#hyli andrew | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ericfruits · 8 years ago

Text

Ineligible Receiver Intercepts Client List And Is Reprimanded

The Maine Board of Bar Overseers has reprimanded an attorney who had improperly sought information about the client list of a deceased attorney.

On December 2, 2014, Justice Andrew Mead issued a written order for the appointment of Attorneys Hylie West and Jennifer Villeneuve as Receivers for Richard Salewski’s law practice. Five days later, on December 7, 2014, Attorney Salewski died after a long illness. In his Order, Justice Mead was explicit as to the confidentiality of Attorney Salewski’s client files.

The attorney contacted the receivers to obtain a list of Salewski's clients and was rebuffed

Then

Attorney Adams testified that, one day later, on Thursday, January 14, 2016, a client of his, who was considering purchasing the building at 441 Main Street, happened to ask him to accompany her while the realtor showed her the building. The building was locked but the real estate agency had obtained a key from Receiver West. Receiver West testified that the only individuals with keys were himself and the listing broker and that the broker had been instructed that the Salewski files were confidential.

When realtor Miles Geisler unlocked the building Attorney Adams saw the boxes of Salewski client files and also a six (6) page typed document entitled “Rick Salewski Files Requests.” This was a listing of Attorney Salewski’s clients which had been prepared by Receivers West and Villeneuve.

Mr. Geisler testified that when Attorney Adams saw this document he remarked that he had been trying to obtain a listing of Attorney Salewski’s clients for a long time. Mr. Geisler did not recall Attorney Adams telling him he was going to take the list of clients, only that he would like to take it. Mr. Geisler did comment that there is a long-standing understanding among realtors that personal items will not be removed when a building is being shown to a potential buyer. After being in the building less than 20 minutes, Attorney Adams took the list without properly informing Mr. Gisler and returned to his East Boothbay office. Attorney Adams did not contact Receiver West and inform him that he (Attorney Adams) had taken the client list.

The missing list was noticed and the bar initiated a sua sponte investigation

Beginning with his conversation with Bar Counsel on January 19, 2016, in subsequent correspondence and submissions, and throughout the hearing, Attorney Adams acknowledged that he had been told that the Salewski client list was considered confidential and that he could not have a copy. He has admitted that he had no proprietary interest in the list. He has admitted that he took the list without Receiver West’s permission. Despite these admissions, Attorney Adams has suggested a variety of justifications for taking the document. The Panel finds these rationales to be disingenuous.

Even if Justice Mead had not ordered that the Salewski client files and their inventory be kept confidential, there is no credible argument that this information was public and available for the taking. The files and client lists were properly being treated by the receivers as protected client confidences. Client confidentiality can extend even to the identity of an attorney’s clients, see Comment 3 to M.R. Prof. Conduct 1.6 (“The confidentiality rule…applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation….”); see also ABA Formal Opinion 09-455 (the persons involved in a matter are protected by the client confidentiality rule).

Even the fact that a person has hired a lawyer can open a door on that person’s life. Is the person selling a home? Is the person seeking a divorce? Privacy demands that this door be kept closed. Protection of a client’s confidences is vital to the relationship between lawyers, their clients, and the public. It was Attorney Salewski’s clients who had the power to decide whether their confidences could be disclosed, not Attorney Adams.

Sanction

Attorney Adams intentionally took a document to which he was not entitled and the Panel finds that he did so knowingly. Attorney Adams knew that the Receivers deemed the list of Attorney Salewski’s clients to be confidential. Attorney Adams’s claim that the client list was a public document because it was in plain sight is not persuasive. He found it in a locked building being used by the Receivers of the Salewski law practice. He had no right to unilaterally determine that the list was his to take. By taking the six-page listing of Salewski clients and sharing it with his office manager, Attorney Adams violated the privacy of those clients and violated the ethical rules cited above. There were no mitigating circumstances.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the appropriate disposition of this case is a Public Reprimand to Scott G. Adams, Esq., which is now hereby issued and imposed upon him pursuant to M. Bar R. 13(e)(10)(C).

(Mike Frisch)

http://ift.tt/2tXxbLr

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes