## Facts

- Fawn Balliro was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 2004 and worked as an assistant district attorney.
- While clerking in Tennessee, she began a relationship with Greg Knox that continued long-distance after she moved to Massachusetts.
- During a January 2005 visit in Tennessee, Knox assaulted Balliro, including repeatedly punching her, causing visible injuries; police responded and Knox was charged with misdemeanor domestic assault.
- Balliro initially gave officers an account inconsistent with other evidence, including an officer’s observations and transport of her to Knox’s apartment.
- At Knox’s criminal trial in Tennessee, Balliro testified under oath that her injuries resulted from a fall rather than Knox’s assault, leading to the abandonment or failure of the prosecution.
- Massachusetts authorities learned that an assistant district attorney had given false trial testimony; Balliro was suspended from employment and bar discipline proceedings began.
- In the disciplinary process, Balliro claimed she did not consciously lie because she had persuaded herself to minimize Knox’s conduct; expert testimony included an opinion that she knew the testimony was false and lied to protect her abuser.
- A hearing committee found she knowingly testified falsely but treated domestic abuse and resulting psychological impairment as significant mitigation; it recommended a public reprimand with conditions, and the Board of Bar Overseers adopted that recommendation.
- Bar Counsel sought review, arguing for a suspension of one year and one day; the matter was reported to the full Supreme Judicial Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Bar Counsel proved by the applicable standard that Balliro knowingly gave false testimony under oath.
2. What disciplinary sanction was appropriate for an attorney’s knowing false testimony in a criminal proceeding, considering substantial mitigation based on domestic abuse and psychological impairment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the finding that Balliro knowingly testified falsely under oath.
- The Court rejected the Board’s recommended public reprimand as insufficient given the seriousness of intentional false testimony in a criminal case.
- The Court rejected Bar Counsel’s requested suspension of one year and one day as excessive in light of extraordinary mitigation.
- The Court ordered a six-month suspension from the practice of law.

## Legal Principles

- The Supreme Judicial Court gives substantial deference to the Board’s fact-finding and credibility determinations but independently determines the appropriate sanction to protect the public and the integrity of the bar.
- Knowingly giving false testimony under oath is serious professional misconduct that ordinarily warrants a significant suspension, particularly where it undermines the administration of justice in a criminal proceeding.
- Domestic violence and associated psychological impairment may substantially mitigate sanction when the impairment contributed to the misconduct, the conduct was not motivated by self-interest, and the record supports rehabilitation and a low risk of recurrence.
- Mitigation does not eliminate an attorney’s duty of candor; discipline must still be proportionate to the seriousness of the violation.

## Conclusion

The court held that an assistant district attorney’s intentional false testimony in a criminal trial warranted suspension, but reduced the sanction to six months because severe domestic abuse and resulting psychological impairment significantly contributed to the misconduct and supported a reduced risk of repetition.


In re Balliro, 453 Mass. 75 (Mass. 2009)