at the hearing before me, I conclude that the
board's recommendation of a suspension of the respondent from the
practice of law for one year and one day is appropriate.
Background. Bar cou?sel's petition for discipline states
that the respondent, who was administratively suspended during
the course of bar counsel's investigation, has failed to respond
to clients' telephone calls, electronic mail messages, and
letters; has not responded to clients' requests for information
or for the return of their files; has failed to appear in court
on scheduled hearing dates in client matter_s, in some cases
resulting in the clients' default; has failed to respond to
motions to compel further answers to discovery; has failed to
respqnd to communications from bar counsel; and µas failed to
cooperate with bar counsel in the course of the investigation
See S . J. C. Rule 4 : o 1, § 8 ( 6) .
Bar counsel's petition states that the respondent's
misconduct was in vi6lation of Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1
(competence); Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.3 (diligent representation of
client's interests) ; Mass. R. Prof. C. 1. 4 ( a) (keeping client
informed of the status of client's matter); Mass. R. Prof. C.
1.16 (s) (failing to withdraw from case and to return file· after
ceasing representation of client); Mass. R. Prof. C. _8.1 (b)
(failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from bar
counsel) and Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4 (g) (failing to cooperate
2
with bar counsel without good cau_se) :
The respondent 1 s current location is unknown. A message on
the respondent 1 s office telephone number states that the v oice
mail messaging system has not been set up on that number; since
September, 2013, the respondent has not responded to electronic
communications or to letters sent to his last registered home
address. Indeed, administrative staff and attorneys in
neighboring offices in the building where the respondent had
maintained an office hav e adv ised bar counsel that the respondent
has not been seen in his office since September 11, 2015.
In November, 2015 a commissioner was appointed by this court
to wind up the respondent 1 s affairs 1 take charge of funds held in
his IOLTA account and try to distribute the funds to their
rightful owners, and to return files to clients.
2. Discussion. As the respondent has been defaulted, and
bar c ou nsel 1 s assertions of misconduct are deemed admitted, the
sole question before me is the appropriate sanction to be
imposed. For the reasons explained below, I agree with the board
that the appropriate sanction is a suspension from the practice
of law in the Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day .
a. Standard of review. 11 We generally afford s ubstantial
d e ferenc e .to the board I s r e commended disciplinary sanction . 11
Matter of Grif f ith , 44 0 Mass . 5 00, 5 07 (200 3). At the same t ime,
3
the disciplinary sanction imposed should not be "markedly
disparate from judgments in comparable cases." Matter of Foley,
439 Mass. 324, 333 (2003), quoting Matter of Finn, 433 Mass. 418,
422-423 (2001). The "primary concern in bar discipline cases is
'the effect upon, and perception of, the public and the bar,' and
we must therefore consider, in reviewing the board's recommended
sanction, 'what measure of discipline is necessary to protect the
public and deter other attorneys from the same behavior.'"
Matter of Lupo~ 447 Mass. 345, 356 (2006), quoting Matter of
Finnerty, 418 Mass. 821, 829 (1994) and Matter of Concemi, 422
Mass. 326, 329 (1996). Nonetheless, "each case must be decided
on its own merits and every offending attorney must receive the
discipline most appropriate in the circumstances.'' Matter of
Foley, supra, quoting Matter of the Discipline of an Attorney,
392 Mass .. 827, 837 (1984).
.b. ·· Appropriate sanction. This case involves a combination
of different types of misconduct by the respondent, involving
multiple, unrelated client matters, over a period of years. The
respondent n~glected at least four client matters, resulting in
significant harm to the clients; failed to communicate with the
-clients about the status of their matter~, despite their requests
that he . do so; failed to appear in court at scheduled hearings in
the clie~ts' matters; failed to return client files; and failed
4
to comply with requests for information from bar counsel.
Although there does not appear to be a precisely comparable case,
involving the same c_ombination of misconduct, 11 [t] he court 'need
not endeavor to find perfectly analogous cases, nor must we
concern ourselves with anything less than marked disparity in the
sanctions imposed.'" See Matter of Doyle, 429 Mass. 1019, 1014
(1999), quoting Matter of Hurley, 418 Mass. 64~, 655 (1994).
Attorneys found to have neglected client matters, causing
harm to their clients, in conjunction with other misconduct, have
received somewhat varying sanctions. See Matter of Brunelle, 29
Mass. Att'y Disc. R. 62 (2013) (attorney suspended from practice
of law for six months, stayed for two years, on conditions, for l
negl~cting one client's matter and failing to keep client
accurately informed about status of her case); Matter of
Scannell, 21 Mass. Att'y Disc. R. 580 (2005) (attorney with
history of public and private reprimands suspended for one year
and one day for neglect of three client matters, failure to
provide competent representation, failure to act with reasonable
diligence, and failure to communicate adequately with his clients
about status of their matters, which caused harm to one client);
Matter of oiconnor, 21 Mass. Att'y Disc. R. 525 (2005)
(previously admonished attorney suspended ' for six moI?-ths for
neglec ting t wo client matters and making negligent and ·.If;'
5 .
intentiorial misrepresentations as to status of cases to clients
and to bar counsel); Matter of Kane, 13 Mass. Att'y Disc. R. 321,
325 (1997) (public reprimand where respondent failed diligently
to represent client and to communicate adequately wit~ client,
where client "was not ultimately harmed").
Taking the foregoing into account, I conclude that the
appropriate sanction is a suspension from the practice of law for
one year and one day , a sanction which necessarily will require
that the respondent apply for reinstatement at the end of that
period, and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the board that he
is fit to resume the practice of law. See S.J.C. Rule 4:01,
§ 18(2) (c). Not markedly disparate from sanctions imposed in J
similar cases, this sanction fulfills the fundamental purpose of
protecting the public and deters other attorneis from similar
misconduct.
3. Conclusion. An order shall enter suspending the
respondent from the practice of law in the Commonwealth for a
period of one year and one day.
Entered: May 23,- 2017
By the Court
f t, .if,, ' .... /7 ./,, ,v, 1,-,
,r::J l..v1,::...(;_,c.,·t-t-·r ,-r, <D JL,, 4·L
Barbara A. Lenk Associate Justice
6