Skip Maine state header navigation
The parties have stipulated to the following material facts:
Mr. L'Hommedieu was admitted to practice in Maine in 1995 and has been practicing
in Lewiston, Maine since 1997.
In the summer of 1999, Andrew Gaillard, whom Mr. L'Hommedieu had earlier
represented on other matters, informed Mr. L'Hommedieu that he was pursuing
a claim for Social Security disability benefits.
On or about October 15, 1999 Mr. Gaillard's claim for Social Security disability
benefits was denied, whereupon Mr. L'Hommedieu agreed to assist him in the
appeal of that decision.
In fact, however, Mr. L'Hommedieu did not timely file the required Petition
for Reconsideration or take any other steps to pursue Mr. Gaillard's Social
Security appeal.
Throughout 2000, Mr. Gaillard made a number of status inquiry telephone
calls to which Mr. L'Hommedieu wrongly assured him that he had done all
that could be done and that the responsibility for the delay was with the
Social Security Administration.
In fact, at least by November 7, 2000, Mr. L'Hommedieu knew that the fault
of the delay was his rather than the Social Security Administration, but
he continued to mislead Mr. Gaillard. In November of 2000, Mr. L'Hommedieu
personally visited the Social Security Administration Office in Lewiston
and confirmed there was no Petition for Reconsideration in Mr. Gaillard's
file. He never so advised Mr. Gaillard of that finding.
In January of 2001, Mr. L'Hommedieu went to the Social Security Administration
Office and filed Mr. Gaillard's Petition for Reconsideration with required
attachments. Mr. Gaillard's signatures contained on the Petition and other
filed documents had been falsified and backdated by Mr. L'Hommedieu, by
his photocopying of Mr. Gaillard's signatures from other documents onto
those filed documents. By so doing, Mr. L'Hommedieu made each document falsely
appear to contain the proper signature of Mr. Gaillard.
Shortly thereafter Mr. L'Hommedieu called Mr. Gaillard and informed him
that he had made "a mistake", and referenced his failure to monitor
the lack of responsiveness from the Social Security Administration. But
Mr. L'Hommedieu failed to then advise Mr. Gaillard that the Petition for
Reconsideration had never in fact been timely filed by him, and that the
Petition he subsequently filed had been falsified by him.
In late January 2001, Mr. Gaillard fired Mr. L'Hommedieu for reasons related
to that delay, and then retained a new attorney to handle his Social Security
matter. It was through the efforts of his new attorney that Mr. Gaillard
first learned that Mr. L'Hommedieu had misrepresented to him the actual
reasons for the delay p; Mr. L'Hommedieu's own neglect p; and that
the signatures on the documents had been falsified by Mr. L'Hommedieu.
In February 2001, Mr. L'Hommedieu's own attorney reviewed the matter and
shortly thereafter self-reported Mr. L'Hommedieu's misconduct to Bar Counsel.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The parties have stipulated and the Court finds that Mr. L'Hommedieu's misconduct
was intentional and violated Maine Bar Rules 3.1(a) (conduct unworthy of
an attorney); 3.2(f)(3)(4)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation; conduct that is prejudicial to the administration
of justice); 3.6(a)(3) (a lawyer must employ reasonable care and skill and
apply the lawyer's best judgment in the performance of professional services.
A lawyer shall be punctual in all professional commitments. A lawyer shall
take reasonable measures to keep the client informed on the status of the
client's affairs. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
the lawyer); and 3.7(e)(1)(i)(conduct which seeks to mislead a tribunal).
These violations of the Bar Rules, particularly those involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit and misrepresentation are very serious.
A lawyer's participation in the presentation or in this case, the actual
creation of a knowingly false document is the clearest kind of ethical breach.
Continuously since long before Maine became a separate state, new lawyers
upon admission to the bar have taken the following solemn oath:
You solemnly swear that you will do no falsehood
nor consent to the doing of any in court, and that if you know of an intention
to commit any, you will give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court
or some of them that it may be prevented; you will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent
to the same; that you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will conduct
yourself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the
best of your knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity, as well
as to the courts, as to your clients. So help you God.
4 M.R.S.A. §806 (1979). As stated above, Maine's Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates that a "lawyer shall not...engage in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation," M. Bar
R. 3.2(f)(3). It is clear that Mr. L'Hommedieu now recognizes that the artful,
falsified copying of his client's "signatures" onto the belatedly
filed documents was completely inappropriate and violative of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. Since the incident he has received counseling.
"The purpose of [a bar disciplinary] proceeding is not punishment,
but protection of the public and the courts from attorneys who by their
conduct have demonstrated that they are unable, or likely to be unable to
discharge properly their professional duties." M. Bar R. 2(a) (Purpose
of Rules).
The Court has considered the purpose of this bar disciplinary proceeding
in imposing the sanction in this case. Having found these violations of
the Maine Bar Rules, and agreeing with the parties that they are serious,
the Court must now consider an appropriate sanction. It is well established
that the main purpose of attorney discipline is not punishment, but protection
of the public. In addition, in imposing discipline, the Court should not
only examine the facts of the case at bar, but also the prior record and
experience of the attorney involved. Although Mr. L'Hommedieu has practiced
law in Maine for only six (6) years, he has never been found to have violated
any Bar Rules. Mr. L'Hommedieu stipulated to the facts without a hearing
and acknowledges the seriousness of his failure to comply with the Code.
He has apologized to the Court and affirmed that he will make every effort
to ensure that no future violations occur. As ordered below, such efforts
will occur under the guidance of a court-appointed Monitor.
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that E. Christopher L'Hommedieu be
and hereby is suspended from the practice of law in Maine for a period of
one (1) year commencing November 1, 2001, with all but sixty (60) days of
that suspension itself being suspended for one year subject to the following
terms and conditions:
1. The Court appoints Leonard I. Sharon, Esq. as Monitor for Mr. L'Hommedieu
for a period of one year commencing January 1, 2002, unless terminated earlier
as herein provided or by other order of this Court;
2. During the period of supervision, Mr. Sharon shall receive monthly written
reports from Mr. L'Hommedieu concerning the current status of matters in
which he has been retained to act as counsel;
3. Mr. Sharon is a volunteer who shall receive no compensation and who shall
be expected to incur no expense;
4. Mr. L'Hommedieu will meet with Mr. Sharon within twenty-five (25) days
of the date of this Order and thereafter at the call and convenience of
Mr. Sharon on a monthly basis, unless Mr. Sharon should determine more frequent
meetings are appropriate;
5. Mr. Sharon shall have the right to withdraw and terminate his service
at any time for any reason he deems sufficient, including for reasons set
forth in Paragraph 6 below. In the event of a withdrawal, he shall notify
the Court and Bar Counsel, and Mr. L'Hommedieu shall then cooperate to obtain
the services of an alternate Monitor to complete the remainder of the original
Monitor's term;
6. If any aspect of the monitoring procedure creates a situation which is,
or might be interpreted to be a conflict of interest under the Maine Bar
Rules (for example, if Mr. L'Hommedieu is or becomes opposing counsel concerning
a matter involving Mr. Sharon), then Mr. Sharon may adopt any one of the
following courses with the proposed result:
Mr. Sharon shall cease to act as such and a
potential conflict is avoided;
Mr. Sharon shall continue as Monitor but
totally exclude Mr. L'Hommedieu's client and
matter in question from the monitoring
process, so that no conflict is deemed to
exist;
Mr. Sharon shall continue as Monitor, and
obligate his firm to withdraw from the
conflicting matter; or
Mr. Sharon shall continue as Monitor, and
obligate Mr. L'Hommedieu not to participate in
the matter and to obtain new counsel for his
client(s).