On Friday, March 24, 2022, the Supreme Court for Suffolk County ordered the suspension of attorney David W. Parker from the practice of law.

The case, titled “In Re: David W. Parker,” was brought by the Board of Bar Overseers with docket no. BD- 2023-004. 

The charges cited the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.3, and 8.4(b) (d) and (h): These ethics rules generally require:

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to. . .commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:. . . engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his . . .fitness to practice law.

According to the complaint, the respondent was appointed to represent a minor child in Holyoke Juvenile Court. After obtaining material information on the case, the respondent did not investigate further. The client’s father and the respondent had gone drinking together and due to this, the former’s intoxication heavily contributed to his behavior at a hockey game he went to, and had to be escorted by the authorities.

In an emergency hearing held on March 20, 2019, the Court ordered the respondent to withdraw from representing the child for failing to act with reasonable diligence in representing a minor child and committing a criminal act that reflected adversely on the respondent’s fitness to practice law. The hearing committee recommended that the respondent be suspended for a term of six months, stayed for two years to enable the respondent to maintain sobriety to which neither party appealed.

The filing states that:

“Alternatively, a two-year stay would provide a great incentive for the respondent to maintain his sobriety and continue to better himself and his practice. The respondent’s future clients would best be served and protected by an attorney who admits he has a problem and, in turn, is assisted by members of his profession to work to resolve said problem.

Put another way, a stay is warranted in this case because it can better achieve the goal of safeguarding the public and assisting the respondent in his recovery”

The court adopted the hearing committee’s recommendation of a six-month suspension stayed for two years, with conditions as set forth in the accompanying order of term suspension/stayed.

Parker is an attorney at the Parker Law Firm. His information can be found here.

A copy of the original filing can be found here