| |
 |
April 20, 2009 Board of Overseers of the Bar To Whom It May Concern: RE: Peter DeTroy of Norman, Hanson, and DeTroy In a recent conversation with a consultant my emphasis on Van Dyke's conflict of interest was questioned as only one of two conflicts that should have been addressed by the Courts and the Bar. HISTORY When Karen Wolfram was representing me in the Post Conviction Hearing process she changed employers to Daniel Lilley's firm. When a secretary left employment at Ralph Dyer's office and became employed at Lilley's office the Bar ruled that Wolfram had to obtain a signed waiver from me acknowledging the conflict to allow the representation to continue. When Lilley was sued for malpractice and DeTroy defended him Wolfram was required to withdraw as my Court appointed lawyer. When J. Fritzsche ruled that Van Dyke's conflict was not material because Van Dyke didn't think it was material, is a separate issue that is being dealt with outside of the Bar. COMPLAINT AGAINST PETER DETROY It was pointed out that the second and equally important conflict was Peter DeTroy's. DeTroy, as an officer of the Court, was obligated to report to the Bar and the Court that he was the defense lawyer for Van Dyke while DeTroy knew Van Dyke was representing me in a criminal case (CR-98-1167) and in that criminal case DeTroy was acting as the State's chief witness against me. It should be noted that DeTroy only disclosed this conflict to the Attorney General's office after my prison term had been served. One would wonder what motivated DeTroy to make that disclosure so long after it should have been made. If a secretary changing employers required a signed waiver by the Bar, why then, would the Bar not required DeTroy to consult the Bar for its ruling on these conflicts? In addition to obtaining a Bar ruling, as a Court officer, DeTroy was bound by the Professional Code of Conduct to inform the Court prior to my guilty plea and at the very least prior to my sentencing that his conflict extended from the Car Test case, to the Tobacco Settlement, to being a defense lawyer for my defense lawyer, all the while repaying the State for its millions in fees as a witness against me in criminal case, all of these conflicts DeTroy did concurrently. I request that Scott Davis have no part in the processing of this complaint due to his alleged involvement in inappropriate conduct concerning prior handling of complaints against lawyers in my case and his possible relationships with those lawyers. Sincerely, Michael A. Doyle |
| ||||||
 Introduction | Timeline | Timeline Summary | Lawyers | Contact Us | Home |