Supreme Court
No. 2025-286-M.P.
In the Matter of Paul B. McCarthy. :
ORDER
This attorney disciplinary matter came before the Court pursuant to Article
III, Rule 6(d) of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. On May 14,
2026, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court (the Board) forwarded its
decision that the respondent, Paul B. McCarthy, had violated the Supreme Court
Rules of Professional Conduct and recommending that we suspend the respondent’s
license to practice law until such time as he makes full restitution in the amount of
$2,034.00 to his client. Rule 6(d) provides:
“If the Board determines that a proceeding should be
dismissed, or that it should be concluded by public
censure, suspension or disbarment, it shall submit its
findings and recommendations, together with the entire
record, to this Court. This Court shall review the record
and enter an appropriate order. Proceedings, if any, before
this Court shall be conducted by [Disciplinary] Counsel.”
We directed respondent to appear before the Court at our conference on June
18, 2026, to show cause, if any, why we should not accept the recommendation of
the Board. The respondent appeared before the Court without counsel and accepted
full responsibility for his actions. Having heard the representations of respondent
-1-and this Court’s Disciplinary Counsel, we concur with the Board’s decision that
respondent violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and should be suspended until
such time as he makes full restitution to his client in the amount of $2,034.00.
The respondent is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted and
promulgated as Article V of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules. In June 2020,
respondent was retained by his client, Ms. Maureen G. Roy, to administer the probate
estate of her late brother, Gary L. Ketchen, who died intestate on February 9, 2020.
Ms. Roy tendered to respondent an advanced retainer check for his services and
probate costs which totaled two thousand five hundred thirty-four dollars and 00/100
cents ($2,534.00) which was promptly cashed by respondent on or about June 11,
2020. Sometime in October 2020, respondent filed a Petition for Administration of
the Estate of Gary L. Ketchen (hereinafter, the Estate) with the Westerly Probate
Court in the State of Rhode Island. The respondent filed an affidavit concerning his
efforts to locate the heirs of the Estate, which was rejected by the Westerly Probate
Court. The respondent also sent notice of the commencement of the Estate to the
Rhode Island Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS). The
respondent ceased providing any further legal action to settle the administration of
the Estate. The Estate languished for over three (3) years until Ms. Roy was forced
to retain successor counsel. The respondent admitted that due to personal issues
including the COVID-19 pandemic, he did not move forward with the probate matter
-2-within a reasonable amount of time. The respondent offered to fully reimburse Ms.
Roy $2,534.00. The respondent has expressed remorse for his actions and accepted
full responsibility, including partially reimbursing Ms. Roy $500.00 to date.
Based upon the foregoing, the Board found that respondent violated Rules 1.3
(“Diligence”), 1.4 (“Communication”) and 1.15 (“Safekeeping Property”) of the
Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.3 states: “A lawyer shall act with reasonable
diligence and promptness in representing a client.”
Rule 1.4 provides:
“(a) A lawyer shall:
“(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or
circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed
consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these
Rules;
“(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by
which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished;
“(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status
of the matter;
“(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for
information; and
“(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation
on the lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the
client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of
Professional Conduct or other law.
“(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the representation.
-3-“(c) When a lawyer has not regularly represented a client
and has reason to believe that the client does not fully
understand the nature of the attorney-client relationship
and the expectations and obligations arising out of that
relationship, the lawyer shall take reasonable steps to
inform the client of the nature of the attorney-client
relationship before the representation is undertaken. Such
disclosure should include what the lawyer expects of the
client and what the client can expect from the lawyer. A
lawyer may make such disclosure by providing the client
with a copy of the statement of client’s rights and
responsibilities contained in Appendix 2 to these rules, or
in any other manner sufficient to provide the client with a
clear understanding of what services will be rendered by
the lawyer and what the client’s responsibilities are in
order that the services can be performed effectively.”
Rule 1.15 states, in pertinent part:
“(a) A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons
that is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a
representation separate from the lawyer’s own property.
Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained in the
state where the lawyer’s office is situated, or elsewhere
with the consent of the client or third person. Other
property shall be identified as such and appropriately
safeguarded. Complete records of such account funds and
other property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be
preserved for a period of seven years after termination of
the representation.
“(b) A lawyer may deposit the lawyer’s own funds in a
client trust account for the sole purpose of paying bank
service charges on that account, but only in an amount
necessary for that purpose.
“(c) A lawyer shall deposit into a client trust account legal
fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be
withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or
expenses incurred.”
-4-“In fashioning an appropriate sanction, the Board and this Court are cognizant
that the purposes of professional discipline are to protect the public and to maintain
the integrity of the profession * * * and not to punish the attorney * * *.” In re
Glucksman, 333 A.3d 504, 507 (R.I. 2025) (mem.); In re Scott, 694 A.2d 732, 736
(R.I. 1997). “Mitigating and aggravating factors must be weighed to determine the
proper level of discipline that should be imposed.” In re Glucksman, 333 A.3d at
507. Here, respondent was remorseful both at the hearing on this matter and before
this Court in conference. The respondent, however, does have a disciplinary history,
previously receiving a two-month suspension for, inter alia, travelling out of state to
New Jersey where he knew that he was not authorized to act as a notary public and
he was not admitted to practice law and then directed a third party to falsely sign
another person’s name to a mortgage document during a real estate closing, and then
falsely attested to that signature. In the Matter of McCarthy, 973 A.2d 617, 617 (R.I.
2009).
The Court accepts the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and
adopts its decision. The respondent’s license to practice law is hereby suspended
until such time as he furnishes proof to Disciplinary Counsel that he has made full
restitution to Ms. Roy in the amount of $2,034.00. Once the respondent has made
full restitution to Ms. Roy, he may apply for reinstatement pursuant to Article III,
Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
-5-Entered as an Order of this Court this 24th day of June 2026.
By Order,
/s/ Meredith A. Benoit
Clerk
-6-STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case In the Matter of Paul B. McCarthy.
Case Number No. 2025-286-M.P.
Date Order Filed June 24, 2026
Justices Suttell, C.J., Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
Source of Appeal N/A
Judicial Officer from Lower Court N/A
For Petitioner:
Kimberly Brissette Brown, Esq.
Maria R. Lenz, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
For Respondent:
Paul B. McCarthy, pro se
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)