Supreme Court
In the Matter of George E. Babcock. No. 2014-319-M.P.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to a petition for reciprocal discipline filed
by this Court’s Disciplinary Counsel in accordance with Article III, Rule 14, of the
Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The respondent, George E. Babcock, is
a member of the Rhode Island Bar. At all times relevant to this matter he was admitted to
practice law before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the United
States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, and the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Rhode Island.
This disciplinary matter arises from the respondent’s representation of clients
before the Bankruptcy Court. On July 10, 2013, the United States Trustee filed a motion
in the Bankruptcy Court alleging that the respondent had engaged in misconduct and
seeking the impositions of various sanctions. The alleged misconduct included a claim
that the respondent prepared and filed with the court, using the courts electronic filing
system, various documents which were purportedly signed by the client when in fact the
client had not done so. Additionally, the motion further alleged that the respondent did
not have original signatures of the clients on the documents as required by the Local
Rules of the United States Bankruptcy Court and that he engaged in a pattern or practice
of not having original signatures in his files for documents bearing the purported
electronic signatures of debtors. Further, the respondent prepared bankruptcy schedules
for a client in which he failed to disclose a civil proceeding that he had filed on the
-1-
client’s behalf in the United States District Court and had also failed to disclose the
client’s interest in real estate in Florida, as well as a transfer of corporate assets to
relatives of the client. Lastly, the respondent failed to satisfy various notice requirements
mandated by the Bankruptcy Code.
On July 11, 2013, the respondent voluntarily entered into a consent order with the
United States Trustee, wherein he acknowledged that sufficient facts existed for the
granting of the trustee’s motion. The respondent consented to being enjoined from
practicing before the Bankruptcy Court for a period of one year; to being required to
complete twenty hours of continuing legal education, ten hours of which are to be
devoted to legal ethics, as a condition of being reinstated to that Court; the forfeiture of
$1,200 in fees to the client; and the imposition of a $10,000 fine, with collection of the
fine stayed so long as the respondent complied with the other terms of the consent order.
The consent order was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on the same day.
Rule 214 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of
Rhode Island, entitled “Action taken by other courts or disciplinary agencies,” requires
the District Court to issue an order to an attorney who has been disciplined in another
court to show cause why the District Court should not impose identical discipline, and a
show cause order was issued on September 20, 2013. That matter came before the court
for hearing on November 22, 2013; and, on November 25, 2013, having determined that
cause had not been shown, the District Court entered an order suspending the respondent
for a period of one year. The respondent filed a notice of appeal of that order on
November 28, 2013.
-2-
Rule 14, entitled “Reciprocal discipline,” requires Disciplinary Counsel, upon
notice that a lawyer admitted to practice in this state has been disciplined in another
jurisdiction, to obtain a certified copy of that disciplinary order and file it with this Court.
On November 29, 2013, Disciplinary Counsel filed a certified copy of that order of
suspension along with a petition for the imposition of reciprocal discipline. On
December 12, 2013, we entered an order directing the respondent to inform this Court of
any claim he may have that the imposition of identical discipline would be unwarranted,
and the reasons therefore.
At the request of the respondent, we deferred acting on the petition for reciprocal
discipline pending the resolution of the appeal filed by the respondent to the suspension
order imposed by the District Court. On May 30, 2014, the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the suspension imposed by the District Court and
also suspended the respondent from the practice of law before that court, but it ordered
that his term of suspension would run concurrently with the Bankruptcy Court order of
suspension, not the District Court order. Accordingly, the respondent was reinstated to
practice before the First Circuit on July 11, 2014; he remains suspended before the
United States District Court, but he may apply for reinstatement after November 25,
2014. The respondent remains ineligible to practice before the Bankruptcy Court due to
his continuing suspension in the District Court.
This matter was further continued by this Court at the request of the respondent.
He appeared before this Court at its conference on November 13, 2014, with counsel.
Having heard the representations of the respondent, his counsel, Disciplinary Counsel,
and having reviewed the record, we determine that the respondent has failed to show
-3-
cause why he should not be disciplined. However, we decline to impose identical
discipline as a sanction.
We note that the respondent has been a member of the Rhode Island Bar since
1987, and has been the subject of no prior public discipline. However, we find his
conduct as described herein to be troubling and worthy of sanction. We take particular
note that the respondent failed to disclose, on a bankruptcy petition that he prepared, the
existence of a civil action he had filed on behalf of that client in the United States District
Court. We believe that such conduct warrants a suspension from the practice of law.
However, in our considered opinion, the imposition of an identical one year
suspension at this point would result in an unduly harsh sanction, having the collateral
effect of extending his suspension before both the United States District Court and the
United States Bankruptcy Court. Accordingly, we suspend the respondent from the
practice of law for a period of thirty days, effective December 1, 2014.
Justice Flaherty did not participate.
Entered as an Order of this Court on this 19th day of November, 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 George E. Babcock.
CASE NO: No. 2014-319-M.P.
COURT: Supreme Court
DATE ORDER FILED: November 19, 2014
JUSTICES: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
WRITTEN BY: N/A – Court Order
JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT:
N/A
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:
For Petitioner: David D. Curtin, Esq.
Disciplinary Counsel
For Respondent: William J. Delaney, Esquire