## Facts

- Gary C. Crossen, an attorney representing litigants in contentious shareholder litigation, sought to force the recusal of the trial judge and overturn rulings adverse to his clients.
- Crossen participated in a plan targeting the judge’s former law clerk to obtain material that could be used to impugn the judge’s integrity and decision-making.
- Crossen arranged a sham job interview for the law clerk conducted by investigators posing as corporate executives and secretly recorded the interview outside Massachusetts to avoid restrictions on secret recordings.
- The interview did not produce evidence supporting claims of judicial bias or misconduct.
- Crossen nonetheless used the recording to pressure and threaten the law clerk into providing sworn statements damaging to the judge that the law clerk otherwise would not have made.
- The scheme included use of false identities, fictitious businesses, and deceptive materials, and it involved threats connected to personal or professional repercussions to compel the law clerk’s cooperation.
- Bar counsel charged Crossen with multiple violations of the then-effective disciplinary rules; a special hearing officer recommended disbarment, and the Board of Bar Overseers largely adopted the findings and recommendation.

## Issues

1. Whether Crossen’s participation in a deceptive and coercive effort to discredit a sitting judge and pressure a former law clerk violated the Massachusetts disciplinary rules governing dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misconduct prejudicial to justice, and improper assistance of fraudulent conduct.
2. Whether disbarment was the appropriate sanction given the seriousness, scope, and consequences of the misconduct.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court adopted the Board of Bar Overseers’ recommendation.
- The court found that Crossen committed multiple disciplinary rule violations, including dishonesty, deceit, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and conduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice.
- The court concluded that the misconduct was exceptionally serious, harmed the administration of justice and public confidence, and warranted the ultimate professional sanction.
- Crossen was disbarred from the practice of law in Massachusetts.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer’s deliberate use of deception, false identities, and covert tactics to manufacture or coerce statements aimed at discrediting a judge constitutes dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and is disciplinary misconduct.
- Conduct intended to influence case outcomes by impugning judicial integrity or corrupting evidentiary processes is conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and reflects unfitness to practice.
- A lawyer may not counsel, assist, or participate in conduct the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent, including pressuring a witness to provide statements the witness otherwise would not make.
- Disbarment is appropriate where misconduct is intentional, extensive, directed at the integrity of the judicial process, and causes serious harm to the administration of justice and public confidence in the profession.

## Conclusion

The court ordered disbarment because Crossen knowingly engaged in a planned pattern of deception and coercion aimed at discrediting a sitting judge and influencing ongoing litigation, conduct that violated core duties of honesty and good faith and severely harmed the administration of justice.


In re Crossen, 880 N.E.2d 352 (Mass. 2008)