On Tuesday, April 11, 2023, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County charged attorney Maude Laroche-St Fleur with contempt for failure to comply with the court’s orders.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Maude Laroche-St Fleur,” with case no. BD-2022-012.
The charges cited Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1)(3), 3.4(c), 3.1 and 8.4(c)(d) which states:
Knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or failing to correct a false statement of material fact previously made to the tribunal.
Knowing an offer of evidence a lawyer knows to be false; failure to take remedial measures.
Dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, or fraud.
Knowing disobedience of obligation under the rules of the tribunal.
Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
On March 25, 2022, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 18 months by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County. This is based on the recommendation of the board alleging that the respondent committed three types of professional misconduct in divorce proceedings. These include knowingly filing false financial statements under oath, willful disregard of court orders resulting in multiple judgments of contempt, and engaging in frivolous litigation.
The Memorandum of Decision states:
“In 2014, the respondent filed a complaint for divorce against her husband. The proceedings were focused on the division of assets, primarily the marital home and the husband’s 401(k) plan savings. Over the course of the divorce, the respondent filed personal financial statements with the court wherein she claimed to have a mortgage on the marital home and an outstanding loan from her son, wherein she did not disclose certain bank accounts.”
The Memorandum of Decision continues:
“In an attempt to gather the information required to move forward with the division of assets, the trial court, in January 2015, appointed a special discovery master. The respondent failed to cooperate with the special discovery master and in April 2015, the trial court found the respondent in contempt. As a result, the trial court ordered the respondent to pay the fees associated with the special discovery master’s work, and when the respondent failed to pay the fees, the trial court, in December 2015, again held the respondent in contempt.”
On October 27, 2022, the Board of Bar Overseers affirmed the order of the single justice in suspending the respondent. The board stated that after a thorough review of the record and taking into account the recommendation, it concluded that the sanction imposed by the single justice, in the said case is not significantly different from the sanctions imposed in similar cases, given the substantial aggravating factors and lack of mitigating factors.
After the suspension and affirmation of the respondent’s discipline, the court ruled on the Bar Counsel’s motion asking the respondent to show cause why a capias and mittimus should not be issued for the respondent’s failure to comply with the court’s order.
However, despite the respondent’s attendance at the hearing for showcasing why a contempt order should not be imposed against her, the latter still has not complied with the court’s orders. The said order required the respondent to bring the hearing documentation certifying the extent to which she has complied with the conditions of the court’s September 30, 2022, order of contempt.
In consideration of the respondent’s continuing contempt of the March 23, 2022, order of term suspension, the respondent is further adjudged in contempt for her failure to comply with the court’s September 30, 2022, and January 6, 2023, orders.
The order states:
“In accordance with the order accompanying this decision, the respondent is further adjudged in contempt of the court’s September 30, 2022, and January 6, 2023, orders. As a remedial measure to bring the respondent into compliance with the court’s order, she shall be liable for and pay a fine of $100 per day to this court until such time as she has purged Because the respondent has continued to herself of contempt. hold herself out as eligible to practice law while suspended, in violation of S. J.C. Rule 4:01, SS 17 ineligible to apply for reinstatement for a cumulative total of five years commencing from the date the court determines she is in substantial compliance with the court’s March 25, 2022, order of term suspension. Finally, the court will appoint a commissioner to take appropriate action, as directed in the order.”
As of today, Ms. Maude Laroche-St. Fleur is listed in the Laroche Law Office LLC as a practicing attorney. She attended the Massachusetts School of Law. She practices in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. She is licensed in Massachusetts. Her info can be found on Linkedin.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
