Background
Kevin M. Brill was admitted to practice law in Rhode Island in 1983 and also maintained admission in Massachusetts. Between 2012 and 2018, while serving as trustee of a trust, Brill misappropriated approximately $415,000 in violation of professional conduct rules. In 2019, rather than face discipline proceedings, Brill resigned from practice in Massachusetts and was disbarred by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Federally, the United States Attorney charged Brill with six counts of wire fraud and three counts of filing false tax returns. Brill pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced in May 2021 to two years imprisonment followed by three years supervised release, along with a $15,000 fine and restitution of $381,662.81. Critically, Brill failed to promptly report either his Massachusetts disbarment or his federal conviction to Rhode Island’s Disciplinary Counsel, as required by court rules.
The matter came to Rhode Island’s attention only in June 2025—more than six years after the Massachusetts disbarment—when Brill’s counsel finally disclosed the discipline and conviction to Disciplinary Counsel. Disciplinary Counsel then filed a petition for reciprocal discipline in August 2025. Brill did not respond to the court’s show cause order and declined to appear at the disciplinary hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that disbarment was the appropriate sanction. The court found that Brill’s intentional misappropriation of trust funds and federal felony convictions for fraud and tax crimes violated the core values of the legal profession and Article V, Rule 8.4(b) of the Professional Conduct Rules, which prohibits attorneys from committing criminal acts reflecting adversely on honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice.
The court noted its established precedent that intentional misappropriation of funds presumpively warrants disbarment, citing prior cases where attorneys were disbarred for converting client funds even when restitution was made. The court further emphasized that Brill’s failure to promptly report his Massachusetts disbarment to Disciplinary Counsel constituted additional evidence of his failure to appreciate his ethical duties and demonstrated disrespect for the court’s disciplinary mandates.
The court stressed that the purposes of professional discipline are to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the profession. Given the severity of Brill’s misconduct, disbarment effective immediately was imposed. Brill is barred from petitioning for reinstatement for at least five years and cannot do so before being reinstated in Massachusetts. He must also provide proof of full restitution to all victims and any payments made by the client reimbursement fund.
Key Takeaways
- Intentional misappropriation of client or trust funds triggers presumptive disbarment, even without restitution issues.
- Failure to promptly report out-of-state discipline to the state bar constitutes an independent ethical violation compounding the underlying misconduct.
- Federal felony convictions for fraud and tax crimes support reciprocal disbarment in other jurisdictions.
- Attorneys face stringent reinstatement conditions when disbarred in multiple jurisdictions, including geographic prerequisites and victim restitution requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that courts will impose the harshest available sanction for breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation, treating such conduct as antithetical to the legal profession. The court’s emphasis on Brill’s six-year delay in reporting his discipline underscores that compliance with procedural disciplinary obligations is itself an ethical imperative, not merely a formality. Attorneys face exposure not only for the underlying misconduct but for failing to disclose out-of-state discipline promptly.
The decision also illustrates how reciprocal discipline operates across state lines, particularly when an attorney’s conduct in one jurisdiction triggers disbarment and federal criminal prosecution. The multiple-jurisdiction dimension makes this case instructive for practitioners with admission in more than one state: disciplinary consequences in one state will likely trigger reciprocal consequences elsewhere, and those consequences are difficult to overcome even with passage of time or partial remediation.