Skip Maine state header navigation

Agencies | Online Services | Help
Download as PDF
Back to Bar Discipline Page
Page to Supreme Court Opinions Page


STATE OF MAINE



SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT			                                                       DOCKET NO. BAR-87-1
								


BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF THE BAR	               )
							                                                           )	
		v.					                                                           )	STIPULATION AND ORDER
							                                                           )
JEFFREY PICKERING				                               )
Former Bar No. 1644				                                   )


This matter is before the Court on Mr. Pickering's Petition for
Reinstatement filed pursuant to Maine Bar Rule 7.3(j). Bar Counsel J. Scott Davis,
Esquire, represents the Board of Overseers of the Bar ("the Board") and Malcolm
L. Lyons, Esquire represents the Petitioner, Mr. Pickering.  The parties, by and
through their counsel, have entered into the Stipulation set out below, and based
on that Stipulation, this Court grants Petitioner Pickering's Petition on the
conditions and terms set forth herein. 

STIPULATION

The parties stipulate to the following:

1.	By Order of April 18, 1986, Attorney Mr. Pickering was suspended
indefinitely from practice for violations of Maine Bar Rules 3.2(f)(3), 3.6(a)(3),
3.6(f)(2)(iv), and 3.7(b).  Subsequently, by Order of April 24, 1987 from Justice
Daniel E. Wathen, Mr. Pickering's resignation from the Bar was accepted.

2.	On August 2, 2001, approximately fifteen (15) years from the date of
suspension and fourteen (14) years from the Court's acceptance of his resignation,
Mr. Pickering filed his Petition for Reinstatement.  That Petition is still pending
before this Court.

3.	As provided in Bar Rule 7.3(j)(5), Bar Counsel informed Attorney
Lyons that he would oppose the reinstatement, and on February 5, 2002, a hearing
was held before Panel A of the Grievance Commission. Based upon the entire
evidence presented, Bar Counsel then agreed Mr. Pickering had met his burden of
proof, and agreed to recommend his reinstatement subject to specific conditions. 
After brief deliberation, the Panel voted unanimously to recommend that the
Court reinstate Mr. Pickering.  

4.	On February 12, 2002, the Board of Overseers of the Bar unanimously
voted to adopt Panel A's recommendation for Mr. Pickering's reinstatement
subject to specific conditions, set out in the order below.

5.	Due to subsequent intervening events, under M.Bar R. 7.3(j)(5)(B)
this Court conducted a testimonial hearing on June 17, 2002 to hear evidence
whether Mr. Pickering had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law since
being employed as of July 2001 as a paralegal by Brian Swales, Esquire.  Based
upon the evidence presented, the Court is satisfied that Mr. Pickering has not
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and properly acted as a paralegal in
that employment.	

ORDER

Based on the recommendation of the Board of Overseers of the Bar that
Petitioner Mr. Pickering be reinstated to the Bar and be admitted to practice law
in the State of Maine, this Court orders, adjudges and decrees as follows:

1.	Subject to the terms and conditions set out below, Mr. Pickering is
hereby reinstated to the Bar and permitted to practice law in the State of Maine.

2.	As a condition of Mr. Pickering's reinstatement, he shall continue to
study and refamilarize himself with the areas of law in which he intends to
practice by spending at least ten (10) hours per week for ten (10) weeks reading
and studying the rules of court, statutes, and cases.

3.	Every two weeks, Mr. Pickering shall sign and send to Bar Counsel
for his review and approval an Affidavit attesting to the fact that he has studied
the law for at least ten (10) hours per week during each of the previous two
weeks.  The affidavit shall list the specific areas of law Mr. Pickering has studied. 
At the end of the 10th week, once Mr. Pickering has sent Bar Counsel his final
affidavit, Bar Counsel shall report to the Court whether Mr. Pickering has
satisfactorily fulfilled this condition.

4.	For a period of one year from this date, Mr. Pickering's practice of
law shall be monitored by Michael E. Carpenter, Esquire.

5.	Within 30 days of this date Mr. Carpenter will meet with Mr.
Pickering to review whether Mr. Pickering has opened an appropriate client's
account, has in place a system to identify potential conflicts and to calendar
various deadlines, including statutes of limitations, and otherwise is prepared to
accept clients. Thereafter, Mr. Carpenter will consult by telephone with Mr.
Pickering at least once each month, and more often if circumstances require and
meet personally at least every six weeks, to confirm that each of these office
management systems remains in place and is properly functioning, and to offer
such other suggestions or observations as may be helpful for Mr. Pickering to
meet the needs of his clients and comply with this order and the Bar Rules.

6.	In advance of each such telephone conference or meeting Mr.
Pickering shall prepare and send to Mr. Carpenter a written report setting out the
current status of all pending matters in which he has been retained as counsel. For
each matter the report shall briefly outline what activity has occurred in the
preceding month and what activity is anticipated for the upcoming month.

7.	Mr. Carpenter, who is a volunteer and will receive no compensation
for his service, shall have the right to withdraw and terminate his service as a
monitor at any time for any reason, including the reasons set forth in Paragraph 8
below. In the event Mr. Carpenter terminates his services, he shall so notify Bar
Counsel, and the Court, and Mr. Pickering shall cooperate in obtaining the service
of a replacement monitor who, once appointed by the Court, will serve on the
same terms and conditions as Mr. Carpenter.

8.	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. Pickering is or becomes opposing counsel concerning a matter
involving Mr. Carpenter), then Mr. Carpenter may adopt any one of the following
courses with the proposed result:


(a). Mr. Carpenter shall cease to act as Monitor and a potential
conflict is avoided;

(b). Mr. Carpenter shall continue to act as Monitor but totally
exclude Mr. Pickering's client and matter in question from the monitoring
process, so that no conflict is deemed to exist; or

(c). Mr. Pickering shall obtain successor counsel for his client and
withdraw from the matter.


9.	If in Mr. Carpenter's judgment it is appropriate, he shall have the right to
contact clerks of court, judges or opposing counsel to determine the accuracy of
Mr. Pickering's reports to him.

10.	Mr. Carpenter shall have no contact with Mr. Pickering's clients and
his only contact in the performance of his duties shall be with Mr. Pickering or
other persons contemplated by this order.  Moreover, Mr. Carpenter's participation
in the monitoring of Mr. Pickering's practice shall be deemed not to create an
attorney-client relationship between Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Pickering or between
Mr. Carpenter and any of Mr. Pickering's clients.  However, all communications
between Mr. Pickering and Mr. Carpenter that pertain to any of Mr. Pickering's
clients shall be deemed communications between a lawyer and a lawyer's
representative and, therefore, are subject to and protected by the attorney /client
privilege as provided in Evidence Rule 502 and Maine Bar Rule 3.6(h).

11.	Every four months Mr. Carpenter shall file a confidential report with
the Court and provide copies of the report to Bar Counsel and Mr. Pickering.  The
report shall describe the nature and extent of any professional assistance Mr.
Carpenter has provided to Mr. Pickering.

12.	Mr. Carpenter will have a duty to report to Bar Counsel and the
Court any apparent or actual professional misconduct by Mr. Pickering which Mr.
Carpenter becomes aware of or any lack of cooperation by Mr. Pickering in the
performance of this order.

13.	If at any time for a period of one year from this date Bar Counsel
learns or has reason to believe or receives any complaint that Mr. Pickering has or
is failing to fulfill any of the conditions of this Order or has otherwise failed to
comply with or abide by the Bar Rules, then Bar Counsel may file directly with
this Court and serve on Mr. Pickering a Motion that sets forth the facts that Bar
Counsel believes constitute a violation of this Order or the Bar Rules.  This Court
will then schedule and conduct an appropriate evidentiary hearing to determine
whether Mr. Pickering has, in fact, violated the terms of this Order or failed to
abide by the Bar Rules. If, after the hearing, the Court concludes that Mr.
Pickering has violated this Order or the Bar Rules, the Court may then enter, on
such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate, an Order which may, among
other things, include a provision that revokes Mr. Pickering's privilege to practice
law by disbarment, suspension or by restoring his resignation.

14.	If Mr. Pickering satisfactorily fulfills the terms and conditions of this
Order and no new allegations of misconduct are brought to the Court's attention
within one year of this date, then the services of the Monitor shall, without further
Order of the Court, be discharged and Mr. Pickering shall be allowed to practice
law in the State of Maine without supervision or further monitoring. 

15.	Mr. Pickering shall continue to completely abstain from the use of
intoxicating liquor.

16.	Mr. Pickering shall establish a relationship with the substance abuse
committee of the Maine Bar Association, an organization which is also known as
Lawyers Concerned For Lawyers, or any successor entity.

17.	Restitution shall be made by Mr. Pickering within two (2) years of
reinstatement to two his former clients, Thomas Grossi in the amount of
$1,000.00, and Linwood Doak in the amount of $325.00, plus interest since 1986
in both cases.

Dated:  June 25, 2002				/s/											
													Howard H. Dana, Jr., Associate Justice
													Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Back to Bar Discipline Page
Back to Supreme Court Opinions Page