On Thursday, February 23, 2023, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts disbarred attorney Erwin Rosenberg for continuing to practice law despite his Florida disbarment.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Erwin Rosenberg” with case no. SJC-13293.
On December 8, 2021, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts entered a memorandum of decision. In the said document, it was stated that the bar counsel filed a petition for reciprocal discipline recommending that the respondent be reciprocally disbarred from the practice of law in Massachusetts. This is in relation to the disbarment of the respondent before the Florida Supreme Court for repeatedly not complying with court orders to produce documents, raising objections that already had been overruled, and refusing to pay attorney’s fees that he had been ordered to pay.
The filing states:
“At an evidentiary hearing in August of 2007 on a circuit court judge’s order that the respondent show cause why he should not be sanctioned for bad faith conduct, the respondent declined to testify on his own behalf, but the plaintiffs called him as an adverse witness. On September 14, 2007, the motion judge concluded that the respondent had engaged in bad faith conduct; the judge emphasized that “the most egregiously bad faith action which [the respondent] committed was re-stating. the same objections which this Court already had overruled, without [the respondent] taking any further action to comply with Plaintiffs’ requests for production or with this Court’s orders.”
In response to the fact that the respondent still continued to practice his profession despite his disbarment in Florida, the court of Massachusetts argued that the respondent’s refusal or inability to comply with an order of disbarment strikes at the core of a state supreme court’s authority to regulate the legal profession. Moreover, it stated that someone who is no longer an attorney but purports to so harm not only the clients who hired an attorney but all attorneys, who bear the brunt of that single individual’s misrepresentations. In consideration of all the factual allegations, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts decided to disbar the respondent.
The filing further states:
“A judgment shall enter disbarring the respondent from the practice of law in the Commonwealth. Consistent with S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 18(2) (a), the respondent “may not petition for reinstatement until three months prior to the expiration of at least eight years from the effective date of the order of disbarment.” Reinstatement to the bar of the Commonwealth shall not be contingent upon reinstatement to the Florida bar, or to reinstatement after reciprocal discipline with respect to that disbarment in any other jurisdiction.”
Unsatisfied with the results, the respondent appealed, arguing principally that the Commonwealth’s attorney licensing scheme violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The filing further states:
“On appeal, the respondent does not challenge either the misconduct established in Florida or the procedure through which it was imposed. See S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 16 (3), (5). He argues instead that, as a general matter, rules of professional responsibility serve as content-based restrictions on speech, in violation of the First Amendment.”
In response, the court stated that the single justice – who decided in the earlier order – correctly rejected the argument. It was established by the judge that “States may regulate professional conduct, even though that conduct incidentally involves speech”. According to the court, this permits the regulation of speech as part of the practice of the law, subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the state.
On the matter of appropriate discipline, the court reiterated that the most egregious among the respondent’s misconduct was his continued engagement in the unauthorized practice of law after his disbarment. And because of this, it affirmed the earlier decision to disbar the respondent.
The disposition states:
“The foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the single justice disbarring the respondent from the practice of law”
Mr. Rosenburg attended the New England School of Law, graduating in 1997. He practices in North Miami Beach, Florida. He is licensed in Florida and as well in Massachusetts. His info can be found on lawyer.com.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
