Boston Municipal Court Judge Raymond G. Dougan has told several associates that he is facing a new investigation by the agency that oversees Massachusetts judges, just weeks after the agency cleared him of being biased in favor of criminal defendants.
The Commission on Judicial Conduct does not confirm its investigations, but Dougan has told several people in the court system that the agency is investigating a report that he violated ethical standards by accepting at least $85,000 in free legal services from the law firm that defended him during the two-year bias investigation.
Comments
The letter in today's Globe from Atty. Keating is persuasive. The attack on Judge Dougan by Mr. Conley has been found to be without merit. Foley Hoag did the ethical thing by preventing, in essence, a fine being imposed on the Judge by the prosecutor by forcing Judge Dougan to mortgage his home to defend himself. Perhaps if the Judge's legal fees were paid for out of Mr. Conley's budget, that would be a better outcome But that will not happen. The only person I've known who worked for Foley Hoag was Paul Tsongas...and I think he would have approved the actions taken by the firm. The prosecutor sought a win but justice was the outcome.
Spend one day in Dougan's courtroom and you will understand why we have a revolving door criminal justice system.
What a smarmy response from Keating although altogether typical. Left out of an otherwise excellent article is Dougan's long and sordid history of siding with the defense bar. Also kind of funny that Keating's law firm claims to represent primarily victims of domestic abuse, yet managed to get favorable treatment for their client, a defendant, in front of Dougan. Any first-year lawyer knows you aren't supposed to do favors for the judges they practice in front of, let alone into six figures.
Again the ethical breaches here are under reported. Foley Hoag should be reported to the Board of Bar Overseers for offering its services free to a sitting judge. Who made the initial contact here? Lawyers are barred from soliciting clients directly. With elected officials, we might call Foley Hoag's actions lobbying. Here, we can call it influence. What other reason does someone offer a judge, in his official capacity, so large a gift? Legal principle? Go write a treatise for Lawyers Weekly; argue in the op-ed pages; submit an amicus brief. But directly benefiting a Massachusetts justice--that's big problem.
The article states incorrectly that a Judge cannot be removed from office. The constitution provides for removal by Bill of Address or by impeachment.
Hmmm let's see... a white-shoe law firm offering free legal services amounting to ~&100K to a sitting judge. The same judge who, in the past and may in the future hear cases involving that same firm?
Sorry, but ethical standards for legal professionals call for avoiding the mere appearance of a conflict of interest - not to mention an actual one, such as this. He has to go.
The defense for offering a huge gift to a judge is that they won't practice in front of that judge? What? The judge has no friends on the bench that he can influence? There are no other favors he can do for his free defense lawyers? Sorry. This stinks to high heaven.