Booze, Assault, and Fraud: RI Attorneys Behaving Badly
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The number of Rhode Island attorneys facing disciplinary complaints has risen significantly in recent years, according to a GoLocalProv review of state court records.
From the alcohol-addled attorney who stormed into a business associate’s home wielding a club to the former state Senator who squirreled away $1.7 million in a bank fraud scheme, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island had its hands full with disciplinary cases last year. (See below for more on the misbehaving attorneys.)
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTIn 2010, the Disciplinary Board received 477 complaints against attorneys and investigated 195 of them. Of those, at least 11 results in some form of serious punishment—suspension, disbarment, or public censure by the state Supreme Court. That’s just a tiny percentage of the 6,000 attorneys licenses to practice law in the state, but it’s much more than the state had to deal with just a few years ago.
Complaints on the rise … as the economy sinks
In the early 2000s, complaints were on the decline. By 2007, there were 368 complaints and six serious punishments handed out. That increased sharply in 2008—the same year the economy tanked. That year, there were 460 complaints lodged against attorneys and nine major disciplinary actions. After a bit of a dip in 2009, the cases again rose in 2010.
Local attorneys say it’s no coincidence this all happened as the economy started to turn south.
“In bad times, there are going to be some people—and lawyers are no different—who are going to steal,” said Bob Craven, a former state assistant Attorney General.
He said personal injury and real estate attorneys—who often are responsible for managing large sums of money in escrow accounts—are most susceptible to the temptation. “If you’re a busy office doing closings you grab four [thousand dollars] here, six here, five here. … Next thing you know, it’s a million dollars and you’ve embezzled it,” Craven said.
Attorneys living beyond their means
Local attorney Joe Rodio, Sr., agreed, saying he had seen an uptick in attorney disciplinary cases in recent years—which he said stemmed from abuse of mortgage closings. “I think it’s human nature,” he said.
But, Rodio added, the professional circumstances of attorneys can make them more likely than others to take money from clients. “Most attorneys aren’t businessmen,” Rodio said. “That’s the problem. Law doesn’t teach you business.”
Another problem: most attorneys who are sole practitioners do not have bookkeepers to help them manage their finances. (His firm, Rodio & Ursillo, Ltd. has an outside bookkeeper audit all of its accounts on a monthly basis.)
Rodio doesn’t think attorneys who end up stealing from their clients set out to do so from the beginning. “I don’t see it as predatory practices,” Rodio said. “I see it as people living beyond their means, not understanding business, getting behind the eight ball on taxes.”
ATTORNEYS MISBEHAVING
Some of the more notorious and egregious cases from the 2010-2011 term of the state Supreme Court include the following:
Attorney caught in ‘alcohol fueled rage’
A drinking binge and a confrontation with a club ultimately sealed the fate of Attorney Michael A. Mosco. According to a court account:
“In the early morning hours of March 14, 2009, in the City of East Providence, the respondent, Michael A. Mosco, a member of the bar of this state, entered the dwelling of a friend and business associate without his consent. In what appears to have been an alcohol fueled rage he confronted his friend and a female companion, who was a former intimate partner of the respondent. Wielding a club, he assaulted the female victim, causing injury to her hand.”
A slew of legal troubles ensued: One year later, Mosco pleaded no contest to trespassing and felony assault and was sentenced to five years in prison, which was suspended, with five years of probation. On top of that, before entering his plea, Mosco was arrested in Newport on a disorderly conduct charge in September 2010.
A few months later, the state Supreme Court stepped in. Even though the charges had nothing to do with his professional work, the court said it had to suspend his license to maintain the integrity of the profession: “The respondent has been convicted of a serious crime involving violence, tarnishing the integrity of the profession,” the court wrote. “It is of no moment that his crimes are unrelated to his practice of law, as we expect all members of the bar to comport themselves in accordance with the criminal laws of this state.”
Former State Senator admits to $1.7 million in bank fraud
He was a state senator and a licensed attorney—and now, he is neither. Christopher Maselli last year pleaded guilty to eight counts of bank fraud in a scheme in which he falsified bank and tax documents and lied about his income and assets in order to get more than $1.7 million in loans. After submitting his guilty plea and resigning his Senate seat, Maselli notified the state Supreme Court that it would be in the “best interests of his clients and the bar” that his law license be suspended indefinitely. The court was all too happy to oblige.
Attorney skips out on counseling
Attorney Marc B. Press ran afoul of not one, but two state Supreme Courts. It began in Florida, where Press is also licensed to practice law. In a response to a disciplinary complaint filed in that state, the court ordered him to “undergo a psychological evaluation and enter into a rehabilitation program in 2010, court records state. When Press failed to fully comply, Florida yanked his license for a year.
But it took five months for the attorney to notify the Rhode Island Supreme Court to find out—a delay justices called “inexcusable.” Because he had already had his license suspended in another state, Press was almost assured of losing it in Rhode Island as well—which he did in short order.
Fake attorney
This state rep lost his license—but so far has kept his seat. In what was one of the most prominent recent disciplinary cases, state Rep Leo Medina, D-Providence, violated state statutes by acting as an attorney without ever obtaining a license to practice law, according to state court records. This one was beyond license suspension or disbarment—instead, the Supreme Court earlier this month referred the case to the state Attorney General for criminal or civil prosecution of Medina.
Three strikes and he was out
For local attorney Charles E. Casale, the trouble began a few weeks before Christmas 2009, when he pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor charge of domestic assault. Casale got one year of probation, was barred from having any contact with the victim, and had to undergo alcohol treatment.
Things only got worse from there: same day he pleaded no contest, Casale was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. “Unfortunately, this was not respondent’s final contact with the criminal justice system as a defendant,” the state Supreme Court noted.
The third strike came in February 2010 when Casale faced yet another misdemeanor charge for violating the no-contact order with the victim. The following November, the court suspended his license until he finished out his prison term—and provided evidence that he had been treated for alcohol abuse.
Overzealous attorney crosses the line—and the court
He didn’t embezzle funds or commit any personal indiscretions. Instead it was his over-the-top legal briefs that landed Attorney Kevin B. McBurney in big trouble with the state Supreme Court.
A Superior Court judge had just terminated a civil lawsuit McBurney had filed on behalf of a client who was claiming malpractice in the death of her husband. McBurney filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The appeal went too far, according to the court:
“It is the content and tone of those pleadings that brings him before us today. Rather than providing a reasoned explanation of the facts and law that support his client’s case, he filed pleadings that are replete with false and outrageous libels and accusations directed against counsel for the defendant-appellees. He falsely accused opposing counsel of ‘deceit,’ falsely alleged that she had engaged in ‘ambush tactics and trickery,’ and falsely claimed she was ‘dishonest.’”
McBurney did not get a suspension or disbarment. Instead the court declared that: “Accordingly, the respondent, Kevin B. McBurney, is hereby publicly censured.”
It may seem like a slap on the wrist, but public censure can still have major consequences for an attorney, said state court spokesman Craig Berke: “Public discipline stays with an attorney’s record in background checks and can have an impact on future job applications, including applying to be a judge,” he said.
THE PROCESS
The state judiciary system has a thorough process for vetting complaints filed against attorneys.
It begins with the Disciplinary Counsel, which reviews initial complaints to determine whether they merit a formal investigation. (Complaints have to involve some infraction against a code of conduct set by the state Supreme Court.)
After an investigation, the case goes to the Disciplinary Board, whose 12 members are appointed by the state Supreme Court. A majority—eight of them—are attorneys, while the rest are representatives of the general public.
The board hears cases in two steps. A three-member Screening Panel reviews the complaints and can either dismiss them, issue “cautionary letters or letters of admonition,” recommend a letter of reprimand or propose that formal charges be filed against the attorney. In the case of formal charges, the next stop is a Hearing Panel, which can recommend dismissal, censure, suspension, or disbarment.
Anything that makes it to the Hearing Panel has to go to the state Supreme Court for a final decision.
For substantial complaints, the whole process generally takes three to six months. But interim suspensions are issued in the meantime if there is a need to “immediately protect the public.”
System said to be successful
Berke said the state court system is confident the system is working well. “The Supreme Court feels the process works efficiently, as it was intended, and compares well to other states. The turnaround time is excellent and complainants are kept informed of every step in the process,” Berke told GoLocalProv.
A local attorney agreed. “My sense is that it runs pretty well,” said William P. Devereaux, who has represented other attorneys before the Disciplinary Board. “A lot of that has to do with the staff that basically is the point of the spear. … I think they’re viewed as very fair, even-handed people.”
If you valued this article, please LIKE GoLocalProv.com on Facebook by clicking HERE.
