Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Stimulating The Child Pornography Market

The web page of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers reports a recent order imposing reciprocal disbarment based on action in California:

On February 18, 2011, the respondent...was disbarred by the Supreme Court of California. The disbarment was based in part upon the respondent’s conviction on December 19, 2008, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, of two counts of possession of child pornography, a felony. In addition, in connection with the California bar discipline proceedings, the respondent admitted that on three occasions in 2005 though 2007, he had distributed child pornography by uploading images onto the internet.

In aggravation of the respondent’s misconduct, the respondent stipulated that he engaged in a pattern of misconduct over at least three years, that his misconduct involved dishonesty because he used a fictional name on the internet,and that his misconduct caused harm by stimulating the market for illegal child pornography.

In mitigation, the respondent had no prior discipline; during the period in question, he experienced financial and personal problems relating to the care of his sick and elderly parents. In recommending that the respondent be disbarred, the California State Bar Court approved the facts agreed to by the respondent.

The respondent did not report the California disbarment to Massachusetts bar counsel, as required by S.J.C. Rule 4:01, § 16(6).

(Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stimulating The Child Pornography Market:


Post a comment