Legal Opinion
In re the Discipline of an Attorney
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided October 13, 2004PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C.J.
The principal issue in this case is whether an attorney’s conduct that the Board of Bar Overseers (board) concluded neither “flagrantly violated] . . . accepted professional norms” nor “undermine[d] the legitimacy of the judicial process,” Matter of the Discipline of Two Attorneys, 421 Mass. 619, 628, 629 (1996), may be sanctionable conduct “prejudicial to the administration of justice” under SJ.C. Rule 3:07, Canon *6611, DR 1-102 (A) (5), as appearing in 382 Mass. 769 (1981),1 even though the conduct violated no other disciplinary rule. Eleven members of the board voted unanimously that it may…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- In Re RuffaloSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Gentile v. State Bar of Nev.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- In Re PrimusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Wilcox v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Duracraft Corp. v. Holmes Products Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1998
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hospital, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2017
- In re KlineSupreme Court of Kansas · 2013
- Adams v. WhitmanMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2005
- Keystone Freight Corp. v. Bartlett Consolidated, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2010
- Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hospital, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2019
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.