The Carey Treatment

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of a single justice in a matter involving an attorney who was subject to a 2016 stayed suspension with extensive conditions

In September of 2018, following a three-day hearing on the pending  matters, the single justice entered an order finding that Carey had, on numerous occasions, engaged in criminal conduct and violated court orders, all in  contravention of the Rules. After holding a sanctions hearing several months  later, the single justice entered an order suspending Carey’s license to practice  law for three years, see M. Bar R. 13(g)(4), 21(a)(1), (a)(3), (b)(6), with certain  conditions to be satisfied while the suspension is in effect. Carey appealed to  us, see M. Bar R. 13(g)(4), and we affirm the judgment.

Bar Counsel calls such attorneys “frequent flyers”

Carey is no stranger to attorney disciplinary proceedings. Since he  was admitted to the Maine Bar in 2006, his license to practice law in this State  has been suspended no fewer than three times—not including the most recent  suspension order—for violations of the rules of ethics governing attorney conduct.

After the 2016 stayed suspension

In April of 2018, while Carey was still subject to the conditions  established in the 2016 order, the Board learned that he had engaged in  conduct that resulted in an order for protection from abuse being entered  against him the previous month by the District Court (Rumford, Mulhern, J.)  The Board petitioned the court to immediately activate the 2016 suspension of  his license. Later that month, after holding a hearing, the single justice  (Warren, J.) entered an order suspending Carey’s license pending the final  resolution of the case based in part on a preliminary finding that Carey had  engaged in criminal activity, namely, unlawful sexual contact and assault.

The criminal conduct involved the following

In the spring of 2017, Carey rented a room in his house to a woman whom he had met years before when she was a client of his father, who is also  an attorney. While the woman lived in his house, Carey propositioned her for  sex a number of times, but each time the woman declined, at one point telling  him that his repeated advances were offensive.

After moving out of Carey’s house in late 2017, the woman lived  with her boyfriend, but that relationship became abusive, and the woman returned to Carey’s home. Carey agreed that she could stay in his home without  paying rent in exchange for cleaning and doing other work around the house, but as part of the arrangement he expected the woman to have sex with him,  and he continued to ask her to do so. Having just left an abusive relationship,  the woman was dependent on Carey for housing, so despite Carey’s unwelcome  advances, she had little choice but to stay there.

While the woman lived in Carey’s house during both periods, Carey  made unwanted physical advances toward her a number of times, including one  time when he entered her bedroom at night and touched her legs and between  her thighs, and another time when he stepped in front of her while she sat on  the couch, pulled her head against his crotch, and in crude terms asked her to  perform oral sex on him. Each time, the woman rebuffed Carey.

He then evicted her and she obtained an order of protection from his abuse

There is more. Carey had appealed the protection order. While  the appeal was pending, Carey met with counsel for the woman and, in what  Carey later described as an offer of “settlement,” provided the attorney with a  number of documents he had drafted. One of the documents contained a  statement that the woman would sign and submit to the single justice in this  matter and to the Board, stating that “things have been blown out of proportion  and Seth Carey did not abuse me.” Another document drafted by Carey was an  agreement that would require the woman to file a motion in the disciplinary  proceeding to “vacate the prosecution” of Carey. That agreement would also require the woman to file a motion to vacate the findings of abuse made by the  District Court in the protection proceeding, and it provided that once the  protection order was vacated, Carey would convey title to his car to the woman.  Pursuant to the proposed agreement, if Carey’s law license were reinstated by October 1, 2018, Carey would pay the woman $1,000. All of the terms that  Carey proposed were to be made subject to a nondisclosure provision stating that “[n]one of the details of any of this agreement are to be released to the  public or anyone not associated with this agreement.”

The proposed agreement was found to be unethical in addition to the violations found of the 2016 order.

To the extent that Carey has properly preserved issues for our  review, we find no error in any of the single justice’s findings of fact, his legal  determinations and conclusions, his discretionary calls, and his management of  the proceedings. All the factual findings contained in the September order are  supported by competent record evidence, and the December order presents a measured and thoughtful analysis of Carey’s conduct and determination of the nature and duration of the sanctions imposed for Carey’s ethical violations.

Judgment of suspension affirmed . (Mike Frisch)