- Karen L. Nober, Executive Director
Media Contact for Ethics Commission Dismisses the Joseph Lally Adjudicatory Proceeding
David Giannotti, Communications Division Chief
Cites Lally’s guilty plea in related federal criminal proceeding
Boston, MA — The Ethics Commission issued an Allowance of Joint Motion to Dismiss the Proceeding and Order of Dismissal (“Order”), dismissing the adjudicatory proceeding involving Joseph P. Lally, Jr. The adjudicatory proceeding was initiated on April 14, 2010, with the filing of an Order to Show Cause (“OTSC”) alleging that Lally violated G.L. c. 268A, the conflict of interest law. Specifically, the OTSC alleged that Lally violated the conflict of interest law by offering jobs and/or career assistance to two state employees with the intent to influence them in connection with a $15 million state contract to purchase performance management software from Cognos Corporation. The matter was stayed in August 2011 pending Lally’s sentencing in the related federal criminal proceeding against him.
According to the Joint Motion, Lally pled guilty on March 8, 2011, in the federal proceeding against him to conspiring to deprive Massachusetts citizens of former Massachusetts House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi’s honest services and to extortion under color of official right involving the payment of bribes to DiMasi and kickbacks to Richard McDonough and Richard Vitale. Lally testified at the federal trial of DiMasi, McDonough and Vitale. DiMasi and McDonough were convicted of conspiracy, honest services mail fraud, honest services wire fraud, and extortion under color of official right. Vitale was acquitted of all charges. On October 19, 2011, the federal court sentenced Lally to 18 months in prison and 36 months of supervised release, and fined him $50,000. The conduct for which Lally was convicted and sentenced in the federal matter related to the conduct at issue in the Commission’s adjudicatory proceeding involving Lally, and in light of Lally’s conviction and sentencing, the Commission determined that the interests of justice, the parties and the Commission were best served by dismissing the adjudicatory proceeding.