Reaffirming Public Censure for Attorney Misconduct: Obligations of Competence, Diligence, Communication, and Honesty

I. Introduction

In In the Matter of Michael K. Glucksman, decided April 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island addressed serious allegations of professional misconduct against attorney Michael K. Glucksman. The case arose from two separate client matters—one involving Ms. Patricia Esposito’s denied insurance coverage claim, and the other concerning Lori and Christopher Hann’s bankruptcy filing. The Disciplinary Board found multiple violations of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended a public censure. After hearings at conferences on November 14, 2024, and April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court reviewed the record and publicly censured Mr. Glucksman for breaches of duty in competence, diligence, communication, and honesty.

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Court adopted the Board’s findings that Mr. Glucksman had:

Failed to file or timely serve a client’s complaint in a civil suit (Esposito matter);
Neglected to order or transmit required transcripts on appeal;
Made false representations to both clients and Disciplinary Counsel about the status of their cases;
Never filed the Hanns’ bankruptcy petition despite collecting the retainer;
Repeatedly failed to communicate case developments.

The Court found violations of Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4(a) (Communication), 1.16(d) (Declining or Terminating Representation), 8.1(b) (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), and 8.4(a) & (c) (Misconduct). In light of these findings, and after weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, the Court imposed a public censure, reinforcing the principle that discipline serves to protect the public and uphold professional integrity.

III. Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court’s decision repeatedly invoked disciplinary precedents to frame its reasoning and sanction:

In re McBurney, 13 A.3d 654 (R.I. 2011): Establishes that professional discipline aims to protect the public and maintain the profession’s integrity, not to punish attorneys.
In re Almonte, 678 A.2d 457 (R.I. 1996): Reinforces that sanctions must be remedial rather than punitive.
In re Fishbein, 701 A.2d 1018 (R.I. 1997): Directs courts to balance mitigating and aggravating factors in determining appropriate discipline.
In re Hellew, 828 A.2d 531 (R.I. 2003): Affirms the Supreme Court’s ultimate authority to impose professional discipline, even where it accords substantial weight to Board recommendations.

These cases provided the Court with a methodological framework for (i) identifying the purposes of discipline, (ii) weighing the attorney’s conduct against regulatory norms, and (iii) calibrating the sanction to the level of misconduct and the presence of mitigating circumstances.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in sequential steps:

Adoption of Board Findings: All factual findings from the March 13, 2024 public hearing were accepted without alteration. Mr. Glucksman admitted under oath that he never served Esposito’s complaint in a timely manner, never ordered the appeal transcript, and never filed the Hanns’ bankruptcy petition.
Rule Violations Identified: Each omission or misrepresentation corresponded to specific Rules of Professional Conduct: incompetence (Rule 1.1), lack of diligence (Rule 1.3), insufficient communication (Rule 1.4(a)), improper termination of representation (Rule 1.16(d)), false statements in disciplinary proceedings (Rule 8.1(b)), and general misconduct (Rule 8.4(a) & (c)).
Purpose of Sanctions: Drawing on McBurney and Almonte, the Court emphasized that discipline protects the public and upholds professional standards, rather than punishing an attorney. The Court examined aggravating factors (e.g., repeated misconduct across two matters, misleading statements to clients and counsel) and mitigating factors (e.g., no prior discipline, personal circumstances offered by respondent).
Selection of Sanction: Considering the severity of the breaches and the respondent’s partial cooperation, the Court concluded that a public censure—rather than suspension or disbarment—was sufficient to address the violations and deter future lapses.

3. Impact

This decision is likely to have several long-term effects on attorney disciplinary practice in Rhode Island:

Heightened Emphasis on Communication: Lawyers will be reminded that prompt and truthful communication with clients and disciplinary authorities is essential. Failure to respond to inquiries or to update clients can lead to serious professional consequences.
Strict Enforcement of Procedural Deadlines: The Court’s public censure underscores that missing service periods, failing to order necessary transcripts, or neglecting to file petitions can constitute professional misconduct.
Detailed Inquiry into Dishonesty: Misrepresentations—even ones made in letters to Disciplinary Counsel—are subject to censure under Rule 8.1(b). Attorneys must ensure accuracy in all communications to disciplinary bodies.
Guidance on Mitigating Factors: While mitigating evidence (e.g., lack of prior offenses) can lessen the severity of sanctions, it cannot erase misconduct involving repeated client harm.

Future disciplinary boards and courts will likely cite this case when addressing multi-faceted attorney misconduct involving both neglect and dishonesty.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Public Censure: A formal reprimand entered on the public docket, shorter than suspension, but more severe than private admonition.
Retainer: Up‐front fee paid by a client to secure legal services. Misuse or non‐performance after taking a retainer can violate trust principles.
Service of Process: Delivering legal documents (e.g., complaint) to a party. Missing the 120‐day service window triggers dismissal of a lawsuit.
Transcript Docketing: Ordering and filing the official written record of trial court proceedings; essential to perfect an appeal.
Mitigating and Aggravating Factors: Circumstances considered by the disciplinary authority that may lessen (mitigate) or heighten (aggravate) the severity of sanctions.

V. Conclusion

In the Matter of Michael K. Glucksman serves as a clear reminder to all attorneys of their fundamental duties: to act competently, diligently, and honestly, and to communicate openly with clients and the court. The Supreme Court’s public censure affirms that repeated neglect of client matters and false statements to disciplinary authorities constitute serious professional misconduct. This decision will guide future disciplinary evaluations and reinforce public confidence in the legal profession’s commitment to high ethical standards.