| ► Attorney John Gallant of Chelmsford, MA; ethical dwarf |
 |
 |
|
Attorney John Gallant of Chelmsford, MA; ethical dwarf
The state of Massachusetts presented John F. Gallant with a law license in 1986. John is also licensed to practice law in New Hampshire.
The Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers found John guilty of engaging in the following misconduct while practicing in New Hampshire.
John represented a real estate developer who was defending a claim by a contractor for work performed. At a hearing on the contractor’s request for a real estate attachment, John and the contractor’s attorney agreed to the trial court’s suggestion to designate that whatever security the court ordered would apply to a particular lot in the development and not the whole subdivision. The court then issued an attachment against the developer.
After the hearing and issuance of the attachment, John learned for the first time that the land was not held in the name of the developer but in the name of another entity, which was in the process of selling the lots.
Having agreed with the trial court to designate a lot for an attachment against the developer (his client), John had a sworn duty as an Officer of the Court to correct the record concerning title to the development but failed to do so until after all the lots had been sold.
Johnny was disciplined in New Hampshire for this misconduct; however, in direct violation of the rules governing attorney conduct in Massachusetts, he did not report the matter to the Bar.
As a consequence of his misconduct, the enablers for Attorney Misfits sitting on the Board of Bar Overseers punished John by gifting him with a complimentary stayed 24-month suspension of his law license. Put simply, the comedians sitting on the Board didn’t mete out any significant punishment to John.
As we speak (ca. September 2012) John practices with Gallant & Ervin, LLC at One Olde North Road in Chelmsford, Massachusetts.
On his website at www.gallnt-ervin.com, John makes no mention that he has been found guilty of the misconduct aforementioned. Apparently, John is concerned that if he did it would likely limit his firm’s future victim pool.
|
