SETH T. CAREY
BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF THE BAR et al.
Submitted On Briefs: July 19, 2018
T. Carey, Esq., L/A Law, Auburn, for appellant Seth T. Carey
T. Mills, Attorney General, and Susan P. Herman, Dep. Atty.
Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellees
Office of the Clerk of Courts et al.
T. Mills, Attorney General, and Thomas A. Knowlton, Asst.
Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for
appellees Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar et al.
M. Dench, Esq., Stephen B. Wade, Esq., and Amy Dieterich,
Esq., Skelton Taintor & Abbott, Auburn, for appellee
Lewiston Sun Journal
Hillary J. Bouchard, Esq., Thompson Bowie & Hatch LLC,
Portland, for appellee Matthew J. Donovan
SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
Seth T. Carey appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court
(Kennebec County, Anderson, J.) granting motions to
dismiss and motions for summary judgment. The court's
order resulted in judgment for all defendants on Carey's
wide-ranging complaint against judges and other court
employees, the Board of Overseers of the Bar, the Maine
Commission on Indigent Legal Services (MCILS), and the
Lewiston Sun Journal. Carey's complaint was based on the
defendants' actions related to or participation in an
attorney disciplinary proceeding before the Board that
resulted in the court [Brennan, J.) accepting an
agreed two-year suspended suspension from the practice of law
with many conditions imposed on Carey's practice.
Carey appeals, contending that the court improperly ruled
that most defendants were protected by statutory or common
law immunities, that there were no disputes of fact regarding
his claims against the defendants, and that the defendants
are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We affirm.
In 2016, the Board of Overseers of the Bar brought three
disciplinary informations, M. Bar R. 13(g), against Seth T.
Carey. Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Carey,
BAR-16-15 (Nov. 21, 2016) [Brennan, J.). After
negotiations, Carey and the Board agreed to the entry of a
negotiated order "identifying Attorney Carey's
misconduct and the resulting sanctions imposed by the
court." Id. at 1. The agreed order identified
Carey's misconduct and supporting evidence organized by
the three disciplinary informations. Id.
The first disciplinary action was based on evidence presented
by four Maine judges at a Grievance Commission proceeding
where those "four jurists recounted their experiences,
observations, and concerns about Attorney Carey's lack of
core competence." Id. at 2. The order recognized
that Carey had been "adamant that the jurists [']
accounts were inaccurate and that they had colluded in a
conspiracy against him." Id. The order noted,
however, that Carey agreed that the testimony of the judges
at the hearing before the Grievance Commission comprised
"sufficient evidence for this Court to find that he had
demonstrated a lack of core competence in the handling of his
clients' respective litigation matters."
Id. at 3.
Based on that information, and apparently by agreement, the
court found that Carey had committed violations of Maine
Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (incompetence), 1.3 (lack
of reasonable diligence in representing clients), 3.3(a)(3)
(offering material evidence that is false), 3.3(b) (failure
to disclose false evidence to a court), and 8.4(d) (conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice). Id.
The second disciplinary action was based on a complaint by a
physician who had served as an independent medical examiner
in a proceeding in which Carey represented a claimant before
the Maine Workers' Compensation Board. Id. The
physician's complaint expressed concern regarding
Attorney Carey's conduct both in preparation for and
during a deposition. Id. at 4. A hearing officer of
the Workers' Compensation Board found that Carey had
failed to provide relevant medical reports to the physician
prior to his deposition and had asked the physician many
questions, during the deposition, relating to medical
evidence that had not been admitted into evidence in the
proceeding. Id. at 6.
The agreed order found that "Attorney Carey's
failure to timely provide the necessary medical documents to
[the physician]" constituted violations of Maine Rules
of Professional Conduct 1.1 (incompetence) and 1.3 ...