Wiseman denies lawyer’s request to suspend five-day jail sentence

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman has denied disbarred lawyer Stephen C. Woodruff’s request to suspend the execution of his five-day jail sentence pending his appeal.

In his order Friday denying Woodruff’s ex parte motion for a stay of execution of sentence, Wiseman said he gave Woodruff another opportunity to comply with the court’s order and purge his contempt and gave him until Nov. 26, 2013, to do so.

Wiseman said that Woodruff submitted a supplemental Rule 15 of the Commonwealth Disciplinary Rules and Procedure affidavit, upon which the court will issue an order.

The judge said Woodruff’s reference to Rule 62(d) of the Commonwealth Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 38(a)(2) of the Commonwealth Rules of Criminal Procedure as authority for his motion are misplaced and erroneous, as are his other arguments in his two-page motion.

With that order, Wiseman is expected to issue another order today, Tuesday, whether the court may or not proceed with the imposition of the five-day jail sentence.

Last Nov. 22, Wiseman issued an order, stating that the court will issue an arrest warrant on Nov. 26 at 9am for Woodruff to serve five days in prison. On Nov. 26, Wiseman did not issue an arrest warrant because Woodruff submitted a document that the judge has been asking him to comply with the disbarment order.

Woodruff submitted, without filing or service on the other party in the disciplinary case, a document entitled, “In Camera Submission of Current and Pending Clients.”

On Nov. 26, Woodruff filed the motion to stay the execution of his sentence pending appeal.

Disciplinary counsel Thomas E. Clifford Woodruff’s motion for a stay.

At the parties’ request, Wiseman decided the motion quickly and without a hearing.

In his order on Friday, Wiseman said that Woodruff’s motion is based on a rejected-as-defective notice of amended appeal of the court’s order dated Oct. 2, 2013.

In that Oct. 2 order, Wiseman found Woodruff in contempt of court for not complying with the mandate of Rule 15 of the Commonwealth Disciplinary Rules and Procedures and of the disbarment order.

Woodruff was sentenced to five days in prison and suspended the sentence on the condition that he comply with the mandates.

Woodruff then submitted an affidavit pursuant to Rule 15, which the court did not find satisfactory, so the judge set a hearing for him to explain how he believes that submission was in compliance.

Wiseman heard from Woodruff and from disciplinary counsel Clifford, as well as from several witnesses who were clients severely affected by the lawyer’s actions as their attorney.

Based on these, Wiseman found that Woodruff has still not complied with the mandates set forth by Rule 15 and its disbarment order.