Skip Maine state header navigation

Agencies | Online Services | Help


									)		ORDER ON MOTION FOR 
			v.						)		CONTEMPT AND OTHER

	A final judgment disbarring Attorney Thomas Mangan from the
practice of law was entered on March 10, 2000.  Pursuant to an order of this
court on Mr. Mangan's motion for stay, the disbarment was stayed through
May 31, 2000.  On August 8, 2000, the Board moved to have Mr. Mangan
held in contempt for failing to comply with Rule 7.3(i)(1)(B) & (C). 
Mr. Mangan answered the motion for contempt and also sought a declaratory
judgment regarding his right to litigate his own personal matters in the
District Courts.  Mr. Mangan also filed a motion to recuse, to which the
Board objected, and a motion for discovery with a following supplemental
memo for discovery.  On January 16, 2001, the full Law Court affirmed the
decision of this single justice disbarring Mr. Mangan.  Board of Overseers of
the Bar v. Mangan, 2001 ME 7, 763 A.2d 1189.  
	All post-judgment motions came on for hearing on February 8, 2001. 
Mr. Mangan appeared on his own behalf, and Attorney Scott Davis appeared
on behalf of the Board.{1}  The court heard from both parties.  In light of
Mr. Mangan's admissions, it was not necessary for either party to present
evidence.  The following orders are entered:
1.  Motion to Recuse
	Mr. Mangan sought my recusal in part because of his contention that I
had failed to be competent in the law because I disagreed with his legal
analysis regarding the meaning of the "practice of law," and in part because
of his concern that, given my decision in the original disciplinary
proceeding, I could not be fair and impartial in the ensuing proceedings. 
Regarding the latter contention, a judge is not required to recuse herself
simply because she has obtained information regarding the current
proceeding while presiding in other matters.  Estate of Dineen, 1998 ME
268, ¶ 9, 721 A.2d 185, 188.  Regarding the first contention, although
Mr. Mangan disagrees with my original analysis, I am confident that I was
"faithful to the law" and that I maintained "competence in it." See Canon
3(B)(2); Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Mangan, 2001 ME 7, ¶¶ 7-16, 763
A.2d 1189, ----.
	Of greatest significance is Mr. Mangan's general concern that I may
not be able to maintain impartiality in his matters.  I have given serious
consideration to his concern and have concluded that I can be fair to both
parties and that I do not bring a bias or prejudice to these proceedings.  
	Therefore, the motion to recuse is DENIED.
2.  Motions for Discovery
	Because Mr. Mangan has conceded that he did not file the affidavit
required by Rule 7.3(i), and that he did assist a former client in filling out a
transcript request form, no presentation of evidence was necessary.  Thus,
the motions for discovery are MOOT.
3.  Motion for Contempt
	In essence, the Board asserted that Mr. Mangan had failed to
undertake the necessary notifications to clients, opposing counsel, and
courts and to follow up those notifications with an affidavit to the Board
required by Rule 7.3(i)(1)(B) & (C).  The Board also alleged that Mr. Mangan
had assisted a litigant in filling out a transcript request form.  Mr. Mangan
has admitted that he did not undertake any particular notification to courts
or former clients regarding his disbarment and that he did not submit the
required affidavit within the time frame demanded by the rule.  He further
concedes that he did assist Mr. Girardin in the filling out of the transcript
request form.  
	Mr. Mangan also indicates that he has no clients to notify and that
there are no courts in which he has matters pending as an attorney. 
Whether or not the assistance with the transcript request form constituted
the unlawful practice of law, Mr. Mangan will not engage in such actions
again, unless and until he is fully reinstated to the practice of law.  
	Without objection from Mr. Mangan, I therefore find him in contempt
for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 7.3(i).  Other than the
requirements set out below, no further penalty is ordered.  After
consultation with Mr. Mangan and Attorney Davis, and with the agreement of
both parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
a.  Affidavit
	Within thirty days of the docketing of this order
Mr. Mangan shall file an affidavit with the Board of Overseers of
the Bar.  That affidavit shall contain Mr. Mangan's averment that
he is not engaged in the practice of law; that he does not have
clients who would be entitled to receive notification under Rule
7.3(i)(1)(B); and that he does not have pending before any court
or agency any matter in which he appears as an attorney.  
b.  Files
	In order to assure that there is no confusion regarding
Mr. Mangan's professional files, he shall cause to be published a
notification in the Lewiston Sun Journal alerting the public to
the following:  Any former client may obtain a copy of his or her
file by contacting Attorney Richard Golden at his legal office. 
The notice shall include the professional address and phone
number for Attorney Golden.  Within fourteen days of the
docketing of this order Mr. Mangan shall consult with Attorney
Golden to obtain his consent to the appointment pursuant to
Rule 7.3(f). Unless Attorney Golden declines to accept
appointment, Mr. Mangan shall cause the publication of notice to
occur within thirty-five days of the docketing of this order; shall
send a copy of the publication request to the Board; and shall
provide a copy of the actual Lewiston Sun Journal publication to
the Board of Overseers of the Bar within fourteen days of its
	If Attorney Golden is willing to accept the responsibility
placed on him through this order, he shall be responsible for
accepting communications from Mr. Mangan's former clients,
and for assuring that those former clients receive their files or
any requested documents from those files.  Any inquiries to the
Board of Overseers of the Bar regarding Mr. Mangan's files shall
be directed to Attorney Golden.  Attorney Golden shall not be
required at this time to undertake an inventory of the files.
4.  Motion for Declaratory Judgment	
	The motion for declaratory judgment filed by Mr. Mangan earlier in
this matter was related to confusion in the clerks' offices regarding his
ability to prosecute his own legal matters pro se.  After conferring with
Mr. Mangan, Attorney Davis and Susan Bement, Clerk of the Lewiston
District Court, I am convinced that the clerk's office with which Mr. Mangan
primarily does business has cleared up any confusion regarding
Mr. Mangan's rights in this matter.  Because this is a matter of general
concern to clerks' offices, I will alert the Chief Judge of the District Court to
the potential for confusion.  The parties in this matter understand and agree
that Mr. Mangan is entitled to pursue nonfrivolous litigation in his own name
in any court of this state, just as any other citizen may do.  Thus, the motion
for declaratory judgment is also MOOT.
	The entry is:
The motion for contempt is granted. 
Mr. Mangan is found in contempt.  No sanction
is imposed, except that Mr. Mangan shall
comply with the orders contained herein.  The
motions for discovery and for declaratory
judgment are declared moot.  The motion to
recuse is denied.

	Dated:  February 27, 2001

							Leigh I. Saufley
							Associate Justice
FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} . Mr. Mangan filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment in the days just preceding the hearing, which is not addressed herein.

Back to the Bar Discipline Decisions page.

Back to the Opinions page.