| |
 |
State of Maine v. Michael A. Doyle
Lawyers: Berne Complaint February 16, 2002 Board of Overseers the Bar To Whom It May Concern: RE: Richard S. Berne I DO NOT WAIVE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVELEGE IN THIS COMPLAINT Peter DeTroy referred me to Berne in May 1997. Berne working, I believe in conjunction with DeTroy, and at my detriment spent the next 12 months attempting to have me plead guilty to a felony that I did not knowingly commit. In June of 1996 at Berne's insistence I went with him in his car to Augusta and was interviewed by the Security Dept. for nearly four hours. Berne stated at a fee arbitration hearing in Oct. or Nov. of 1998 "That it was his method of conducting his practice." Berne said, "We have to go up there and drop our pants and tell them everything you know about what happened to the money after it left Maine." This was a lie. Berne was having me give a statement against myself without once warning me that the statement would be subsequently used against me in a criminal action. I was never given any warning by Berne or the State that I was a target of a criminal investigation. Nor, at this time did I even know that I had violated any law much less a felony. During the interview Berne never objected to any question or advised me not to answer any question. Subsequent to this and months later after changing lawyers to David VanDyke I have found that Berne and DeTroy have a pattern of misconduct involving representation of clients primarily referred from DeTroy to Berne. I have met with both Steve Dunwoody of Falmouth and Scott Liberty of Gray and we all have had similar experiences of bad faith behavior from both Berne and DeTroy. Liberty filed a complaint with this board that resulted in no action. I would contend that if there are three of us that have suffered at their hands there may be many more. It would seem reasonable that a review of all their clients from May 1997 to present may uncover further cases of abuse. I further contend that Berne behaved in this way to protect DeTroy from having to actually commit perjury at my trial. Keeping in mind the Moores Decision, only if I was convicted or pled guilty could DeTroy be protected from a malpractice suit. Berne knew or should have known that the documents in my file (those that were left after the file had been under DeTroy's control) tested the credibility of his friend, DeTroy, and his honesty. But that wasn't enough for Berne to protect DeTroy. I didn't know that my lawyer, DeTroy, was lying to the AG s office until months later in mid 1998. When I came to retrieve my files that Berne's secretary had given me; Berne came into his office and literally scooped them out of my lap. He said, "I can only transfer these to your next lawyer directly." The next lawyer, VanDyke, also a friend of DeTroy continues the deception by repeating for three years that "there is nothing in your file to substantiate your claim that you were not warned." A lie addressed in a separate complaint to this board. I charge that Berne defrauded me of all fees paid for services that were not only grossly inadequate, but were intentionally against my interests, and in fact designed to aid his friend, Peter DeTroy, my other lawyer.
| |||||||
