Byzantine

The Maine Grievance Commision has reprimanded an attorney

Complainant, P. V., filed a Grievance Complainant against Respondent on July 24, 2023. P. V. reported that Respondent was his court appointed criminal counsel beginning in April of 2022 but that he was unable to speak with her during the fifteen months of her representation. At the time of Respondent’s appointment P. V. was serving a “lengthy federal sentence” and had pending matters in York County Superior Court. P. V. detailed the efforts that his family, prison staff and his Pennsylvania attorney had taken on his behalf to communicate with Respondent all of which were unsuccessful. P. V. explained that he needed Respondent to communicate with him so that he could attempt to resolve his Maine case, either while he was incarcerated or to put in a “writ after resolving this.” He noted that the court had informed him that after an attorney was appointed the attorney could request a video arraignment. P. V.’s report is consistent with the docket record preceding Respondent’s appointment.

Respondent delayed her response but eventually explained

Respondent explained that she attempted to communicate with P.V. but quickly became frustrated by the federal correction system’s “byzantine” communication procedures. She noted that thereafter she “set [P.V.’sl file in a to do stack on [her] desk intending to file the appropriate motion” however she never returned to P. V.’s case and instead worked on other matters which she deemed “higher priority. Respondent also attributed her communication delay to a heavy caseload and a lack of familiarity with the federal corrections system.

The panel found several rule violations.

Sanction

the Grievance Commission finds that the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct is a public reprimand.  The Respondent violated the duty owed to her client, the legal system, and the profession. The Respondent’s actions were negligent and knowing, and those actions caused actual harm to her client. The aggravating and mitigating factors present, do not justify imposition of any lesser sanction for Respondent’s misconduct.

(Mike Frisch)