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 October 31, 2005..1

SUMMARY2

On December 30, 2004, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended the respondent for thirty days with the respondent required to demonstrate fitness to practice as a condition of reinstatement. See In re Steinberg, 864 A.2d 120 (D.C. 2004). Suspension was ordered based on the respondent’s violations of Rules 8.4(b) (failure to respond reasonably to a lawful demand for information from the Office of Bar Counsel of the District of Columbia), 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and Rule XI, § 2(b)(3) (failure to comply with an order of the D. C. Board on Professional Responsibility issued in connection with disciplinary proceedings.) Id. at 121. In addition, the court took into account the respondent’s prior thirty-day suspensions in In re Steinberg, 720 (A.2d 900) (D.C. 1998), and In re Steinberg, 761 A.2d 279 (D.C. 2000).

On March 18, 2005, the respondent was indefinitely suspended by the Court of Appeals of Maryland with reinstatement conditioned upon the respondent’s reinstatement to the District of Columbia bar. Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Steinberg, 870 A.2d 603 (2005). The proceedings in Maryland resulted from the disciplinary proceedings in the District of Columbia leading to the thirty-day suspension but were not initiated as a reciprocal discipline proceedings. Id. at 605. Nevertheless, the Maryland Court of Appeals determined that the respondent’s “extended failure to cooperate” in the bar discipline proceedings in the District of Columbia warranted a suspension in Maryland conditioned on reinstatement in the District of Columbia. Id. at 608. Because “suspension for a specified term in Maryland does not trigger a reapplication process,” the court indefinitely suspended the respondent with reinstatement conditioned upon reinstatement in the District of Columbia. Id. n.10.

The respondent did not notify bar counsel of any of these orders of suspension. This conduct violated S. J. C. Rule 4:01, § 16(6).

On June 8, 2005, bar counsel filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County a petition for reciprocal discipline based on the indefinite suspension ordered in Maryland. Bar counsel requested that the county court suspend the respondent for thirty days with reinstatement in Massachusetts conditioned upon the respondent’s reinstatement in the District of Columbia.

On October 19, 2005, the court held a hearing on bar counsel’s petition for reciprocal discipline. The respondent contested bar counsel’s request that he be required as a condition of reinstatement in Massachusetts to demonstrate that he had been reinstated in the District of Columbia.

On October 31, 2005, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, (Cowin, J.), entered an order suspending the respondent immediately for thirty days with reinstatement conditioned upon the respondent’s reinstatement to the practice of law in the District of Columbia.

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 record before the 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.