Skip Maine state header navigation
STATE OF MAINE
SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT DOCKET
NO. BAR-06-3
BOARD
OF OVERSEERS OF THE BAR )
)
Plaintiff ) DECISION
AND
) ORDER
v. )
)
BRIAN
D. CONDON, JR., ESQ. )
of WINTHROP, ME )
Me. Bar #8588 )
Defendant )
This
matter came before the Court upon the filing of an Information by the Board of
Overseers of the Bar. The Board
was represented by Bar Counsel J. Scott Davis, and Deputy Bar Counsel Nora
Sosnoff and Attorney Brian D. Condon, Jr., Esq. was represented by Attorney
Karen G. Kingsley. The Court heard
testimony from Attorney R. Howard Lake and Attorney Condon. Following the hearing, the parties by
agreement, offered the Disciplinary Petition with attachments. Because the attachments contain attorney-client
confidential material, at the request of the parties, they were received under
seal. The Court makes the
following findings:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Attorney Condon
has practiced law in Maine since his admission to the Maine Bar in 1997 and from
2002 until March 7, 2005, was a partner at the law firm of Hufnagel, Lake &
Condon (HLC);
2. Like most Maine
law firms, HLC kept a pooled client trust account with detailed client
records. At HLC, these client
records were made and retained on a computer-based accounting program called
"Quickbooks";
3. On or about March
10, 2004, Attorney Condon received from an insurance company a settlement check
for Client A for $2547.95 with instructions to hold and not deposit the check
until Attorney Condon's client had signed a release. Although Client A had not signed a release, Attorney Condon
deposited the check in the HLC pooled client trust account in a subaccount
attributable to Client A. Then,
still without a release from Client A, on August 26, 2004, in violation of the
insurer's terms of settlement, Attorney Condon paid the firm $400 in legal fees
from the sub-account attributable to Client A;
4. Although Attorney
Condon attributes this to an unintended clerical error, the Court is satisfied
that sometime between mid-September and early October 2004, Attorney Condon
manipulated the "Quickbooks" accounting program to change the name on the trust
sub-account from Client A to Client B and change the source of those funds from
an insurance company to the law firm to whom Attorney Condon had previously
referred Client B to handle his personal injury claim.
5. On December 6,
2004, the firm to whom Client B had been referred sent Attorney Condon $1111.11
as a referral fee (i.e., one-third of the one-third of the $10,000 settlement
negotiated for Client B). Rather
than deposit the sum in the firm's general account as income, Attorney Condon
directed his secretary to "please deposit (the check). . . in (Client B) Trust
Account." With that deposit the
sub-account in the name of Client B totaled $3259.06 (i.e., $2547.95 minus
$400, plus $1111.11);
6. Attorney Condon
admits that on December 10, 2004, he caused a check to be drawn on HLC's trust
account payable to Client B and that he deposited that check for $3259.06 into
Attorney Condon's personal checking account. Although he does not remember doing so, the Court is
satisfied that Attorney Condon endorsed Client B's name to the back of the
check. The funds neither belonged
to Attorney Condon nor to Client B;
7. On January 25,
2005, Client A called HLC wanting to speak with Attorney Condon about his
case. Within an hour of that call,
the Court is satisfied that Attorney Condon, using an absent employee's
password to gain access to the Quickbooks program, established a sub-account
for Client A for $2547.95 indicating the source of those funds was a law firm
rather than the insurance company and reduced the size of another client's
sub-account by $2547.95;
8. When a month
later Attorney Condon's manipulations began to be uncovered he first blamed the
firm's staff. Only after viewing a
videotape of him making the deposit into his personal checking account did he
admit the deposit. He claims not
to remember endorsing Client B's name on the back of the check and intimated at
the hearing that a credit union teller may have done so.
9. Attorney Condon
testified that he has recently been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder
and is taking medication to help him "focus" and "operate in more of a
controlled manner." While the
Court is unqualified to assess whether this condition may explain his conduct,
it is a working hypothesis.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Attorney
Condon has violated the following provisions of the Maine Bar Rules: 3.1(a),
3.2(f)(1), 3.2(f)(3), 3.2(f)(4), 3.6(a), 3.6(e)(1), and 3.6(e)(2)(iii).[1]
SANCTIONS
It
is well established that the main purpose of attorney discipline is not
punishment, but protection of the public.
"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 bar disciplinary proceedings in
imposing the sanction in this case and recognizes that no clients of Condon
have joined in this grievance and he has no previous disciplinary record with
the Board or this Court.
To
the extent that he has accepted responsibility for his actions, Condon has
apologized to the Court, to the administrative staff at HLC, and to his former
law partner, R. Howard Lake, Esq.
Condon has affirmed that he will make every effort to ensure that no
future violations of any Bar Rules occur.
Accordingly,
the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Brian D. Condon, Jr. be and hereby is suspended
from the practice of law in Maine for a period of one year commencing January
1, 2007, with all but the second fifteen (15) days of that suspension itself
being suspended subject to the following terms and conditions:
a) Prior to his returning to active
practice any time after February 1, 2007, at his own expense, Attorney Condon
shall enter into a monitoring agreement with the Maine Assistance Program for
Lawyers and Judges (MAP) in a form acceptable to Bar Counsel and the Director
of MAP, and shall undergo assessment, testing, and treatment, all to the
satisfaction of the Director of MAP;
b) Prior to his returning to active
practice any time after February 1, 2007, Attorney Condon will have identified
a local lawyer, approved by the Director of MAP, who will agree to monitor
Attorney Condon's practice by reviewing an inventory list of his files, trust
account activity, and be available to speak with Attorney Condon and vice versa
on a regular basis, but at least once per month about any problems or issues
with the practice;
c) Attorney Condon will continue his
treatment for ADD, and will sign whatever releases are necessary so that his
treatment provider will be able to speak with the Director of MAP;
d) In the event any new grievance
complaint is received by Bar Counsel prior to January 1, 2008, concerning
alleged misconduct by Attorney Condon such complaint shall be processed under
either Bar Rule 7.1(c) or 7.1(d), as appropriate, but in the event a
preliminary review panel finds probable cause of misconduct under Bar Rule
7.1(d)(5), the matter shall then be filed directly in the Court under Bar Rule
7.2(b); and
e) Any apparent violation of the
conditions of this Order shall be brought to the attention of the Court by Bar
Counsel.
Dated: December 27, 2006
__/s/___________________________
Howard
H. Dana, Jr.
Associate
Justice
Maine
Supreme Judicial Court
[1] 3.1 Scope and Effect
(a) This Code shall be binding upon attorneys as
provided in Rule 1(a). Violation
of these rules shall be deemed to constitute conduct "unworthy of an attorney"
for purposes of 4 M.R.S.A. § 851. . . .
3.2
Admission, Disclosure and Misconduct
(f) Other Misconduct. A lawyer shall not:
(1)
directly or indirectly violate, circumvent, or subvert any provision of the
Maine Bar Rules;
.
. . .
(3)
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
(4)
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
3.6 Conduct During Representation
(a) Standards of Care and Judgment. 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. . . .
(e) Preserving Identity of Funds and Property.
(1)
All funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm, other than retainers and
advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited in one or more identifiable
accounts maintained in the state in which the law office is situated at a
financial institution authorized to do business in such state. No funds belonging to the lawyer or law
firm shall be deposited therein except as follows: