In the Matter of Greene, 477 Mass. 1019

Barry D. Greene, an experienced real estate attorney, participated in seven residential mortgage-foreclosure “rescue” transactions in 2005–2006 while working with his son.
A Board of Bar Overseers hearing committee found Greene made false representations on mortgage applications (3 matters) and certified incomplete/misleading HUD-1 closing statements (4 matters). It also found induced false certifications by an associate, undisclosed leases/options to lender clients, conflicts of interest motivated by pecuniary gain, exploitation of vulnerable homeowners, and commingling of personal and trust funds.
The hearing committee recommended a two-year suspension; the board adopted that recommendation and filed information in county court. A single justice ordered a two-year suspension. Greene appealed the sanction as excessive. He did not contest the misconduct findings on appeal.
The hearing committee and board declined to treat age, absence of prior discipline, settlement payments, or his son’s separate discipline as mitigating in a way that would reduce sanction; Greene waived a procedural objection about assistant board counsel by not raising it at the hearing committee level.
The court reviewed whether the two-year suspension was markedly disparate from sanctions in comparable cases and considered mitigating and aggravating factors before affirming the two-year suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriateness of two-year suspension	Bar (board) argued two-year suspension appropriate given false HUD-1s, conflicts, commingling, and exploitation	Greene argued the sanction is too harsh	Affirmed: two-year suspension not markedly disparate from comparable cases
Validity of misconduct findings	Bar relied on hearing committee findings	Greene did not contest the findings on appeal	Findings adopted; substantial evidence supports them
Mitigation: payments, age, no prior discipline	Bar treated these as not materially mitigating	Greene argued these should reduce sanction	Court held these were typical or insufficient mitigation and did not reduce sanction
Procedural objection to assistant board counsel’s presence	Bar: objection waived and no prejudice shown	Greene argued presence was improper	Court declined to address further because Greene waived objection and showed no prejudice

Matter of Alter, 389 Mass. 153 (disparity review standard for discipline)
Matter of Foley, 439 Mass. 324 (suspensions for multiple false HUD-1s and deference to board)
Matter of Pike, 408 Mass. 740 (suspension for direct financial interest/conflict)
Matter of Kerlinsky, 428 Mass. 656 (public perception as primary discipline factor)
Matter of Finnerty, 418 Mass. 821 (role of public trust in discipline analysis)
Matter of LiBassi, 449 Mass. 1014 (payments after proceedings not treated as restitution for mitigation)
Matter of Greene, 476 Mass. 1006 (related disciplinary proceedings involving Greene’s son)