In the Matter of Peter B. Sheldon

SUMMARY²

On December 16, 2016, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County entered an order suspending the respondent for three years, effective immediately, for neglect in three separate client matters, intentional misuse of client funds with deprivation, failure to communicate with clients, failure to refund unearned fees, failure to cooperate with bar counsel’s investigation, and failure to comply with the resulting administrative suspension.

Between May 2014 and October 2014, the respondent was retained by three separate clients. In the first case, on May 27, 2014, a client retained the respondent to represent him in a complaint for modification of divorce. The client gave the respondent a retainer check, which the respondent cashed two days later and before any work had been completed. Thereafter, the respondent failed to perform any work of substance for the client, who discharged him by July 2, 2014. The respondent failed to return any portion of the unearned fee or account to the client for the disposition of the funds.  

On August 18, 2014, a second client retained the respondent to file an uncontested divorce. The respondent failed to communicate to the client in writing the basis or amount of the fee. The respondent received from the client a retainer check, which he cashed before any work had been completed, intentionally misusing the funds that he had not earned. Thereafter, the respondent failed to perform any work of substance and failed to return any portion of the unearned fee. By October 2014, the respondent stopped communicating with the client. On February 27, 2015, the client filed a complaint in small claims court to recover some of his retainer. The respondent defaulted and judgment entered against him. The court ordered him to appear for a payment review hearing, which he failed to do. The respondent failed thereafter to pay any portion of the judgment. 

In the fall of 2014, a third client retained the respondent to draft a living revocable trust and will. By this time, the respondent had already misused the retainers of the first two clients and had stopped communicating with both of them. The respondent charged the new client a flat fee, which the client paid. The respondent did not intend to perform any legal work for this client when he accepted the funds. Thereafter, he failed to perform any work of substance and had stopped communicating with the client by December 2014.

Unrelated to the client matters, between September 11, 2014, and March 10, 2015, the respondent deposited personal funds into his IOLTA account. In April 2015, the respondent closed his law practice and failed to notify the registration division of the Board of Bar Overseers of his change of address.

The respondent’s failure to provide competent representation and to perform services with reasonable diligence violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2(a) and 1.3. The respondent’s failure to refund unearned fees at the termination of the representations violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.16(d). The respondent’s failure to keep his clients reasonably informed regarding the status of their cases violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.4(a) and (b). The respondent’s failure to communicate in writing the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of his fee violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(b)(1). The respondent’s failure to deposit unearned retainer funds into a trust account violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(b)(1). The respondent’s intentional misuse of retainers and a flat fee violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4(c) and (h). By depositing personal funds to his IOLTA account the respondent violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.15(b)(2). The respondent’s failure to comply with the court’s order to appear at the magistrate trial and payment review hearings violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.4(c) and 8.4(d).

The respondent failed to cooperate in bar counsel’s investigation. By failing without good cause to comply with bar counsel’s requests for information, the respondent violated S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 3, and Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4(d), 8.4(g), and 8.4(h). On November 3, 2015, the respondent was administratively suspended for non-cooperation by order of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 3(2). Thereafter, the respondent intentionally failed without good cause to comply with the order of administrative suspension, in violation of S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 17, and Mass. R. Prof. C. 3.4(c), 8.4(d) and (h). By failing to notify the registration division of the Board of Bar Overseers within thirty days of changing his office address, the respondent violated S.J.C. Rule 4:02(1) and Mass. R. Prof. C. 8.4(d).

On June 14, 2016, bar counsel filed a petition for discipline against the respondent alleging the misconduct described above. The respondent failed to file an answer to the petition for discipline and was defaulted. On October 17, 2016, the Board of Bar Overseers voted to suspend the respondent from the practice of law for three years.   

¹The complete order of the Court is available by contacting the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County.

²Compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the record filed with the Supreme Judicial Court.