Mass.gov
   
Mass.Gov home Mass.gov  home get things done agencies Search Mass.Gov


Commonwealth of Massachusetts

NO. BD-2005-047

IN RE: ANDREW MARK STEINBERG

S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Cowin on January 30, 2006.1

SUMMARY2

On July 7, 2005, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals entered an order suspending the respondent from the practice of law for sixty days. In re Steinberg, 878 A.2d 496 (D.C. App. 2005). The court of appeals ordered that the respondentís sixty-day suspension would be consecutive to a thirty-day suspension ordered by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in In re Steinberg, 864 A.2d 120 (D.C. App. 2004). The thirty-day suspension order entered in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals further required the respondent to demonstrate fitness prior to reinstatement.

The thirty-day suspension order took effect in the District of Columbia on January 30, 2005. Section 14 of Rule XI of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Rules Governing the Bar provides that, for the purposes of reinstatement, a suspension order begins to run from the date the lawyer files an affidavit of compliance with the order of suspension. The respondent did not file an affidavit of compliance with the thirty-day suspension order. His failure to do so meant that neither the thirty-day suspension period nor the sixty-day suspension period for the purposes of his reinstatement commenced to run.

The thirty-day suspension order in the District of Columbia gave rise to a petition for reciprocal discipline filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County. After notice and a hearing on October 19, 2005, the county court, on October 31, 2005, suspended the respondent for thirty days, with reinstatement in Massachusetts conditioned upon the respondentís reinstatement in the District of Columbia. Matter of Steinberg, S.J.C. No. BD-2005-047 (Oct. 31, 2005) The respondent did not comply with the order of suspension entered in Massachusetts.

On October 19, 2005, bar counsel received notice of the sixty-day suspension order from the Office of Bar Counsel of the District of Columbia. The respondent had not notified either the Board of Bar Overseers or bar counsel of that order of suspension. His failure to provide certified copies of the suspension order to the board and bar counsel within ten days of the order violated S. J. C. Rule 4:01, ß 16(6).

Bar counsel filed a second petition for reciprocal discipline on October 20, 2005, but asked that the county order suspend the respondent for a year and a day, with an additional condition precedent to reinstatement that the respondent be reinstated in the District of Columbia. A hearing, attended by the respondent, was held on bar counselís second petition for reciprocal discipline on January 18, 2006. Following that hearing, on January 30, 2006, the county court entered an order immediately suspending the respondent for a year and a day and further ordering that the respondent would not be eligible to apply for reinstatement until (a) he had fully complied with the suspension order entered on October 31, 2005, and (b) one year and one day after he filed with the court and bar counsel a true and accurate affidavit of compliance with the January 30, 2006, suspension order.

1 The complete Order of the Court is available by contacting the Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County. 2 Compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the on the record submitted to the Supreme Judicial Court.



BBO/OBC Privacy Policy. Please direct all questions to webmaster@massbbo.org.
© 2005. Board of Bar Overseers. Office of Bar Counsel. All rights reserved.