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

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

NO. BD-2010-088


S.J.C. Judgment of Disbarment entered by Justice Gants on December 17, 2010, with an effective date of January 18, 2011.1


On August 20, 2010, the respondent, Michael Romeo Luongo, was disbarred by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The circumstances resulting in the respondentís disbarment were as follows.

In June of 2005, the respondent received a check for $119,507 from a garnishee bank in payment of a judgment the respondent had obtained for a client in a civil suit. Although the respondent knew that the defendantís lawyer had obtained an emergency order staying execution and distribution of any funds, the respondent deposited the check to his IOLTA account. From June through October of 2005, the respondent misappropriated substantially all of the funds by distributing them to himself and others. On two occasions the respondent was ordered by a court to return the funds but did not do so. At a contempt hearing concerning his failure to return the funds, the respondent presented false testimony from a legal assistant concerning when the respondent had received and deposited the bankís check. The respondent repaid the funds in June of 2007, only after several days of incarceration resulting from a contempt finding.

In a second matter, the respondent resided in an apartment and was subject to eviction proceedings in early 2009. The day before a scheduled eviction, the respondent sent a facsimile to an officer containing bankruptcy court documents indicating that the respondent had filed for bankruptcy and obtained a court order that day. The eviction was postponed. In fact, the documents sent by the respondent were fabricated and the purported order contained the signature of a judge who had retired from the bankruptcy court.

The respondent did not report the Pennsylvania disbarment to Massachusetts bar counsel, as required by S.J.C. Rule 4:01, ß 16(6).

On September 22, 2010, bar counsel filed a petition for reciprocal discipline with the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County. The Court issued an order of notice giving the respondent thirty days to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be ordered in Massachusetts. The respondent did not timely reply to the order of notice. On December 17, 2010, the Court (Gants, J.) entered a judgment disbarring the respondent, effective thirty days after entry, and striking the respondentís name from the Roll of Attorneys.


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 filed with the Supreme Judicial Court.

BBO/OBC Privacy Policy. Please direct all questions to