Desy v. Board of Bar Examiners

• Decision Date: 20 October 2008
• Docket Number: No. SJC-10069.,SJC-10069.
• Citation: 452 Mass. 1012,894 N.E.2d 1135
• Parties: Louis J. DESY, Jr. v. BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

894 N.E.2d 1135

452 Mass. 1012

Louis J. DESY, Jr. v. BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS.

No. SJC-10069.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

October 20, 2008.

Louis Desy, Jr., pro se.

Katy E. Koski, Boston (Jessica G. Gray with her) for Board of Bar Examiners.

RESCRIPT.

In December, 2004, Louis J. Desy, Jr., submitted an application for admission to the Massachusetts bar. He took and passed the written bar examination in February, 2005. Because a member of the Massachusetts bar had previously submitted a complaint to the Office of Bar Counsel raising concerns about Desy's character and fitness to practice law,¹ and because of other information in his application, the Board of Bar Examiners (board) appointed special counsel to conduct an investigation, and thereafter conducted a hearing to inquire whether Desy "is of good moral character and sufficient acquirements and qualifications" to warrant his admission to the bar. G.L. c. 221, § 37. S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.1, as appearing in 411 Mass. 1321 (1992). Desy called character witnesses to testify in support of his application, and he also testified on his own behalf. The board found that he was not qualified to be admitted to the bar and recommended that his application be dismissed. S.J.C. Rule 3:01, § 5.3, as appearing in 411 Mass. 1321 (1992). Desy petitioned this court for a hearing on his application. A single justice of this court denied Desy's application and dismissed his petition. Desy appeals to the full court. We agree with the board and with the single justice.

Facts. The board and the single justice noted several incidents in which Desy's behavior reflected poorly on his character. The most troubling involved Desy's efforts to collect on a debt owed to him. According to the complaint submitted by the attorney, Desy worked as an independent contractor for a company run by the attorney's family. The company, apparently due to financial difficulties, failed to pay Desy in a timely manner for all of his work. Desy commenced actions in small claims proceedings and prevailed, obtaining money judgments against the company. Subsequently, by electronic mail (e-mail) to the company's principal manager dated December 9, 2003, Desy claimed (falsely) to have attached property belonging to the company and to the manager, threatened to have the property seized, threatened to have trustee process served on the company's customers, and threatened to have the manager's wife and daughter arrested.² One of the e-mail messages specifically threatened to have the manager's wife arrested at 6 A.M. on Christmas Day or on another holiday. In fact, Desy had not commenced any process for collection of the judgments. The falsehood, the baseless threats, and the timing of these messages—Desy was then a law student about to submit an application for admission to the bar, see note 1, supra— reflect poorly on Desy's character. When he was interviewed by special counsel about this matter, he asserted evasively that he did not remember exactly what he had written, but acknowledged that he did "rant and rave."³ In his brief to this court, Desy does not address this matter.⁴

At the hearing before the board, Desy called four character witnesses.⁵ The witnesses, each of whom was a friend or relative of Desy, offered "brief and entirely conclusory testimony," which the board found unhelpful in determining his character. Further, although the board granted Desy's request for leave to file additional character references after the hearing, he did not do so. The board found the absence of helpful testimony in support of Desy's character to be the "most striking aspect of the hearing."

Discussion. "While deference is given to the decision of the board, this court retains ultimate authority to decide a person's fitness to practice law in the Commonwealth. G.L. c. 221, § 37." Matter of Prager, 422 Mass. 86, 91, 661 N.E.2d 84 (1996). See Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar of the Commonwealth., 378 Mass. 795, 795, 392 N.E.2d 533 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1046, 100 S.Ct. 734, 62 L.Ed.2d 732 (1980) (single justice properly denied admission where "applicant has used judicial processes in a way inconsistent with the standard to be expected of a lawyer"). "Any significant doubts about an applicant's character should be resolved in favor of protecting the public by denying admission to the applicant." Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar of the Commonwealth, 444 Mass. 393, 397, 828 N.E.2d 484 (2005), quoting Matter of Prager, supra at 100, 661 N.E.2d 84. As we have recently emphasized, "[c]andor with the board is essential. 'It is the obligation of an applicant to assure the members of the board and, ultimately, this court that he or she possesses the necessary qualifications to practice law in the Commonwealth. Such a showing requires a full and exhaustive disclosure of prior wrongdoing, including all relevant circumstances surrounding the conduct, both militating and mitigating, and official documentation where appropriate.'" Strigler v. Board of Bar Examiners, 448 Mass. 1027, 1029, 864 N.E.2d 8 (2007), quoting Matter of Prager, supra.

Desy's conduct, particularly the threatening and harassing e-mail messages, strongly suggests dishonesty, poor judgment, and a willingness to misuse the judicial process. Cf. Matter of an Application for Admission to the Bar of the Commonwealth., 378 Mass. 795, 392 N.E.2d 533 (1979). Further, Desy has shown a lack of candor in these proceedings. As the single justice noted, his answers to questions about his background "have been defensive and perfunctory—in effect, a failure to...