The Rhode Island Supreme Court has publicly censured attorney Santiago H. Posas for violating the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct after he knowingly filed a false affidavit in a litigation matter. The disciplinary action follows a hearing officer's recommendation and the attorney's acceptance of full responsibility for his actions.
The disciplinary matter came before the court pursuant to Article III, Rule 6(d) of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. On Aug. 21, 2025, the court received a decision from Justice Netti C. Vogel (retired), who served as hearing officer and found that Posas had violated professional conduct rules. Justice Vogel recommended a public censure for the respondent's conduct.
Under Rule 6(d), when the Disciplinary Board determines that a proceeding should result in public censure, suspension, or disbarment, it must submit its findings and recommendations along with the entire record to the Supreme Court for review and appropriate action. The rule states that proceedings before the court are conducted by Disciplinary Counsel.
The court directed Posas to appear at its conference on Oct. 9, 2025, to show cause why the hearing officer's recommendation should not be accepted. During the appearance, Posas accepted full responsibility for his actions. After hearing representations from both the respondent and the court's Disciplinary Counsel, the justices concurred with the hearing officer's decision that Posas violated the Rules of Professional Conduct and warranted public censure.
Posas was admitted to the Rhode Island bar in 2015 and has been subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted and promulgated under Article V of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules. However, he has been removed from the master roll since December 2024 and currently resides out-of-state.
The misconduct occurred in 2023 when Posas was employed by a local law firm and represented one of the firm's clients in a litigation matter. According to the court's order, Posas admitted to knowingly filing a false affidavit in that litigation regarding his failure to timely file an answer on behalf of his client. The false affidavit misrepresented facts related to procedural requirements in the case.
The court noted that Posas has expressed great remorse for his actions, though the order appears to be cut off at that point in the available documentation. His acceptance of responsibility and expressions of remorse were factors considered during the disciplinary proceedings.
Public censure represents a formal disciplinary sanction that acknowledges professional misconduct while stopping short of suspension or disbarment. The sanction serves both as punishment for the attorney and as a warning to the legal profession about the consequences of violating ethical standards.
The case highlights the importance of honesty and integrity in legal proceedings. Filing false affidavits undermines the judicial process and violates fundamental ethical obligations attorneys owe to the courts and their clients. The Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to maintain truthfulness in their representations to tribunals and to avoid making false statements of fact or law.
Attorney disciplinary proceedings in Rhode Island follow established procedures designed to protect both the public interest and the rights of attorneys facing allegations of misconduct. The system includes investigation by disciplinary authorities, hearings before appointed officers, and final review by the Supreme Court.
The disciplinary action against Posas serves as a reminder to the legal profession that ethical violations carry serious consequences. Even attorneys who no longer maintain active bar membership or practice in the state remain subject to disciplinary action for past misconduct.
For Posas, the public censure will become part of his permanent disciplinary record, which could affect future applications for bar admission in other jurisdictions or attempts to restore his standing in Rhode Island. The case demonstrates the legal profession's commitment to self-regulation and maintaining public trust through accountability measures.
While the specific details of the underlying litigation and the circumstances that led to the false affidavit are not detailed in the court's order, the case underscores fundamental principles of legal ethics that apply regardless of the particular factual circumstances attorneys may face in their practice.