| |
 |
July 20, 2009 Ms. Aria Eee Ms. Eee: RE: 09-229 In the event that my Fee Arbitration request is kept in a separate file and that you are unable to relate the facts in that complaint to the ethics complaint I have enclosed a copy of the Fee request. I believe the sections that cover conflicts that lawyers must observe and comply with are 3.3 and 3.4. Jack Simmons and Berman & Simmons were being defended by DeTroy for malpractice committed by Van Dyke. DeTroy, one of my business lawyers, was going to testify against me from information given to him by Ralph Dyer, who believed, as I did, that DeTroy was part of a joint defense team. Simmons and his firm would have to aggressively cross-examine their own defense lawyer in order to attack DeTroy's fabricated proposed testimony. This all took place while Van Dyke browbeat me into a second guilty plea. When I was given DeTroy's letter to Colleran, AAG in December 2003 disclosing his conflict and specifying that he represented Berman & Simmons during the precise time period that I was convinced by Van Dyke's lies to plead guilty a second time I then complained to your Board against Van Dyke's withholding this conflict from me. Your Board ruled "no harm was done" and Van Dyke was told not to do it again. No harm apparently would cover sending me to prison for a crime that I not only didn't commit, but Berman Simmons had evidence in my file (which was kept from me) that proved that any testimony from DeTroy, Berman & Simmons' defense lawyer, lacked any credibility, even from the low ethical standards set by your Board and the alleged corruption of your Board's Bar Counsel, J. Scott Davis. I would think the Code would prohibit taking fees from one client while being defended by the state's chief witness against that very same client. The importance of this conflict can be illustrated by the example of when my court appointed lawyer, Karen Wolfram, changed firms to one that had Dyer's former secretary working there. Your Board required my signed waiver for Wolfram to continue to represent me for the Post Conviction Review Hearing. When Wolfram's firm was in turn sued for malpractice and DeTroy was their defense lawyer your Board prohibited Wolfram to continue to represent me even with a waiver. Because of your Board's lapse in control over an even greater conflict I was subjected to the malpractice of Berman & Simmons. Real lawyers that I have discussed this case with outside of the State of Maine are stunned by your Board's handling of these complaints and the protection afforded misconduct that in their words "would have been career ending" in CT and NY. The details documented in my web site www.lyinglawyers.com speak for themselves and are incontestable. Perhaps this fills in the gaps in my previous filing. If not, please let me know what else you don't understand. Sincerely, Michael Doyle |
| ||||||
 Introduction | Timeline | Timeline Summary | Lawyers | Contact Us | Home |