In RE: Christopher L. Malcolm, Attorney Discipline Proceedings
1:24-mc-91525
| D. Mass. | Jul 9, 2025Background
- Christopher L. Malcolm represented Harry Tam in a federal criminal case until disqualified by Judge Sorokin; Judge Sorokin then investigated Malcolm for ethical misconduct and referred the matter for discipline.
- Judge Sorokin’s referral alleged plausible violations of Mass. Rules 1.7 and 1.9 (conflicts), 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.8(f) (third‑party fees), and 3.3 (candor to tribunal), and described related conduct in other district cases.
- The District Court reviewed the full referral de novo, adopted Judge Sorokin’s factual findings, and gave Malcolm multiple opportunities to respond, including sealed filings and hearings; Malcolm largely failed to participate or provide substantive responses.
- The SJC had separately issued an immediate temporary suspension in Massachusetts state court; the District Court imposed a reciprocal temporary suspension pending resolution here.
- The record showed Malcolm disclosed privileged/former‑client confidences without informed consent, represented Tam despite adverse interests of a former client (Vuong) without written waiver, accepted fee payments that interfered with independent judgment, and submitted materially false or inauthentic fee letters to the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflicts of interest (Mass. R. 1.7, 1.9) | Malcolm represented Tam despite materially adverse interests of former client Vuong and no written informed waiver | Malcolm offered no substantive written defense; conceded lack of written waiver before Judge Sorokin | Court found concurrent and former‑client conflicts; breached Rules 1.7 and 1.9 |
| Confidentiality (Mass. R. 1.6) | Malcolm disclosed privileged/former‑client information to another client for his or another client's advantage without informed consent | No meaningful rebuttal; did not show consent or privilege exception | Court found serious violation of Rule 1.6 |
| Third‑party fees (Mass. R. 1.8(f)) | Malcolm accepted payment (from Tam) for representation of Vuong/Tam without informed consent, interfering with independent judgment and failing to protect confidences | No effective response; did not show required informed consent or safeguards | Court found violation of Rule 1.8(f) |
| Candor to tribunal (Mass. R. 3.3) | Malcolm knowingly made material false statements by claiming he had obtained consent and by submitting inauthentic fee letters | Malcolm did not meaningfully dispute allegations; record supports falsity and materiality | Court found breaches of Rule 3.3 (false statements and submission of inauthentic documents) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Johnson, 450 Mass. 165 (attorney disbarred for egregious breaches of confidentiality)
- Matter of Ablitt, 486 Mass. 1011 (SJC review of sanctions for cumulative violations)
- In re Cobb, 445 Mass. 452 (consideration of multiple violations and aggravating factors)
- In re Carnahan, 449 Mass. 1003 (suspension/disbarment reserved for self‑dealing or egregious conflicts)
- In re Lupo, 447 Mass. 345 (indefinite suspension for clear personal conflicts and substantial client harm)
- In re Wise, 433 Mass. 80 (suspension for disclosure of client confidences and self‑interested conduct)
- Matter of Pike, 480 Mass. 740 (suspension for direct financial interest and deliberate disregard of client interests)
- In re Finneran, 455 Mass. 722 (two‑year suspension typical for false testimony without criminal conviction)
- In re Diviacchi, 475 Mass. 1013 (suspension for submission of false or misleading documents)
- Matter of Shaw, 427 Mass. 764 (two‑year suspension for false statements under oath)
Decision: The court found Malcolm violated Mass. Rules 1.7, 1.9, 1.6, 1.8(f), and 3.3 and ordered disbarment from practice in the District of Massachusetts; reinstatement requires application after five years and passing the MPRE.