On Sunday, September 25, 2022, the Commonwealth of Massachusettes Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court, in an Order, ruled on charges of attorney discipline against Milton attorney Donald LaRoche, Esq for the latter’s failure to provide competent and diligent representation to a client in a criminal matter.

The case is entitled “Bar Counsel v. Donald LaRoche, Esq” and was brought by Bar Counsel with Case # 2022-25.

The charges cited rules of professional conduct 1.1, 1.3, and 8.4(d) which state:

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. The lawyer should represent a client zealously within the bounds of the law.

Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The rules of professional conduct can be found here. 

The following are as alleged and summarized from the Order:

The respondent was retained by a client who had been indicted for several felonies. Another individual was charged as a co-defendant. The respondent failed to provide competent and diligent representation to the client in his preparation for trial. Specifically, he failed to review much of the discovery provided by the prosecution; failed to investigate crucial photographic evidence taken from his client’s phone that was presented by the prosecutor during opening statements; failed to listen to all video and audio recordings supporting the prosecution’s case; failed to obtain transcripts of the recordings, many of which were in a foreign language; and failed to identify or subpoena any witnesses including expert witnesses.

The Order states:

“At trial, the respondent pursued a defense that was not available based on the facts of the case; failed to cross-examine all but two of the prosecution’s witnesses, elicited testimony damaging to his client from the two witnesses he did cross-examine; and heavily relied on co – defendant’s counsel even though the two defendants had differing strategies and theories of the case. Both the client and co-defendant were found guilty.”

The Order continues:

“After the verdict, the client terminated the respondent’s representation and retained successor counsel. Successor counsel moved for a new trial based on the respondent’s ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held a two-day evidentiary hearing on the motion for a new trial and ordered a new trial based on the respondent’s ineffective assistance to his client. The order granting a new trial was affirmed by the appellate court. The former client’s new trial was scheduled to begin in 2022. However, the case was dismissed by prosecutors on the eve of the trial based on previously undisclosed exculpatory evidence that had not been timely released to the defendants.”

With all the foregoing facts, the court ruled against the Respondent. 

The Disposition states:

“Whereupon, pursuant to Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01, Section 8(3), and the Rules of the Board of Bar Overseers, Section 3.56, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Donald LaRoche, be and hereby is PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED.”

As of today, Mr. LaRoche is listed on the website of the law firm Attorney at Law Office of Donald LaRoche as a practicing attorney.  He attended Quinnipiac University School of Law, graduating in 2000. LaRoche practices in Milton, Massachusettes. His info can be found online on Linkedin.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.