In Re Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
)
IN RE DAVID BAKER ) Civil Action No. 25-mc-91025-AK
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
KELLEY, D.J.
On January 14, 2025, a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts entered an order suspending David G. Baker from the practice
of law in Massachusetts for a period of three years effective February 13, 2025. On August 15,
2025, this Court entered an order of reciprocal discipline pursuant to Local Rule 83.6.9 of United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts suspending Mr. Baker for three years.
[Dkt. 17]. Before the Court is Mr. Baker’s Motion for Relief from Judgment [Dkt. 18] pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) requesting relief from the Court’s reciprocal
discipline order.
Rule 60(b) grants federal courts the power to vacate judgments “whenever such action is
appropriate to accomplish justice.” Bouret-Echevarria v. Caribbean Aviation Maint. Corp., 784
F.3d 37, 41 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union,
Local No. 59 v. Superline Transp. Co., 953 F.2d 17, 19 (1st Cir. 1992)). Rule 60(b)(6) is a
catchall provision that provides relief for “any other reason that justifies relief” not otherwise
covered by (b)(1)-(5). Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Courts considering motions under Rule 60(b)(6)
ordinarily examine four factors: (1) the motion’s timeliness, (2) whether exceptional
circumstances justify extraordinary relief, (3) whether the movant can show a potentially
Case 1:25-mc-91025-AK Document 21 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
meritorious claim or defense, which, if proven, could bring them success at trial, and (4) the
likelihood of unfair prejudice to the opposing party. Superline Transp. Co., 953 F.2d at 20.
Here, Mr. Baker’s Motion was timely filed about a month and a half after the challenged
order. Mr. Baker does not point to any “extraordinary circumstance” under Rule 60. Instead, he
argues that there are several mitigating circumstances citing the factors in Matter of Alter, 448
N.E.2d 1262, 1264 (Mass. 1983). Notably, these mitigating circumstances are “typical” – not
“special” circumstances militating reduction in sanctions. Id. Even still, most of the Matter of
Alter factors weigh against granting Mr. Baker’s requested relief. Although Mr. Baker was
recognized as a “Top Lawyer” in Boston Magazine, he was previously sanctioned, has no
criminal proceedings related to this matter, was not under particularly “high pressure,” was
dishonest to multiple tribunals, and his actions resulted in harm to his clients. Id. Further,
financial consequences on an attorney are not considered as mitigating factors. Matter of
McCarthy, 623 N.E.2d 473, 477 (Mass. 1993) (“The test of an appropriate level of discipline
must lie with considerations of the public welfare, not with the impact of the sanction on the
individual lawyer.”). Even if they were a consideration, Mr. Baker admits that he has “sufficient
resources to get by during the three years.” [Dkt. 18 at 2 fn.2].
The remainder of Mr. Baker’s motion seeks to relitigate factual and legal issues that the
Court examined and rejected in its reciprocal discipline order. [Dkt. 18 at 4-14 (Mr. Baker’s
arguments); Dkt. 17 at 8-11 (the reciprocal discipline order)]. As such, Mr. Baker has not
demonstrated extraordinary circumstances or that he has a meritorious claim. Bar Counsel has
not argued prejudice. Nonetheless, the Court DENIES Mr. Baker’s Motion for Relief from
Judgment [Dkt. 18] because he has not met the Rule 60(b)(6) factors. Mr. Baker’s suspension
shall be effective as of February 13, 2025.
Case 1:25-mc-91025-AK Document 21 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2026 /s/ Angel Kelley
Hon. Angel Kelley
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-mc-91025-AK Document 21 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 3