Nickerson, in contrast, was a salaried employee who received no direct profit from Dime's patronage. Although a nonequity partner with significant experience and supervisory responsibility, she was without authority to shape policy at the law firm. Imposing anything less than indefinite suspension on Nickerson would be disparate. We reaffirm that disbarment or indefinite suspension is the presumptive sanction following a felony conviction for actions undertaken in the practice of law. A less substantial sanction would be justified if there had been no criminal conviction.
Indefinite suspension is necessary to protect the public perception of the bar.
The question is not whether the respondent has been 'punished' enough. To make that the test would be to give undue weight to his private interests, whereas the true test must always be the public welfare. The public would not tolerate a more lenient sanction for an experienced attorney who was convicted of several counts of making false statements to a bank while engaging in the practice of law. On balance, we conclude that a three-year sentence is markedly lenient and that the sanction of indefinite suspension is more appropriate. This matter is remanded to the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County.