IN RE: Matthew COBB (2005)

Facts:

The respondent, Matthew Cobb, appeals from the judgment of a single justice disbarring him from the practice of
law for multiple violations of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct and the former Canons of Ethics and
Disciplinary Rules.

The board of Bar Overseers found out that the respondent filed a motion containing improbable and false
allegations exposing his client to sanctions. He also made groundless representations to the judge. Furthermore,
the respondent charged that the Superior Court judge who had sanctioned him had been improperly influenced
and was biased. In the third case, the respondent settled a client's case without her authority. Additionally, he
continued to represent her when their interests were in conflict, purportedly disclosed privileged client
communications without authorization, and made misrepresentations to a judge and to bar counsel.

On appeal the respondent claims that the single justice abused his discretion or committed a clear error of law (1)
by adopting unsupported findings of the board that he converted client funds;  (2) by failing to rule that statements
made by the respondent, even if unfounded, were protected by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution;  and (3) by failing to find that the respondent's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution were violated.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent may be saved from disbarment because his speech is protected under the
Constitution. NO.

Held:

The respondent contends that two statements he made concerning the motion judge and Dr. Rozenbaum's former
attorney (now a United States District Court judge), for which he has been sanctioned, involve public speech on
matters of the highest public concern, namely, corruption by public officials, and as such constitute protected
speech under the First Amendment.  

The Court opined that Statements by an attorney critical of a judge in a pending case in which the attorney is
engaged are especially disfavored.   In Bradley v. Fisher, the Court said that attorneys are under an implied
“obligation to maintain at all times the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers. This obligation includes
abstaining out of court from all insulting language and offensive conduct toward judges personally for their judicial
acts”. There can be no question that statements by an attorney critical of a judge are afforded no greater
protection when made in the court room.

The respondent has demonstrated rather convincingly by his quick and ready disparagement of judges, his disdain
for his fellow attorneys, and his lack of concern for and betrayal of his clients that he is utterly unfit to practice law.
The only appropriate sanction is disbarment.