Issued October 15, 2021
Corrected October 15, 2021
Supreme Court
No. 2021-162-M.P.
In the Matter of :
Miriam Gordon Cauley.
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 for Attorneys. The respondent,
Miriam Gordon Cauley, was admitted to the practice of law in this state on December
10, 2008. The respondent is also admitted to the practice of law in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
On June 25, 2021, the Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“BBO”) issued an Order of Public
Reprimand against respondent. The BBO concluded that respondent had violated
the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct while she was in-house litigation
counsel to a medical company in Massachusetts by settling a case without client
authority and by making misrepresentations to outside counsel concerning the
reasons for non-payment of the purported settlement, all resulting in contempt
-1-
orders, a civil judgment, and penalties against the client.1 A copy of that Order was
forwarded by the BBO to Disciplinary Counsel on July 14, 2021.
Rule 14 entitled “Reciprocal Discipline,” provides in pertinent part: “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.” Article III, Rule 14(a) of the Supreme Court Rules. On July 26, 2021,
Disciplinary Counsel filed a certified copy of the BBO Order of Public Reprimand
together with a petition for reciprocal discipline. On August 13, 2021, respondent
through counsel submitted a verified consent to the petition.
At its conference on September 9, 2021, this Court reviewed the record of
proceedings before the BBO. We conclude that the imposition of identical
reciprocal discipline as consented to by respondent is warranted in this matter.
The facts giving rise to the Massachusetts Order of Public Reprimand are fully
set forth in a stipulation entered between respondent and the BBO. 2 The relevant
facts are as follows:
1
The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct are substantially similar, but not
identical to, Rhode Island’s version of those rules. As the conduct giving rise to
these proceedings occurred in Massachusetts, respondent’s conduct was subject to
Massachusetts rules.
2
Rhode Island does not have a disciplinary sanction of “Public Reprimand.” The
functional equivalent of a public reprimand for Rhode Island attorneys is a public
-2-
From September 2016 to January 2020, respondent was in-house litigation
counsel to a medical company. In December 2017, one of that client’s wholly owned
subsidiaries was sued in Georgia for personal injury, and the matter was assigned to
respondent.
A trial in the case was scheduled to begin on March 11, 2019. After settlement
discussions began in earnest, respondent purported to authorize the client’s outside
litigation counsel to settle the case for $250,000. The respondent, however, had
failed to obtain required authorization from the management of the self-insured
client. 3
On March 6, 2019, five days before the scheduled start of the trial, the plaintiff
in the litigation agreed to the proposed settlement. The plaintiff signed the client’s
standard release on March 21, 2019, but respondent realized that she did not have
management’s approval. Instead of obtaining that approval, she misrepresented to
outside counsel that payment was delayed, but forthcoming.
When payment was not made, the plaintiff took steps to enforce the
settlement. The respondent then told outside counsel, falsely, that there was a
problem with “the insurer.” A motion brought by the plaintiff to enforce the
censure as provided by Article III, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure for Attorneys.
3
Management approval was required because the client was self-insured for
damages not exceeding $7.5 million.
-3-
settlement was granted in May 2019, and when payment was still not made, the client
was twice held in contempt. The respondent continued to misrepresent to outside
counsel that payment was delayed, but forthcoming.
In September 2019, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against the client to
collect on the settlement and eventually filed suit directly against the client and its
insurer to collect the funds.
After respondent terminated her employment with the client company in
January 2020, the client learned of and paid the settlement, together with interest,
attorneys’ fees, costs, and contempt sanctions.
On May 19, 2021, the Massachusetts Office of the Bar Counsel filed a petition
for discipline before the BBO alleging the facts set forth supra and asserting that
through her conduct respondent had violated the following Massachusetts Rules of
-4-
Professional Conduct: Rules 1.2(a),4 1.3,5 1.4(a)(1), 6 4.1, 7 and 8.4(c)8.
Additionally, the petition alleged that respondent violated Rule 8.4(h) of the
Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct,9 for which there is no counterpart
within the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct.
4
Rule 1.2 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, entitled “Scope of
Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer[,]”
provides, in pertinent part: “(a) A lawyer shall seek the lawful objectives of his or
her client through reasonably available means permitted by law and these Rules.”
5
Rule 1.3 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, entitled
“Diligence[,]” provides: “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client. The lawyer should represent a client zealously
within the bounds of the law.”
6
Rule 1.4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, entitled
“Communication[,]” provides, in pertinent part: “(a) A lawyer shall: (1) promptly
inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s
informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(f) is required by these Rules[.]”
7
Rule 4.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, entitled
“Truthfulness in Statements to Others[,]” provides, in pertinent part: “In the course
of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of
material fact or law to a third person[.]”
8
Rule 8.4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, entitled
“Misconduct[,]” provides, in pertinent part: “It is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to: * * * (c) engage in conduct involving dishonest, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation[.]”
9
Rule 8.4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct also provides, in
pertinent part: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: * * * (h) engage in any
other conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.”
-5-
On May 19, 2021, respondent entered an answer and a stipulation with the
Office of Bar Counsel admitting the facts set forth supra; admitting that her conduct
violated the rules as charged; and acknowledging that she would receive public
discipline for that misconduct. The respondent stipulated that the charges set forth
in the Office of Bar Counsel’s petition for discipline could be proved by a
preponderance of the evidence and that if the matter went to hearing the charged
violations would be found. This stipulation also recognized several mitigating
factors relevant to the severity of the disciplinary sanction agreed to by the parties.
The parties also noted extraordinary personal circumstances in mitigation described
in an impounded memo that respondent submitted to the BBO with the stipulation.
The stipulation noted that respondent had no prior disciplinary history, had
acknowledged full responsibility for the harm caused to her client, and recognized
that her extenuating personal issues explained, but did not excuse, her conduct.
This matter was heard before the BBO at its meeting on June 14, 2021, on the
stipulation of the parties to the facts and charges, and a proposed disposition of a
public reprimand. The BBO voted to accept the parties’ stipulation and issued the
public reprimand on June 25, 2021.
Rule 14(d) of our Rules of Disciplinary Procedure provides, in relevant part:
“[T]his Court shall impose the identical discipline unless
[Disciplinary] Counsel or the respondent-attorney demonstrates,
or this Court finds that upon the face of the record upon which
the discipline is predicated, it clearly appears:
-6-
“(1) that the procedure was so lacking in notice or
opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of
due process; or
“(2) that there was such an infirmity of proof
establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear
conviction that this Court could not consistently with its
duty accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or
“(3) that the imposition of the same discipline would
result in grave injustice; or
“(4) that the misconduct established has been held to warrant
substantially different discipline in this State.”
After review of the petition for reciprocal discipline, the order of public
reprimand issued by the BBO, and the answer of respondent acknowledging and
consenting to the imposition of the same level of discipline in this proceeding, we
deem that an order imposing similar reciprocal discipline is appropriate.
Accordingly, we accept the recommendation of Disciplinary Counsel, not
contested by the respondent, that we impose reciprocal discipline, and the
respondent is hereby publicly censured.
The respondent’s motion to seal the exhibit to her verified consent to the
petition for reciprocal discipline, as prayed, is granted.
-7-
Entered as an Order of this Court this 15th day of October 2021.
By Order,
/s/ Debra A. Saunders
Clerk
-8-
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case In the Matter of Miriam Gordon Cauley.
No. 2021-162-M.P.
Case Number
October 15, 2021
Date Order Filed
Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
Long, JJ.
N/A
Source of Appeal
N/A
Judicial Officer From Lower Court
For Petitioner:
Kerry Reilley Travers, Esq.
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Attorney(s) on Appeal
For Respondent:
Victoria M. Almeida, Esq.
John A. Tarantino, Esq.
William M. Dolan III, Esq.
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2016)