SJC Committed Multiple Ethics Violations With Prestigious Law Firm, Unlike Judge Dougan

So the brew-ha-ha today is that Judge Raymond Dougan of the Boston Municipal Court received free legal representation from a top notch law firm that successfully defended him against cry-baby allegations from Search and Avoid D.A. Dan Conley.

An important rule of law was revisited and immediately affirmed thanks to the Dougan’s legal team.

You see, there is an ethics rule that a judge cannot receive personal benefit from attorneys or their firm that regularly practice before them. In this case Foley Hoag.

First off, Foley Hoag lawyers are in the BMC once every ten years. Easy recusal if they happen to draw Judge Dougan that day. Autiomatic recusal. In fact if Dougan paid them it would still be a recusal.

Now lets compare this to the SJC and the pro-bono work done by Paul Ware and his huge white shoes law firm. That firm gave the SJC a gift wrapped and with a bow when it was asked to look into probation and bring back a report that kisses the justices asses.

They did the same with the Cinquigrana Report.

But the Ware report and many aspects of it show ethics violations by many judges and former judges.

In fact I filed a written complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission last year. (Anonymous complaint allowed per the rules- signed Ernie Boch, III, no relation)

The quotes in the Globe by Judge Mulligan and the blatant conflicts, including Judge Mulligan promoting JUdge Botsford’s nephew the day before she cast the deciding vote in his re-appointment as CJAM are far more egregious than Dougan getting help with this bullshit. In fact the judges should have paid for it out of their funds. The Dougan case was about each and every one of them.

But because the Globe is a Dan Conley Toady too it goes after Dougan,

JUdge Dougan’s ethics regarding legal representation cannot be separated from the real and concrete ethics violations committed by the SJC and some big law firms.

P.S. Dougan being represented personally and the SJC being represented as a body is a red herring.



Discuss

7 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. I'm not well-versed in this stuff, but

    wouldn’t it make more sense to have chosen a non-practicing lawyer from one of the many law schools in the Boston area to do the Ware Report and the Cinquana thing?

    The other thing is, how do you get judges with conflicts of interest? There’s that separation of powers thing. D-bags like Scalia answer to no one. I don’t see that changing in Washington, but we ought to be able to do better here with a one-party system.

  2. Judges are impeachable...

    …but the case must be made that there has been conflict of interest or other ethical/legal lapses. Judges should not be impeached just because they make an unpopular ruling.

  3. Ex-aide to Massachusetts Governor joins firm's gaming group

    Those within the penumbra of power pedlars seem to be above ethics challenges.

    Indian Gaming reports that

    E. Abim Thomas served as deputy chief legal counsel for Patrick up until September. She worked on H.3702, which sets aside a casino in the southeastern part of the state for “a federally recognized tribe,” and helped negotiate a Class III gaming compact with the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe for the intended casino.

    But now that she’s joined the gaming group at Goodwin Procter, she is arguing that the tribe hasn’t met a deadline in the law for the compact because the Bureau of Indian Affairs rejected the agreement. She’s representing an unidentified client that wants to compete for the casino in the region that was aside for the tribe.

    This is not just any “aide,” this the Deputy Chief Legal Counsel who crafted and helped negotiate the tribal compact. This is a portion of the legislation that is unresolved and still before the Governor, Legislature and Gaming Commission!

    The lemmings went over the ethical cliff years ago. Who is minding the store????

    • Isn't there a cooling off period

      between government work and lobbying?

      • There is

        but there’s no cooling off period for attorneys representing clients in legal matters that do not involve activities that fall under the definition of lobbying (though I personally think there should be a similar prohibition). There may be other ethics issues outside of the lobbying statutes as well.

  4. David,

    I was simply responding generally to Mark’s question about accountability and pointing out that impeachment is an option in extreme cases.

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Wed 22 Oct 6:23 PM