BACK www.justicewhen.org SITE MAP CONTACT

Gordon & Wise

Counsellors at Law

101 Federal Street

Boston Massachussets 02110-1844

September 16, 1996

 

Via Facsimile No. (207) 287-3145

 

Peter J. Brann, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General

State of Maine

Department of the Attorney General

6 State House Station

Augusta Maine 04333-0006

Re: Catherine Duffy Petit, in Bankruptcy Case No. 93-20821 State of Maine, et al. V. HER, Inc. et al,

Docket No. CV-96-134

Dear Mr. Brann:

As counsel to Catherine Duffy Petit as the Debtor in her bankruptcy

~ I was stunned to find that a letter you wrote to Steve Morrell, counsel to her Trustee in Bankruptcy (and, apparently, copied only to the Trustee in Bankruptcy) on Thursday, September 5, 1996 was attached to a pleading filed in the Bankruptcy Court by Dick Poulos (not a recipient of your letter) on Monday, September 9, 1996. Apparently, Mr Poulos somehow received your letter the same time as Steve Morrell. All of my questions concerning you would be answered if I knew whether Dick Poulos' immediate access to your letter and the filing or it with the Bankruptcy Court caused you to be outraged or gleeful. It must be one or the other and, therin, lies the key to your motivation in this entire matter.

While I recognize your announced desire to protect the citizens of the State of Maine and I have no ability (and insufficient facts) to determine whether your actions are helpful or harmful in that regard, I cannot help but wonder why, in a desire to protect certain citizens, you find it necessary to harm a bankruptcy estate in Maine and its creditors, most of whom are also citizens of Maine. Regardless of how you may feel about Paul Richard, the settlement proposed to the Trustee in Bankruptcy (which you so vehemently and unaccountably Oppose) represents the only possibility that claims against Key Bank and certain legal malpractice defendants (including, likely, Dick Poulos) will be prosecuted for the benefit of the Petit bankruptcy estate and its creditors. Perhaps you could explain to me how the interests you believe you are advancing could be served by letting Key Bank and negligent attorneys off the hook. -

While you oppose the Trustee in Bankruptcy's settlement with Paul Richard, you offer no alternative. There is, of course, no viable alternative. In the more than three years I have been involved with this case, none of the counsel of record to Ms. Petit in the Key Bank case has lifted a finger to advance that cause of action. Similarly, no Trustee in Bankruptcy has done anything to advance the case. Likewise, no Trustee in Bankruptcy has brought any legal malpractice case against anyone Indeed, the Trustee serving prior to Mr. Morrell's client sought, more than nine months ago, to abandon both the Key Bank and malpractice litigation to the Debtor for no compensation whatsoever.

I very well understand Key Bank's desire not to have claims against it prosecuted. I certainly understand Dick Poulos' desire not to have claims brought against him. I simply fail to understand your desire, in the absence of an alternative, not to have those claims prosecuted. Surely if a fund were created from the prosecution of those claims, the interests you purport to represent would be far better served (just ask them!).

Dick Poulos has never withdrawn as counsel of record to Ms. Petit in the Key Bank case. I do not understand how a lawyer who still represents a client can act in the fashion Mr. Poulos has acted which, albeit in his own self interest, is diametrically opposed to the interests of his still current client. While my practice is based in Boston, I was admitted to the Bar in Maine in 1971 and my firm recently concluded a federal court trial in Bangor where the Maine Bar Rules were a major issue. I know that Dick Poulos' ethical obligations are not your responsibility to enforce. Query, however, whether you wish in any way to aid and abet a disregard for the ethics of our profession?

I am not given to literary references, but I will adopt yours. It is perhaps you who have undertaken a Faustian bargain, and not your neighbor Steve Morrell. It may be that, in the context of the bankruptcy case at least, Dick Poulos is playing Dr. Faust and not Paul Richard.

 

Very truly yours,

Steven F. Gordon

P.S. Everyone receiving a copy of this letter from me is openly listed below.

cc: Ms. Catherine Duffy Petit (via facsimile no. (207) 283-9477)

Stephen G. Morrell, Esquire (via facsimile no (207) 729-1140)

Richard E. Poulos, Esquire (via facsimile no. (207) 775-0599)

Joseph S.U. Bodoff, Esquire (via facsimile no. (617) 345-9020)

BACK www.justicewhen.org SITE MAP CONTACT