Opinion ID: 2188622
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: count iv(a)

Text: This count arises out of respondent's representation of Ann Marie Limoge in Lawrence v. Limoge, also a child custody dispute. Doctor Pamela Langelier was appointed as an independent expert in that case, and she testified in October 1987. Based on her testimony, the court awarded temporary custody of Ms. Limoge's daughter to the father, David Lawrence. When respondent entered the case in November 1987, he reviewed Dr. Langelier's testimony and consulted his own expert witness. After concluding that Dr. Langelier's evaluation was erroneous, respondent wrote her on December 21, 1987, conveying his conclusion, seeking to provide her with more facts, and stating: If you would be willing to spend up to an hour in your office discussing the case and reviewing the new information with me, I could offer to you a signed promise by Ann Marie Limoge not to hold you or the institute liable in any way for any damages caused by your mistake. (This waiver would only be effective if you retracted your previous testimony in writing prior to any court hearing which ultimately results in the return to Ann Marie of custody of [her daughter].) At the time that he sent the letter, respondent had not obtained the authorization of his client to offer a waiver. Dr. Langelier responded that she felt threatened by respondent's letter. While the committee questioned whether respondent had any good-faith basis to assert potential civil liability against Dr. Langelier, it did not find an independent ground for misconduct in respondent's motive. However, the committee found that sending the letter did violate DR 1-102(A)(5) and (A)(7) because it constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and reflected adversely on respondent's fitness to practice. The committee also found that the letter violated DR 7-109(C) because it offered payment to a witness contingent upon the content of [her] testimony or the outcome of the case. It found that in acting without his client's authorization, respondent also violated DR 1-102(A)(4) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) and DR 1-102(A)(7).