Sometimes the old saying that any mention of your name on the news is good just so long as they spell it right, rings hollow. Take Verrill Dana for instance. It’s the law firm in Portland that made headline news two years ago when one of its partners, John Duncan, was disbarred and sent to jail for tax evasion and stealing roughly $300,000 from clients of the firm.
I’ve written previously about this theft here, here, and here.
Fast forward to the present and the Portland Press Herald has another article on this disturbing situation. The article asks whether any other partners in the firm will face disciplinary charges? Also, how did the firm handle the theft once they knew about it?
No one is talking while the matter is being investigated by the Board of Bar Overseers. But the Press Herald article notes a recent decision by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court that rules on whether Gene Libby, Verrill Dana’s former general counsel, can be forced to turn over documents he obtained in his own internal review prior to abruptly leaving the firm because, as he says, the way the Duncan matter was handled.
Apparently after leaving Verrill Dana, Libby wrote a letter to J. Scott Davis, lead counsel for the Board of Bar Overseers, indicating that he had found violations of Maine Bar Rules during his internal review. He didn’t give any details at the time but informed Davis that he didn’t believe that the information was protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Davis wanted Libby to fess up and in September of 2008, he issued a subpoena requiring Libby to testify and provide all the documents from his review.
“Not so fast” said the lawyers for Verrill Dana. They argued that the investigation by Libby was protected by attorney-client privilege because he was representing the other Verrill Dana partners.
The issue went to a single justice of the Supreme Court who ruled that no attorney-client privilege existed because Libby "may have uncovered criminal conduct” by Verrill Dana. That’s certainly not the type of publicity that a law firm wants — having a public decision by a Maine Supreme Court justice stating that there may be “criminal conduct by partners of Verrill Dana."
Not one to take such a ruling sitting down, Verrill Dana’s lawyers appealed the decision to the full Maine Supreme Court and they sent it back to the single justice for clarification.
So this case if far from over with. Once the single justice makes his ruling, the side that loses will probably appeal once again to the Law Court. And on and on it goes.
The Press Herald wonders when Davis might reach a final decision. I hate to say it, but that could be a ways off. After all, Davis issued his subpoena in September 2008 and still hasn’t been allowed to question Libby under oath or see the results of his internal investigation. If the single justice rules in a similar fashion to his previous ruling — and Verrill Dana appeals it again — then many more months are likely to go by before the information is available. Only then can Davis finish his investigation — and who knows how long that might take if and when the Libby information becomes available.
I’d hate to venture a guess, but can you say 2012?
Comments