Opinion ID: 2333768
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bar Proceedings

Text: In May 2009, after receiving grievances against Shea, the Bar petitioned for a formal hearing before the Area Hearing Committee. The petition detailed Shea's involvement with David and Deborah and highlighted Shea's court filings, including the 72-page memorandum for sanctions against Attorney O, a 21-page memorandum accusing David of judicial stalking, a 69-page letter to the family corporation's attorney with over 90 exhibits containing criminal accusations against David, and a 28-page response to David's motion for sanctions in the trust suit, alleging criminal conspiracy. The Bar alleged four counts against Shea: (1) conflict of interest by representing Deborah in proceedings in which her interests were adverse to David's; [7] (2) disclosure of confidential information by using information gained while representing David against him, while representing Deborah; [8] (3) false statements of fact in court pleadings by alleging David and his attorneys were engaged in numerous white collar federal and state crimes as well as a criminal conspiracy; [9] and (4) filing abusive pleadings and using his own credibility and connections to law enforcement while representing Deborah. [10] Shea denied the charges, accused David of judicial stalking by improperly instituting litigation against Deborah, and alleged David is seriously ill and either cannot or will not be truthful and cannot define `right from wrong.' Shea then filed a motion asking the Committee to order a mental examination of [David] ... pursuant to [Alaska] Civil Rule 35. [11] Shea accused David of having a mental illness, using psychotropic medication, bullying, stalking, and engaging in sadistic conduct. Shea contended David's counsel all know [David] is ill and a threat to Deborah... and others who oppose his conduct, concluded David's mental health was in controversy, and argued good cause existed to require a mental examination. The Committee denied Shea's motion. The Committee stated that because the Bar and Shea were the only parties before it, Civil Rule 35 did not allow a court-ordered mental examination of David. In February 2010 the Committee held a five-day formal hearing to determine whether Shea violated ethical duties. At the hearing Shea argued that Attorneys B, T, and O made intentional ongoing misrepresentation[s] to multiple judges ... that this gentleman, [David], knows what he's saying, and can testify to the truth. Shea claimed the attorneys knowingly allowed David to sign false affidavits regarding whether David had helped care for his mother. Shea argued that bringing lawsuits on David's behalf to destroy [Deborah] mentally, physically and financially, constitutes a criminal conspiracy. Shea indicated he used the word satanic in his filings to mean David had engaged in evil conduct, and that the substantial litigation-related purpose of his statement was to define the truth. The Committee found Shea obtained substantial confidential information about [David] during his representation of David. The Committee also found that during the series of lawsuits involving David and Deborah, [Deborah's] interests were, for the most part, directly adverse to [David's] interests and that Shea never sought or received David's informed consent to the representation. After quoting forceful[] language from Shea's filings, the Committee found each statement was intended to state or imply that [David] had, in the past, abused medical colleagues, staff and others. With respect to Shea's criminal conduct allegations, the Committee found Shea's statements that one or more attorneys representing [David] were involved `in a conspiracy in furtherance of criminal conduct and fraud' or in `criminal acts' are false, and that there was no reasonable basis in law or fact for such assertions. Lastly, the Committee found that while representing Deborah, Shea made various statements and took various actions, the primary purpose and effect of which was to embarrass, demean, offend, intimidate and harm the reputations of [David] and his counsel. The Committee's conclusions of law addressed all four counts. First, it concluded that Shea violated Professional Conduct Rule 1.9(a) when he represented Deborah and David in substantially related matters, possessed confidential information about David, and failed to obtain David's informed consent before representing Deborah. Second, the Committee ruled in Shea's favor on the disclosure of confidential information count because it could not conclude, based on clear and convincing evidence, that [Shea's] general references to [David]'s alleged abuse were based on information gained during his representation of [David], rather than on independently gained information. Third, the Committee concluded Shea knowingly made false material statements in violation of Professional Conduct Rules 3.1 and 3.3 when he alleged a criminal conspiracy. Fourth, the Committee found Shea filed unprofessional documents in violation of Professional Conduct Rule 4.4 because, when viewed in its entirety, [Shea's] conduct ... was replete with demeaning, offensive, insulting, intemperate, frivolous and outrageous conduct and statements. [12] In May the Committee held a hearing to determine appropriate sanctions. The Bar sought a three- to five-year suspension or disbarment, and Shea countered that his license should not be suspended. The Bar called Attorney T and David to testify about the harm they suffered, and submitted an affidavit from Attorney O. Shea called no witnesses. The Bar suggested there were several aggravating factorsdishonest or selfish motive, pattern misconduct, multiple offenses, submission of false statements during the disciplinary process, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, and substantial experience in the practice of lawwhile the only mitigating factor was Shea's lack of disciplinary history. Shea's closing argument generally reiterated his position that because David is satanic, Shea's actions were necessary to prevent ongoing fraud. While the Committee's sanctions decision was pending, Shea filed a document titled Offer of Settlement and Resolution by Wev Shea with Notice to Hearing Panel of Ongoing Fraud, Perjury and Subornation of Perjury by [David], His Attorneys and the [Alaska Bar Association]. Shea demanded that: the Assistant Bar Counsel handling Shea's case resign; the private attorney acting as Special Bar Counsel handling Shea's case notify his insurance carriers of prosecutorial incompetence; the Bar's counsel attend an annual seminar on various types of abuse; the Bar apologize to Shea in writing; and Assistant Bar Counsel and Special Bar Counsel cooperate with law enforcement in criminal investigations of David and Attorneys O, B, and T, and dismiss the disciplinary matter against Shea. About one week later, Shea filed a document titled Motion/Memo to Dismiss [Alaska Bar Association] Petition with Prejudice Due to [Alaska Bar Association's] `Prosecutorial Misconduct' Including Intentional Subordination of Perjury by Assistant Disciplinary Counsel[] and Special Counsel [] Requiring ARPC 3.3/Civil Rule 11 Sanctions. The Committee denied Shea's motion to dismiss. In reaching its sanctions decision, the Committee applied the American Bar Association's standards for sanctions, considering: (1) ethical duties the lawyer violated; (2) the lawyer's mental state; (3) the extent of injuries caused by the misconduct; and (4) aggravating and mitigating factors. The Committee incorporated its previous findings and conclusions, adding that Shea acted with a knowing mental state ... repeatedly and over a number of years. The Committee also agreed with the Bar's analysis regarding the aggravating and mitigating factors. The Committee determined a 25-month suspension was appropriate, noting that Alaska Bar Rule 29(c)(1) added additional burdens prior to reinstatement. The Committee also added a proviso that prior to applying for reinstatement, Shea be required to demonstrate, via evidence from a psychiatrist or psychologist, that [he] is mentally fit to return to the practice of law and meet the moral character and fitness requirements imposed by Bar Rule 2, Section 1(d). Shea subsequently filed several motions for reconsideration, all of which the Committee denied. Shea appealed to the Disciplinary Board and filed a document titled Notice of [David]'s June 29, 2010 Assault on [Deborah] with 2nd Settlement Offer for Resolution by [Shea] alleging that David had assaulted Deborah, and that Attorney B again perjured himself in his attempt to protect sadistic bullying, repeating many of the allegations and demands from his first settlement offer, and adding a demand for the Bar to pay Shea $3 million and Deborah $6 million due to the conduct of the Bar's witnesses throughout the proceedings. After a hearing the Board issued a two-page order adopting the Committee's findings, conclusions, and sanctions recommendation, and suggested immediate interim suspension. Shea raised 26 points on appeal to this court. His arguments follow two themes: (1) the Committee erred in its determination that Shea's statements regarding David's involvement in a criminal conspiracy and his general attitude were false; and (2) Shea's conduct was necessary to stop corruption and wrongdoing. Before oral argument Shea filed a document titled Motion and Memorandum to Preserve the [Alaska Bar Association]'s Institutional Integrity and Honor and the Need for 5th Amendment Protection of the [Alaska Bar Association] `Prosecution' Attorneys. He argued that [t]he [Alaska Bar Association]'s historic inept investigation, its intentional coverup and intentional prosecutorial misconduct with ongoing `serious crimes' is uncontroverted/undeniable. Shea accused the Bar's counsel of suborning perjury and engaging in prosecutorial malfeasance. After the Bar responded, we held the motion in abeyance for consideration with the merits of Shea's disciplinary matter. We issued an order agreeing that the Board had proved disciplinary violations by clear and convincing evidence and adopting the recommended discipline, indicating an opinion would follow. [13]