Georgetown In Maine

The Maine Grievance Commission imposed a reprimand and probation for misconduct in a parental rights matter

J.T., a client of Attorney Davis’s, filed a complaint on May 2, 2024. Respondent filed an initial response on June 12, 2024. During the course of the Board’s investigation, Attorney Davis was afforded opportunities for rebuttal and supplemental responses, resulting in a fully developed investigation, pursuant to M. Bar R. 2(b)(2) & 13(b). As a result, on or about November 19, 2024, a panel of the Grievance Commission reviewed Attorney Davis’s actions in this matter, and based upon that review, found probable cause to believe that Attorney Davis had engaged in misconduct subject to sanction under the Maine Bar Rules. Therefore, the Grievance Commission panel directed Bar Counsel to prepare and present a Formal Disciplinary Charges Petition before a different panel of the Grievance Commission.

Attorney Davis was retained in November of 2022 by J.T. to handle a private termination of parental rights which required, first, service and filing of a motion to modify to obtain sole parental rights by J.T. The opposing party, J.T.’s ex-husband, had not had a relationship with the child for many years, and his address was unknown.

Attorney Davis had drafted the motion to modify by December 14, 2022. In January or early February of 2023, J.T. told Attorney Davis she needed to step back from the litigation due to her daughter’s recent health diagnosis. Both Attorney Davis and J.T. believed at that time that the opposing party was located in Lincoln County. On June 13, 2023, J.T. attended court for a child support action brought by D.H.H.S. against the opposing party. On that date she learned that the opposing party said that he resided in Georgetown, Maine, that he said he would terminate his parental rights and to have her attorney contact him, and she notified Attorney Davis of those facts and of his phone number on that day.

Attorney Davis was in a mediation at a different court that day. Respondent acknowledged receiving the text message from J.T. containing the contact information. Attorney Davis reported in the investigation that she called the contact number for the opposing party twice. At the time, Attorney Davis mistakenly considered Georgetown to be in Lincoln County instead of in Sagadahoc County. Attorney Davis’s attempts to locate the opposing party were focused on Lincoln County and included reviewing police ledgers, checking with the local jail periodically, checking with the court clerk’s office, searching online and reaching out asking Lincoln County Deputies if they had contact with him in the community or at court.

On February 13, 2024, the motion to modify had still not been served. J.T. saw the opposing party in a grocery store parking lot in Bath, obtained his license plate information, and gave that to Attorney Davis. Attorney Davis called J.T. and notified her that service was being done in Lincoln County. During the February 13, 2024 call, J.T. reminded Attorney Davis of the text message from June 2023 stating that the opposing party was in Georgetown. Attorney Davis did not recall that text message and JT sent it to her again.

J.T. called the Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Department on April 29, 2024 to inquire about service. They had received no service for the opposing party.

On May 1, 2024, J.T. called Lincoln County and was told that they had never had any record of service on the opposing party. Respondent reported that she could not send service if she did not have an address for the opposing party. Respondent reported and provided proof that she sent service to Sagadahoc County on February 23, 2024, but when she followed up with Sagadahoc County they confirmed they did not have it. After J.T.’s communication about the lack of service, Attorney Davis immediately hand-filed a service packet with Sagadahoc County on May 1, 2024. Attorney Davis did not attempt to obtain any alternate method of service on the opposing party from November of 2022 to May of 2024, when the complaint was filed.

Violations

In sum, the evidence of misconduct supports the reviewing Panel’s findings, and Attorney Davis agrees that she did in fact violate the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.1, 1.3, 8.4(a) , and the Panel so finds. The purpose of bar disciplinary proceedings is not punishment, but rather the protection of the public from attorneys who, by their conduct, have demonstrated that they are unable to properly discharge their professional duties. Since the evidence supports a finding and Attorney Davis agrees that she did in fact violate the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, the Panel has analyzed the proper sanction factors applicable under M. Bar R. 21.

(Mike Frisch)