June 16, 2009

Ms. Aria Eee
Board of Overseers
P. O. Box 527
Augusta, ME 04332-0527

RE: File No. 09-145

Dear Ms. Eee:

I request your dismissal be reviewed.

At the end of paragraph three, the last sentence is incorrect. My associate, Denis Dancoes, and I attended several meetings together at DeTroy's office. At all times during those meetings I considered DeTroy my co-counsel along with Ralph Dyer. During one meeting I questioned DeTroy specifically about an asset acquisition by Alison Leasing Corporation, which was directly involved with the case at hand. DeTroy gave me advice directly related to the case and I subsequently acted upon that advice. I believe that privilege attaches when legal advice is sought and an attorney/client relationship results from that meeting. It is also my understanding that privilege does not require any money to be paid for privilege to attach. Additionally, Dyer authored memos, one of which stated, "Peter's plan is excellent" again reinforcing my belief that DeTroy was my co-counsel. DeTroy's knowledge of the case came almost exclusively from conversations with my other lawyer Ralph Dyer.

During the six weeks leading up to my second guilty plea Van Dyke was being represented by DeTroy for malpractice.

1. Van Dyke never disclosed that the State's chief witness against me was his defense lawyer.
2. DeTroy, as my co-counsel, never disclosed to the Court that he was the defense lawyer for Van Dyke while at the same time serving as the chief witness for the State.
3. DeTroy knew that Dyer was quoting him in memos to me, and that DeTroy's only access to the case facts came from Dyer who also believed that DeTroy was co-counsel. Why else would Dyer provide case facts to DeTroy if Dyer did not believe DeTroy was in fact co-counsel?
4. Lance Walker, Esq. is unaware of the facts of the case history and makes his own absurd observation when he claims Van Dyke informed Doyle that he was being represented by DeTroy. If Lance Walker, Esq. would take the time to properly research the file he would find a letter from AAG Colleran to Karen Wolfram, stating clearly that Colleran was informed by DeTroy himself that he had represented Van Dyke during February of 2001 including the week that Doyle pled guilty.
5. Because DeTroy's knowledge of the case came primarily from Doyle's other lawyer Ralph Dyer, as co-counsel, DeTroy was obligated to withdraw from representing Doyle and to inform the Court that he was going to be a witness against a former client, WHILE at the same time DeTroy would be the defense lawyer for that same former client's current defense lawyer, Van Dyke.

An observation on Lance Walker's lack of attention to the facts of this complaint is the misspelling of his own client's name.

If the challenge to the misstatement of facts in your decision to dismiss this complaint is considered as "any later filed information", then please consider everything after the first sentence a NEW complaint based on my detailed response to this dismissal.

Sincerely,

Michael Doyle
3 Shady Lane
Falmouth, ME 04105
766.6644