On Wednesday, May 3, 2023, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County reinstated attorney Carlos M. Gomez after being suspended for misconduct involving neglect of client matters.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Carlos M. Gomez,” with case no. BD-2001-042.

On March 5, 2023, the petitioner was indefinitely suspended for neglecting client matters. Allegedly, the respondent disappeared for short periods of time on prior occasions resulting in clients whose matters required the immediate attention of a lawyer, being forced during this period to retrieve their files from the respondent’s staff and to retain successor counsel. Other client matters also went unattended in the weeks following the petitioner’s disappearance, including personal injury cases on which settlements had been received but could not be disbursed, several bankruptcy cases for which fees had been paid but that were never filed, a divorce matter on which a retainer had been paid but that was not pursued, and personal injury and real estate matters that required additional work post-settlement to resolve creditor claims.

Several years later, the petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachuset. The petitioner testified on his own behalf and called one witness, a former colleague practicing in Springfield, MA. Twenty-five exhibits were admitted into evidence, some subject to a protective order.

In response, on November 15, 2019, in a report of the hearing panel, the same recommended that the petition for reinstatement filed by the respondent be denied on the basis that the latter has failed to persuade them that he possesses the moral qualification required for admission to practice law.

The Hearing Report states:

“The petitioner needs to demonstrate that any risk of abandonment or other ethical lapse is no longer substantial enough to bar reinstatement. He has not done so because he has not persuaded us that his remission is reasonably permanent or he has attained insight into why he put his clients at risk by turning to drugs and alcohol, and he has not shown complete moral reform because of, among other things, the absence of any expressions of remorse for the harm he caused.”

Moreover, according to the panel, the petitioner’s self-assessments about the strength of his recovery are of limited evidentiary weight.

The Hearing Report continues:

“We do not doubt the sincerity of the petitioner’s belief that he has been on a steady arc toward recovery and that he is literally terrified of using again and losing his new-found sense of serenity. Tr. 230-231 (Gomez). We are mindful, however, that before 2017 he did not consistently stop using crack cocaine even when his use caused him remorse and depression, leading to more drinking. The records and testimony before us demonstrating complete abstention from all controlled substances and alcohol, based to a large extent on the petitioner’s self-reports to his therapist, are of only recent vintage.”

In addition to the panel’s doubts about the solidity of the petitioner’s remission/recovery from substance abuse, the former stated that no evidence of sustained and successful therapy for whatever psychological conditions contributed to the petitioner’s dependency on substance abuse and his resulting abandonment of clients were presented before the panel. In lieu of this, the Hearing panel recommended to the court to deny the petition for reinstatement of attorney Gomez.

However, despite the recommendation of the Hearing Panel, the court on May 3, 2023, still decided to reinstate the petitioner.

The Disposition states:

“Whereupon, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Carlos M. Gomez be, and hereby is, reinstated as a member of the bar of the Commonwealth subject to conditions.”

Mr. Gomez practices in Springfield, Massachusetts. He is licensed in Massachusetts. His info can be found on avvo.com.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.