Supreme Court
In the Matter of John M. Cicilline. No. 2013-335 M.P.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to a petition for reinstatement filed by John M.
Cicilline on November 5, 2013, in accordance with Article III, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. On November 20, 2008 this Court entered an order
disbarring the petitioner from the practice of law, with the effective date of that order being
September 19, 2008. Our disbarment order was precipitated by the petitioner submitting an
affidavit consenting to disbarment after he had entered a guilty plea to four felony counts
charged in an indictment filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. Those four felony counts consisted of the following charges: one count of
conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; one count of obstruction of justice, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1503(a); and two counts of making false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001. The petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eighteen months,
commencing October 21, 2008. He has served his sentence and was released from prison in
2010.
Rule 16(c) provides that on an application for reinstatement the petitioner has “the
burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has the moral
qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice law in this
State and that his or her resumption of the practice of law within the State will be neither
detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar or the administration of justice nor
subversive of the public interest.” The petitioner has complied with the procedural
requirements for submitting his reinstatement petition, including paying a $500 dollar filing fee
1
to the clerk of the Court, obtaining a passing score on the Multi-state Professional
Responsibility Examination, and completing an extensive questionnaire which he has filed
with this Court and with Disciplinary Counsel. Disciplinary Counsel has conducted an
investigation of the petitioner as required by Article III, Rule 5(b)(4) of the Supreme Court
Rules of Disciplinary Procedure, and he has submitted his report to the Court. Disciplinary
Counsel has advised the Court he has no objection to the granting of the petition for
reinstatement.
We directed the petitioner to appear before the Court at its conference on March 20,
2014 to show cause why his petition should be granted. Having heard the representations of
the petitioner, his counsel, and Disciplinary Counsel, and having reviewed the record we deem
that the petitioner has met the requirements to resume the practice of law and that his petition
should be granted, but conditioned upon a period of monitoring of the petitioner’s renewed
practice of law.
We take note that the petitioner engaged in serious criminal and ethical misconduct,
which resulted in his criminal conviction, federal imprisonment, and disbarment from the
practice of law. The petitioner’s conviction arose from a misguided attempt to assist a client in
receiving favorable treatment by federal authorities when that client was facing a lengthy term
of imprisonment as a result of her arrest for dealing in large quantities of marijuana. The
petitioner concocted a fraudulent scheme for the client to receive a significant reduction of a
potential sentence by falsely claiming to be responsible for supplying information to
government agents that would be used to obtain the arrest and conviction of third parties. The
petitioner coached his client about how to present that false information to federal authorities.
He received no financial benefit for doing so. Unbeknownst to the petitioner, however, his
2
own client had reached an accommodation with federal authorities to cooperate on implicating
the petitioner as well as the attorney for a codefendant in their own criminal conduct.
Such conduct by a member of the bar is inexcusable, and he was rightly incarcerated and
disbarred. We note that disbarment is the most serious sanction that this Court can impose
upon an attorney for professional misconduct. Any attorney who has been disbarred bears a
heavy burden in convincing this Court that he or she should be readmitted to the bar.
When we consider a reinstatement petition, we review the entire career of a petitioner.
We note that prior to his disbarment the petitioner was a respected member of the bar and
practiced for twenty-two years without receiving any public discipline. The majority of his
practice was devoted to representing defendants in criminal cases. This court has received over
eighty letters of support for the petitioner from active members of the bar, requesting that we
give the petitioner a second chance at practicing law. Many of the letters of support submitted
on his behalf are from former prosecutors who were the petitioner’s adversaries in contested
trials. All spoke highly of his prior reputation for honesty, integrity, fairness, and competence
in his representation of his clients. We find such strong expressions of support from the
petitioner’s peers to be unusual and persuasive.
We believe that the conduct of the petitioner which led to his disbarment was caused by
a misguided effort to assist a client who the petitioner believed was facing an unduly harsh
punishment under the sentencing guidelines in effect for non-violent marijuana dealers. The
petitioner has paid a heavy price for that error of judgment, and we are confident that he is
truly remorseful for his conduct. We believe that he has been rehabilitated and can return to
the practice of law.
3
Accordingly, the petition for reinstatement of John M. Cicilline is hereby granted,
subject to a two-year period of monitoring of his practice. Attorney William J. Murphy shall
monitor the petitioner’s practice, and submit written reports on a quarterly basis to Disciplinary
Counsel regarding his review of the petitioner’s practice. The petitioner shall fully cooperate
with Attorney Murphy and Disciplinary Counsel regarding the monitoring of his practice.
Justice Robinson dissenting. I respectfully dissent. After much soul-searching and
after meticulously reviewing the petition submitted by Mr. Cicilline and the accompanying
supporting materials, I am unable to conclude that the petitioner has successfully borne “the
burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence” that, at this point in time, he has
satisfied the demanding criteria for readmission that are set forth in Article III, Rule 16(c) of
the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. It is entirely possible that, after a longer
period of the petitioner’s separation from the practice of law, my view of his petition would be
different from what it is today; but, as of today, I am unable to vote to grant the petition. I
have, of course, carefully taken into account the fact that my highly respected colleagues in the
majority have come to a different conclusion; and that fact has caused me to be especially
circumspect in coming to a decision. In the end, however, I know that I would not be true to
my understanding of the applicable clear and convincing evidence standard and my evaluation
of Mr. Cicilline’s petition if I were to join the majority. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Justice Indeglia did not participate.
Entered as an Order of this Court this 1st day of May 2014.
By Order,
___________/s/______________
Clerk
4
RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT CLERK’S OFFICE
Clerk’s Office Order/Opinion Cover Sheet
TITLE OF CASE: In the Matter of John M. Cicilline.
CASE NO: No. 2013-335-M.P.
COURT: Supreme Court
DATE ORDER FILED: May 1, 2014
JUSTICES: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, and Robinson, JJ.
WRITTEN BY: N/A – Court Order
JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT:
N/A
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:
For Petitioner: Vincent A. Indeglia, Esq.
For Respondent: David D. Curtin, Esq.
Disciplinary Counsel