Background
In June 2020, attorney Paul B. McCarthy was retained by Maureen G. Roy to administer the probate estate of her late brother, Gary L. Ketchen, who had died intestate in February 2020. Ms. Roy paid McCarthy an advance retainer of $2,534.00, which he cashed promptly. McCarthy filed a Petition for Administration with the Westerly Probate Court in October 2020 and sent required notice to the Rhode Island Executive Office of Health and Human Services, but his initial affidavit concerning heir location was rejected by the probate court. After that, McCarthy took no further action to advance the matter.
The estate languished for more than three years, forcing Ms. Roy to hire successor counsel. McCarthy acknowledged that personal issues, including the COVID-19 pandemic, contributed to his inaction. He has expressed remorse and accepted full responsibility, and had partially reimbursed Ms. Roy $500.00 by the time of the disciplinary proceedings, leaving an outstanding balance of $2,034.00.
The Disciplinary Board of the Rhode Island Supreme Court found that McCarthy violated Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), and 1.15 (Safekeeping Property) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Board forwarded its findings and recommendation to the Supreme Court on May 14, 2026, recommending suspension until full restitution is made. The Court directed McCarthy to appear at a June 18, 2026 conference to show cause why the recommendation should not be adopted. McCarthy appeared pro se and accepted full responsibility.
The Court’s Holding
The Rhode Island Supreme Court accepted the Disciplinary Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law in full and adopted its recommendation. The Court suspended McCarthy’s license to practice law indefinitely — until he furnishes proof to Disciplinary Counsel that he has paid Ms. Roy the remaining $2,034.00 in restitution. Upon making full restitution, McCarthy may apply for reinstatement under Article III, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure.
In fashioning the sanction, the Court weighed both mitigating and aggravating factors. In mitigation, McCarthy was remorseful before both the Board and the Court and had already made a partial payment. In aggravation, McCarthy has a prior disciplinary history: a two-month suspension imposed in 2009 arising from conduct in New Jersey where he directed a third party to falsely sign another person’s name to a mortgage document and then falsely attested to that signature. In the Matter of McCarthy, 973 A.2d 617 (R.I. 2009).
Key Takeaways
- An attorney who accepts a retainer and then allows a probate matter to sit unattended for over three years violates the duties of diligence (Rule 1.3), communication (Rule 1.4), and safekeeping of client property (Rule 1.15).
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court may impose a restitution-conditioned suspension, making reinstatement contingent on proof of full repayment to the harmed client rather than setting a fixed suspension term.
- A prior disciplinary record is an aggravating factor that can elevate the sanction beyond what a first-time offender might receive, even where remorse and partial reimbursement are present.
- Personal hardship, including the COVID-19 pandemic, may be considered in mitigation but does not excuse prolonged neglect of a client matter.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates how Rhode Island disciplines attorneys for estate-administration neglect, a recurring source of client harm. The restitution-conditioned suspension is a notable enforcement mechanism: it keeps the suspension in force indefinitely until the attorney makes the client whole, creating a direct financial incentive for prompt repayment rather than merely serving a fixed term and returning to practice.
For practitioners, the decision is a reminder that advance retainer funds must be held in trust and earned as work is performed, and that failures of communication — not just outright misappropriation — can independently support a Rule 1.15 violation alongside diligence and communication charges.