Posts tagged "Glenn"

In the Matter of: Haese, Glenn H. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-084-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750;  (617) 557-1030;     SJC‑11510   IN THE MATTER OF GLENN H. HAESE.       May 16, 2014.       Attorney at Law, Disciplinary proceeding, Disbarment, Misuse of client funds.  Board of Bar Overseers.  Due Process of Law, Continuance.  Administrative Law, Substantial evidence. Evidence, Administrative proceeding.       The respondent, Glenn H. Haese, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court disbarring him from the practice of law for multiple violations of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.[1]  We affirm.     1.  Procedural background.  Bar counsel filed a petition for discipline with the Board of Bar Overseers (board) on March 4, 2011.  After requesting and receiving at least three extensions of time to answer while he sought counsel, the respondent filed an answer, pro se, on May 20, 2011.  On May 26, 2011, the board notified the parties of a prehearing conference on June 28, 2011, and hearing dates in September, 2011.  On June 24, 2011, the respondent filed his first request for a continuance of the hearing.  At the prehearing conference, the hearing was continued to October, 2011, and the respondent was given until July 28, 2011, to obtain counsel and file an amended answer conforming to the board’s rules.   In early August, the respondent, represented by counsel, moved for an extension of time to file an amended answer, and filed his second motion to continue the hearing dates, this time requesting that the hearing be continued to January, 2012.  A second prehearing conference was held on August 23, 2011.  The hearing committee postponed the hearing, but only until December, 2011.  The respondent, through counsel, filed an amended answer on September 13, 2011.   On October 26, 2011, the respondent moved to amend the hearing schedule to accommodate his and his counsel’s schedule, and an accommodation was made.  Then, seven business days before the hearing was scheduled to begin, on November 22, 2011, the respondent filed his third motion to continue the hearing, accompanied by the appearance of successor counsel.  Prior counsel’s notice of withdrawal followed.  The respondent requested that the hearing be continued until late January or February, 2012, so that successor counsel could prepare for the hearing, and to accommodate successor counsel’s planned vacation.  The hearing committee denied the motion but, on reconsideration, permitted the parties, at their option, to elect to try […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 16, 2014 at 3:06 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,