Panel Recommends Against Second Reinstatement

A Panel of the Maine Board of Bar Overseers has recommended denial of a second reinstatement to a petitioner who had gotten his license back after a federal conviction

For many years prior to the events leading to his conviction, Prolman regularly used cocaine and sometimes drank alcoholic beverages excessively, with his cocaine use becoming more regular by 2012. At some point in 2012, Prolman’s cocaine dealer introduced him to David Jones, who he soon learned was an illegal drug dealer, primarily involved in sales of large quantities of marijuana. Prolman agreed to assist Jones in incorporating certain business ventures and acquiring real estate for them. He was paid in cash for these legal services. Subsequently, Prolman accepted Jones’ offer to infuse funds into a sports agent business Prolman had started, as well as a separate real estate venture. Prolman accepted $127,875 in cash from Jones, which he deposited into different banks in small amounts so as to avoid federal cash source reporting requirements. He later accepted an additional $50,000, which had been delivered to him by Jones’ girlfriend, in cash. Prolman’s plea eventually acknowledged participation in a felony–level conspiracy to launder $177,500 worth of marijuana trafficking proceeds received from Jones or Jones’s girlfriend.

He was reinstated in July 2016

On April 17, 2017, less than a year after Prolman’s reinstatement, a client of Prolman’s filed a complaint with the Board. The Board, in turn, filed a Petition for Immediate Interim Suspension against Petitioner on May 26, 2017. After a contested, three–day hearing before Justice Alexander, the Court made the following salient findings: Prolman represented or advised the female complainant in connection with three criminal matters in 2016–2017. In one of these matters, Prolman secured early termination of the client’s probation, to be effective in June, 2017, so long as she complied with her terms of probation until then, including the condition that the client not consume alcohol. This probation, and related participation in a closely–supervised diversion program, had been part of the client’s sentence for a felony drug conviction. Another matter the client discussed with Prolman related to the client’s status as a sex trafficking victim. In addition, during the time period that Prolman was representing her, the client lived in Topsham with a boyfriend. This individual was controlling and abusive and he assaulted the client on more than one occasion. Despite the involvement of law enforcement, these assaults were not prosecuted because the client refused to testify against her boyfriend. The situation culminated in a March, 2017, incident where the client sustained serious injuries, including broken bones in her face and marks on her throat due to an attempted strangulation. The Sagadahoc County authorities were concerned that the boyfriend, who had been arrested and held as a result of the incident, would soon return to the shared apartment, and believed the client needed to find other accommodations.

Prolman, who was in the process of returning from a vacation in Florida, spoke to the client on several occasions about the situation. Prolman also spoke with the Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Deputy who was the client’s diversion supervision officer and told him that there was an apartment above his Saco law office where the client could stay. The Court found that Prolman conveyed the impression to the Deputy that the apartment was vacant and that the client would be living there by herself until she could find a permanent solution. Based on this, the Deputy agreed to place the client in the apartment.

Contrary to the impression given to the Deputy, Prolman was living in the three–bedroom apartment and a third person, who was not present at the time, was also living there. The apparent plan was that the client would occupy the third bedroom and share common areas with the others, including a bathroom next to Prolman’s bedroom.₂ Had the client’s diversion officer known Prolman was living at the apartment, she would have terminated the living arrangement. Similarly, Prolman’s federal probation office would have objected to Prolman allowing the client, with a felony drug conviction, to live with him. Prolman did not voluntarily disclose the co-habitation to either officer.

Prolman returned from Florida either late on the day the arrangements were made for the client to move into his apartment, or the next day. Upon his return, he secured a cell phone for the client through his own cell phone account and assisted her in obtaining a waitressing job. At all relevant times, Prolman was aware of his client’s history, abuse by and submissiveness to men, and her vulnerability to abusive physical and sexual relationships. Despite this:

On more than one occasion while Prolman and his client were residing at his apartment between March 29 and April 9, 2017, Prolman approached his client seeking sexual gratification and engaged in sexual acts with her. The client regarded Prolman’s sexual acts as “gross. ” While she did not consent, she also did not object to Prolman’s sexual acts, simply submitting to what Prolman demanded – “I went along with it” – as she had done in past relationships with men who had taken advantage of her vulnerabilities.

2017 Suspension Order, at 11-12 ( ¶26) ( Board Exh. 905). It should be noted that this sexual contact occurred between two to fourteen days after an incident when the client had been brutally assaulted, strangled, and had her nose broken.

He was suspended for six months as a result.

Here, the panel found he failed to meet reinstatement criteria

Prolman continues to deny that he had a sexual relationship with the client involved in the 2017 suspension, so he does not acknowledge the conduct at all. Prolman argued at hearing, however, that he has demonstrated recognition of the wrongfulness and seriousness of the conduct because he has educated himself about, and accepts, the wrongfulness of the type of conduct at issue, namely having a sexual relationship with a vulnerable client, even if he does not admit doing it, and that he does regret bringing the client into his home and otherwise blurring the boundaries of his attorney–client relationship with the client.

Prolman may regret bringing the client into his home, but he also appears to continue to place the blame for what happened at the client’s feet

…Perhaps the strongest evidence that Prolman does not accept the wrongfulness and seriousness of the conduct that led to his discipline is the situation that developed with L.L. Despite giving lip service to his work on boundary issues, Prolman blew through all the relevant stop signs when it came to L.L. L.L. was economically vulnerable. There is evidence that she has or had substance use/ abuse issues. Her circumstances were such that she faced repeated criminal charges for which she needed representation and she depended on him for that representation and additional financial support, which he provided. He had frequent meetings with her well after office hours, at his home. Despite his denials, based on the parties’ contemporaneous text messages and other evidence described above, the Panel finds it likely that Prolman indeed had a sexual relationship with L.L. while she was a client, and that she perceived that sexual relationship, to some degree, as a quid pro quo for financial assistance and legal representation. When their attorney–client and personal relationship fell apart, Prolman then engaged in efforts to silence L.L. that continued to blur appropriate boundaries and that potentially exposed her to criminal liability, while then taking advantage of that exposure when it suited him. Much of the conduct described in the preceding sentence occurred after Prolman had submitted his Petition for Reinstatement.

Integrity

Turning to the issue of integrity, in order to have the integrity needed to practice law, an individual must, at the least, have the reasonable ability to align one’s actions with the boundaries, rules, and standards that one is expected to abide by as a practicing Maine attorney. The record in this matter is replete with evidence that Petitioner still struggles with aligning his actions with relevant standards and boundaries in this way. This is particularly so when Petitioner is operating in his “danger” areas, where his inclination to find justifications for ignoring relevant boundaries is high.

The panel propose that petitioner be required to wait three years to re-petition from the date of court’s denial. (Mike Frisch)