Legal Opinion
In re the Discipline of Two Attorneys
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided January 8, 1996PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilkins, J.
Two attorneys, partners in a law firm, have declined to accept the recommendation of the Board of Bar Overseers (board) that they be administered private reprimands.1 Their disciplinary problems arose because in 1991 they (a) simultaneously represented both the buyer of real estate and a judgment creditor of the seller and (b) used information obtained in representing the buyer to attach proceeds of the sale for the benefit of their creditor client.
We agree with the board that the two attorneys violated S.J.C. Rule 3:07, Canon 4, DR 4-101 (B) (3), as appearing in 382 Mass. 778 (1981),…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Kitchen Krafters, Inc. v. Eastside BankMontana Supreme Court · 1990
- In Re HindsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
- American State Bank v. AdkinsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
- In the Matter of KenneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
- In the Matter of PalmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1992
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Schultz v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- In re HilsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2007
- In re KlineSupreme Court of Kansas · 2013
- Grand Pacific Finance Corp. v. BrauerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2003
- In re the Discipline of an AttorneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.