State of Rhode Island v. Michael Prete

• Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
• Decided: June 27, 2024
• Docket: 2024-0152-M.P.
• Status: Published

Opinion

Supreme Court

No. 2024-152-M.P.

State of Rhode Island :

v. :

Michael Prete. :

ORDER

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Court on June 20, 2024, at

9:30 a.m. to show cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law

based on the tenor and content of his filings in this matter. The petitioner failed to

appear as directed. He did file, on the morning of the scheduled show cause hearing,

what he characterized as an emergency letter, which he indicated was in lieu of an

appearance that he represented was not necessary. However, that emergency letter

does not excuse the fact that the petitioner failed to comply with this Court’s June

13, 2024 Order directing him to appear. After considering the petitioner’s failure to

appear and the content of his filings before this Court, as detailed infra, we deem

that cause has not been shown and the petitioner is hereby suspended from the

practice of law.

The facts giving rise to this suspension are as follows. The petitioner has been

charged with two counts of knowingly publishing, passing, or tendering in payment

-1- as true, a false, forged, altered or counterfeit one-hundred-dollar bill with the intent

to defraud in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-17-3. That criminal case remains pending.

On May 29, 2024, the petitioner filed in this Court (No. 2024-147-M.P.) an

emergency motion to stay his criminal case while he pursued an appeal to this Court

from the dismissal of his magistrate appeal seeking review of the denial of various

motions including a motion to dismiss the case. In the petitioner’s memorandum in

support of his emergency motion, the petitioner made unsupported accusations of

corrupt and fraudulent conduct by the magistrate who ruled on his motions. The

emergency motion to stay was denied by the Duty Justice as having been

prematurely filed and thus not properly before the Court.

The petitioner then filed a second, nearly identical emergency motion to stay

the next day in this case (No. 2024-152-M.P.). The second emergency motion to

stay was also denied by the Duty Justice after consideration of the petitioner’s filings

and the state’s response. The petitioner’s memorandum and addendums thereto

made numerous unsupported allegations of corruption directed at this Court and

again at the Superior Court magistrate. In one instance, the petitioner stated that this

Court was “going to do whatever it wants regardless of the law, facts, etc.” and that

“this Addendum is being filed to document this Court’s further corrupt etc. actions

* * *.” The content of the petitioner’s filings with respect to this Court, the Superior

-2- Court magistrate, and counsel for the state was unprofessional and contrary to the

petitioner’s responsibilities as an officer of the Court.

The petitioner then filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his emergency

motion. In that filing, the petitioner accused the Duty Justice of bias without any

foundation. On June 7, 2024, the motion to reconsider was denied after

consideration by the full Court. On the same day, the petitioner filed a second

motion to reconsider, which remains pending before this Court. That motion once

again accused this Court of being corrupt, demanded that this Court “immediately

issue a real decision”, and inappropriately demanded the identity of the Duty Justice.

The tenor of the petitioner’s filings in this matter has become increasingly

confrontational. Additionally, the petitioner’s remarks in his filings are

contemptuous and demeaning. We cannot overlook the scorn directed at the justices

of this Court and a magistrate of the Superior Court. We equally cannot overlook

the petitioner’s failure to comply with this Court’s order directing him to appear.

The petitioner’s conduct raises serious questions about his present ability to practice

law and represent clients in this state. The Preamble to the Rules of Professional

Conduct counsels that “[a] lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system

and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials.”

Due to this Court’s concerns as to the petitioner’s ability to practice law at this

time, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the petitioner, Michael Prete, is hereby

-3- suspended from engaging in the practice of law in this state, effective immediately

and until further order of this Court. We refer this matter to the Office of

Disciplinary Counsel for any further investigation.

For the sake of clarity, we deem it necessary to note that this suspension is

based solely on the content of the petitioner’s filings before this Court, his failure to

appear, and this Court’s resultant concern as to his ability to practice law at this time.

It is not based on the fact that criminal charges are pending against the petitioner.

It is further ordered that Kerry Reilley Travers, Esq., Chief Disciplinary

Counsel, be appointed as Special Master to take possession of all the petitioner’s

client files and accounts; to inventory them; and to take whatever steps are necessary

to protect the clients’ interest, including, but not limited to, returning the files to the

clients or new counsel of the clients’ choice. The petitioner is ordered, within ten

(10) days of the date of this Order, to provide a full list of the petitioner’s clients to

the Special Master or, in the absence of any clients, an affidavit so attesting. The

petitioner is further ordered, within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, to

cooperate with the Special Master by turning over all client files to the Special

Master or, if he does not have any client files, providing an affidavit so attesting.

The petitioner’s second “Motion to Reconsider” the denial of his emergency

motion for a stay in this matter, as prayed, is denied.

This matter shall be closed.

-4- Entered as an Order of this Court this 27th day of June 2024.

By Order,

/s/ Meredith A. Benoit Clerk

-5- STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE Licht Judicial Complex 250 Benefit Street Providence, RI 02903

ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case State of Rhode Island v. Michael Prete.

Case Number No. 2024-152-M.P.

Date Order Filed June 27, 2024

Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Justices Long, JJ.

Source of Appeal N/A

Judicial Officer from Lower Court N/A

For Petitioner:

Michael Prete, pro se Attorney(s) on Appeal For Respondent:

Christopher R. Bush Department of Attorney General

SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2022)