In the Matter of James R. Rosencranz

S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Cypher on October 9, 2018.[1]

The respondent stipulated to a three-months suspension for his unknowingly unauthorized practice of law. While under suspension in an unrelated case, the respondent represented his wife in a lawsuit against her arising out of unpaid bills at their marital home. He believed that, as a potential defendant, he had standing to represent his wife, and he disclosed his suspended status to the judge. The respondent terminated his involvement when the judge issued an opinion that his involvement in the case while suspended constituted the unauthorized practice of law, notwithstanding the respondent’s good faith belief that he could do so.

SUMMARY[2]

On December 23, 2011, the Supreme Judicial Court issued an order suspending the respondent from the practice of law for a period of six months, with three months stayed for two years based on the respondent’s compliance with certain conditions. Matter of Rosencranz, 27 Mass. Disc. R. 754 (2011) (effective date of February 1, 2012). Under S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 17(7), the respondent was accordingly prohibited from practicing law and engaging in legal work on behalf of another person until he was reinstated by the Supreme Judicial Court. At all times relevant to this matter, the respondent had not been reinstated to the practice of law.

In September of 2015, the respondent’s wife was sued in district court for allegedly unpaid bills at their marital home. Over the ensuing eight months, the respondent practiced law and performed legal work on behalf of his wife. This included drafting pleadings and making court appearances. In doing so, the respondent had a good faith misunderstanding that he had standing in the case because he might be personally liable for any adverse judgment entered against his wife. At the outset of the first hearing, the respondent disclosed his suspension order to the presiding judge and therefore did not attempt to mislead the court regarding his status as a suspended attorney. When the court later issued a written decision finding that the respondent had been engaging in the practice of law contrary to his suspension order, he immediately ceased doing any more legal work for his wife. In hindsight, the respondent acknowledged that the proper course would have been to successfully move to intervene as a party before attempting to advocate for his interests in his wife’s litigation.

By practicing law and engaging in legal work after the effective date of his suspension and prior to his reinstatement, the respondent violated S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 17 and Mass. R. Prof. C. 5.5(a). His misconduct was not intentional and thus constituted the unknowing unauthorized practice of law.

The respondent’s misconduct was aggravated by his disciplinary history. In addition to the suspension order issued in 2011 (see above), he received a public reprimand in 2005 (Matter of Rosencranz, 17 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 487 (2005)) and an admonition in 1995 (Admonition No. 95-57, 11 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 423 (1995)).

On August 27, 2018, the parties submitted a stipulation to the Board of Bar Overseers in which the respondent admitted the truth of the above facts and stipulated to the above disciplinary rule violations. The parties recommended that the respondent be suspended from the practice of law for three months.

On September 17, 2018, the Board of Bar Overseers voted to accept the stipulation of the parties and their proposed sanction.

On October 9, 2018, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County (Cypher, J.) entered an order adopting the board’s recommendation, effective immediately.