Skip Maine state header navigation

Agencies | Online Services | Help



OF THE BAR					]
			Plaintiff		]
			v.				]		ORDER
			Defendant		]

	This matter is before the Court pursuant to M. Bar R. 7.2(b)(2) on an
Information filed against Earle S. Tyler Jr.{1}  The Board was represented by
Assistant Bar Counsel Geoffrey S. Welsh, Esq. and Tyler was represented by
Thomas J. Connolly, Esq.  In its Information, the Board alleges that Tyler
conducted himself in a manner unworthy of an attorney and that he violated
certain Maine Bar Rules.  Accordingly, the Board seeks his disbarment from
the practice of law in the State of Maine.
	Tyler admitted to the factual allegations contained in the Information. 
He acknowledges that on August 19, 1999, he entered his appearance on
behalf of Thomas Robinson who had been indicted by the Washington County
Grand Jury on December 16, 1997, on the charge of criminal threatening
with the use of a dangerous weapon and on the charge of reckless conduct
with the use of a dangerous weapon.  The matter was specifically assigned
for jury selection to be held on Monday, August 30, 1999.
	On August 25, 1999, Tyler moved to continue the trial.  On
August 26, 1999, Tyler's motion was denied and he was directed to appear
with his client for jury selection on the following Monday.  Tyler and his
client both failed to appear for jury selection on August 30, 1999 .  During
proceedings held on August 30, 1999, the trial court noted, "[b]ecause it
appeared to the Court that Mr. Robinson was playing fast and loose with the
business of change of counsel in order to avoid this matter coming to trial,
the Court denied defendant's motion to continue with an expectation
that . . . at the jury call this morning at nine o'clock, that Mr. Robinson and
his counsel would be here."
	On Wednesday, September 1, 1999, Tyler and his client again
appeared before the Court at which time the Court reiterated the following
sequence of events, including that: Robinson's motion to continue had been
denied on August 26, 1999; the Clerk's office had notified Tyler on August
26 of the denial of the motion; and a jury panel was available, and Tyler
failed to appear, on Monday, August 30, for jury selection.  Based on these
facts, the Court ordered Tyler "[w]ithin ten days, to reimburse this county
the sum of four hundred and thirty dollars, the cost of that jury, for your
failure to appear."  Tyler neither requested a reconsideration nor did he
appeal from the Court's Order.
	Three weeks later, the Clerk of the Washington County Superior Court,
Marilyn Braley, wrote Tyler a letter, addressed to his post office box,
indicating that she had not received the four hundred and thirty dollars the
Court had ordered him to pay.  Tyler asserts he did not receive Ms. Braley's
letter.  Receiving no response to her letter, Ms. Braley on January 26, 2000,
filed a criminal complaint against Tyler.  That same day, Tyler was served at
his residence with a summons ordering him to appear on February 1, 2000,
to answer to the criminal complaint.  When Tyler failed to appear, the Court
issued a warrant for his arrest, setting cash bail in the amount of five
hundred dollars.  Tyler appeared and posted the bond.
	On March 2, 2000, Tyler appeared before the Court on Braley's
criminal complaint.  The Court made the following factual findings,
including that: its Order of September 1, 1999, was neither collaterally
attacked nor was it ever a subject of a request for reconsideration; Tyler had
the ability to pay the sanction imposed upon him; Tyler was angry about
what he perceived was an unjust order; there was no justification for Tyler's
failure to pay the sanction; and Tyler's failure to pay the sanction was
intentional, knowing conduct.  The Court then found Tyler guilty of criminal
contempt and imposed an additional fine of four hundred and thirty dollars
and sentenced him to forty-eight hours in jail.
	Tyler appealed his criminal conviction, which was affirmed by the
Supreme Judicial Court sitting as the Law Court in a Memorandum of
Decision issued October 17, 2000.  Tyler served his sentence and paid the
fine assessed against him for his criminal contempt.
	Subsequent to the Law Court's decision, a grievance complaint was
filed against Tyler regarding his disrespectful and contemptuous conduct
toward the Court.  That complaint resulted in the present Information filed
against Tyler.  It was only after the Information was filed that Tyler paid the
four hundred and thirty dollars he was ordered to pay to reimburse
Washington County.
	In the present proceedings, Tyler acknowledged that his refusal to pay
the imposed sanction resulted from his anger with the Court and asserted
that he misunderstood that the fine imposed upon him on March 2, 2000,
was in addition to the prior sanction imposed upon him in September 1999.
	This Court concludes that Tyler's actions as recounted herein are
actions unworthy of an attorney.  He was directed to appear for jury
selection; he failed to do so.  The Court ordered him to reimburse
Washington County its costs in assembling persons to serve on a jury; he
failed to do so.  Angered by the Court's action, Tyler opted to display
obstinate behavior rather than to request reconsideration or to appeal from
the Court's Order.  Although reminded by the Clerk that he had failed to
satisfy the sanction imposed upon him, he continued to squander the
meager resources of the Judicial Branch, which resulted in his being held in
criminal contempt.  Tyler is living proof of the adage that a lawyer who
represents himself has a fool for a client.  Tyler's behavior constitutes
violations of: (1) M. Bar R. 3.2 by "engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to
the administration of justice;" (2) M. Bar R. 3.6 in his failure to be punctual
in his professional commitments; and (3) M. Bar R. 3.7 in his actions in
delaying a trial.
	Having concluded that Tyler's behaviors are actions unworthy of an
attorney, the Court turns to the matter of an appropriate sanction.  Tyler is
seventy-two years old and was first admitted to practice law in
Massachusetts forty-two years ago.  Tyler's record is one for which he should
be ashamed.  In October 1994, Tyler was suspended from the practice of law
for: (1) the chronic neglect of matters undertaken by him, causing injury to
his clients, and (2) the failure to cooperate with the Board's investigation of
a disciplinary process.  In April 1995, Tyler was found in contempt of the
Court's October 1994 Order for his failure to comply with the requirements
of M. Bar R. 7.3(i).  In March 1996, he was again found in contempt for his
failure to provide written notice to all of his clients, the opposing attorneys,
the courts and the agencies of his suspension.  In December 1997, Tyler was
found to have violated former M. Bar R. 3.4 when he undertook
representation of one former client without the informed consent of another
former client, knowing that that former client would object to his
	Tyler's record to date has involved numerous violations of the Bar
Rules in connection with his representation of clients.  In the instant
situation, Tyler was his own lawyer.  Clouded by his admitted anger, Tyler
displayed a disregard of a lawyer's obligation to be punctual in his court
appearances, poor judgment, and a contempt for the Court.  He has been
punished for his contempt.  There is a need to prevent a reoccurrence of
the events which have prompted this Information.  Tyler must learn that he
cannot continue to avoid his obligations as a member of the Bar.  For his lack
of self-restraint and poor judgment for which he has expressed no remorse, 
Earle S. Tyler Jr., Esq. is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a
period of five months commencing April 1, 2001.
	Tyler is specifically reminded of his obligations under the provisions of
M. Bar R. 7.3(i).
	Bar Counsel may file an information concerning further complaints
against Tyler for misconduct without the necessity of Grievance Commission
review and hearing. 
	Dated:   February 22, 2001
						/s/  Paul L. Rudman, Associate Justice
FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} . By an Order dated March 13, 1996, Bar Counsel was authorized to file an Information without the necessity of review and hearing by the Grievance Commission under M. Bar R. 7.1(d) & (e).

Back to the Bar Discipline Decisions page.

Back to the Opinions page.