Supreme Court
In the Matter of Ross A. Annenberg. No. 2015-172-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, Ross A. Annenberg, was admitted to the practice of
law in this state on June 1, 1998. On July 18, 2014 he was removed from the master roll of
attorneys for failure to pay his annual registration fee to the Supreme Court Clerk. However, he
remains subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court.
The respondent was also admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. On March 19, 2015, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts entered a judgment of disbarment disbarring the respondent from the practice of
law in Massachusetts. The effective date of that disbarment order is April 18, 2015. A copy of
that judgment was forwarded to Disciplinary Counsel on April 3, 2015.
Rule 14, entitled “Reciprocal discipline,” provides in pertinent part: “(a) Upon
notification from any source that a lawyer within the jurisdiction of the [Disciplinary] Board has
been disciplined in another jurisdiction, [Disciplinary] Counsel shall obtain a certified copy of
the disciplinary order and file it with the court.” On April 7, 2015, Disciplinary Counsel filed a
certified copy of the order of discipline with this Court along with his request that we impose
reciprocal discipline.
-1-
On April 16, 2015, we entered an order directing the respondent to inform this Court
within thirty days of any claim he may have that the imposition of reciprocal discipline would be
unwarranted. Our order further notified the respondent that his failure to show cause why
identical discipline should not be imposed by this Court would result in the entry of an order
disbarring him from the practice of law in this state. The respondent did not submit a response to
our order.
The facts giving rise to the respondent’s disbarment in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, as compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers, are as follows. The respondent was
employed as an attorney in a law firm located in Massachusetts. He intentionally misused
$50,780 in funds belonging to five clients, depriving them of their funds. He has not repaid the
clients. He submitted an affidavit to the Board of Bar Overseers in which he resigned from the
practice of law, acknowledged that bar counsel could prove the above-noted facts, and conceded
that a judgment of disbarment would likely result if he contested those facts at a hearing. The
Supreme Judicial Court accepted that affidavit and disbarred the respondent.
The respondent has not provided this Court with any claim why the identical discipline
should not be imposed in this state. We believe that the acknowledged facts warrant the
imposition of the same discipline. Accordingly, the respondent, Ross A. Annenberg, is hereby
disbarred from the practice of law in this state, effective immediately.
Entered as an Order of this Court this 11th day of June 2015.
By Order,
____________/s/___________________
Clerk
-2-
RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT CLERK’S OFFICE
Clerk’s Office Order/Opinion Cover Sheet
TITLE OF CASE: In the Matter of Ross A. Annenberg.
CASE NO: No. 2015-172-M.P.
COURT: Supreme Court
DATE ORDER FILED: June 11, 2015
JUSTICES: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
WRITTEN BY: N/A – Court Order
JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT:
N/A – Court Order
ATTORNEYS ON APPEAL:
For Petitioner: David D. Curtin
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
For Respondent: Ross A. Annenberg, Pro Se