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. Judgment of Disbarment entered by Justice Cowin on February 22, 2007.1

SUMMARY2

On November 6, 2006, the Court of Appeals of Maryland entered an order disbarring the respondent. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Andrew M. Steinberg, 395 Md. 337, 910 A.2d 429 (2006). The respondent did not report this disbarment order to bar counsel or the Board of Bar Overseers, thereby violating S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 16(6).

On December 1, 2006, bar counsel filed a petition for reciprocal discipline in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County. Bar counsel sent a copy of the petition to the respondent at his registered home address. The county court consolidated the petition for reciprocal discipline with prior reciprocal discipline proceedings that had resulted in a thirty-day suspension entered on October 31, 2005, reported as Matter of Steinberg, 21 Mass. Att’y Disc. R. 631 (2005), and an order of suspension for one year and one day entered on January 30, 2006.3

On December 8, 2006, the county court issued an order of notice requiring the respondent to inform the court within 30 days from service why identical discipline should not be imposed. Bar counsel served the order of notice on the respondent on December 13, 2006, by sending it to him via first-class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested. Neither the return receipt nor the first-class mail was returned to bar counsel.

On January 31, 2007, the county court scheduled a hearing for February 8, 2007. The respondent was notified by an assistant clerk of the county court both by telephone call and letter. The respondent did not appear at the hearing on February 8, 2007, and did not otherwise communicate with the court.

After hearing on February 8, 2007, attended by bar counsel, the county court (Cowin, J.) entered a judgment of disbarment effective upon the date of entry. The respondent had not complied with the prior suspension orders and had not been reinstated from suspension. The county court ordered that the respondent would not be eligible to apply for reinstatement from the disbarment judgment until he was reinstated in Maryland and eight years after the date on which he fully complied with the prior orders of suspension and the judgment of disbarment.

FOOTNOTES:

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 before the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County.
3The respondent appealed from the order suspending him for a year and a day, and that appeal was pending in the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth at the time the petition for reciprocal discipline of disbarment was filed and decided in the county court. Matter of Steinberg, S.J.C. -09701.



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