Doctor Accused of Stalking, Having Sex with Patient

By PHILLIP BANTZ
Sentinel Staff
The Keene Sentinel: Tuesday, March 23, 2010

A Keene psychologist has surrendered his license to practice mental health therapy in the wake of allegations he sexually assaulted and stalked a patient.

Dr. Burton G. Hollenbeck, 56, of Richmond has been indicted in Cheshire County on eight counts of felonious aggravated sexual assault, two counts of violating a protective order and one count of witness tampering.

Each sexual assault charge carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 to 20 years. Witness tampering, also a felony, is punishable by 3 1/2 to seven years in prison. Violating a protective order is a misdemeanor charge with a possible sentence of a year in jail.

Hollenbeck’s attorney, Cathy J. Green of Manchester, declined an interview request but released the following statement: “Dr. Hollenbeck will enter pleas of not guilty to all of these charges and is confident that when all of the facts are brought before the court, justice will prevail.”

Hollenbeck, who worked out of an office on Roxbury Street in Keene, hung up on a reporter when reached by phone Monday.

In late January, Hollenbeck agreed to quit practicing psychology in New Hampshire until the state Board of Mental Health Practice resolves the allegations of misconduct pending against him. Psychologists are barred by ethical code from having sex with current clients or former clients within two years of the termination of therapy.

The sexual assault indictments against Hollenbeck allege that he had sex with a 36-year-old patient eight times between March and October 2008. State law forbids doctors from having sex with current patients or former patients within a year of the termination of therapy. The patient’s identity in this case is being protected because The Sentinel does not name alleged victims of sexual assault.

The state Attorney General’s Office has appointed Hillsborough County Attorney Robert M. Walsh to prosecute the case. Walsh did not return messages seeking comment.

The alleged victim and her husband — they were married in 1995 and have two children — began seeing Hollenbeck for marriage counseling in mid-2006.

After learning that the wife had been abused when she was younger, Hollenbeck asked her to have one-on-one therapy sessions with him, according to separate lawsuits the wife and husband have filed against Hollenbeck.

They are seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation for mental anguish, emotional distress, lost wages, legal fees and other damages, losses or expenses they say they suffered as a result of the alleged affair and Hollenbeck’s “wanton, malicious and oppressive” actions.

Shortly after the wife started her private sessions with Hollenbeck, the doctor bought her golf equipment, gold and pearl earrings, paid her auto insurance, gave her $200 toward a trip to Europe and paid $50 for her monthly phone bill between March and November 2008, according to the husband and his attorney, William Aivalikles of Nashua.

The wife and Hollenbeck became involved in a romantic relationship in February 2008, the husband states in his lawsuit. In October, Hollenbeck’s office manager blew the whistle on the alleged affair, but the wife and doctor denied the allegations, according to the lawsuit.

The husband states in court documents that he wrote a letter in support of Hollenbeck because he could not believe the doctor was having a romantic relationship with his wife.

But in early December, the wife came forward and admitted she was having an affair with Hollenbeck, her lawsuit states. She then ended the relationship, according to her lawsuit.

Her attorney, Paul M. DeCarolis of Nashua, declined to comment on the case.

“All I can say is we’re confident that the case will get before a civil jury in Cheshire County and the jury will issue the appropriate justice,” DeCarolis said.

Court documents indicate the wife is seeking at least $400,000 in compensation from Hollenbeck. Her husband wants $500,000.

Both lawsuits have been suspended until Hollenbeck’s criminal case concludes.

After the wife ended her romantic relationship with Hollenbeck, the doctor began stalking her, according to her lawsuit.

Claremont District Court Judge John J. Yazinski barred Hollenbeck from contacting the wife in a Dec. 22, 2008, restraining order. In her request for the restraining order, the wife writes that Hollenbeck followed her to a gas station on Dec. 3 and tried to block her car with his vehicle.

“I refused to tell him where I was going so he followed me all around Keene and a few miles out before giving up and turning around,” she wrote. “I fear for my life because I have reported him to the Board and I don’t know what he will do, how he will react and I have many phone messages for you to hear his temper.”

She writes that Hollenbeck won’t stop calling her and sending her text messages and that she’s seen him parked outside her house.

Four days after the incident at the gas station, Hollenbeck pulled the keys out of the ignition of the wife’s vehicle while she was trying to drive away from him during another confrontation, according to her statement in support of the restraining order.

Hollenbeck “told me I could have them back when I got to his office. Despite repeated (requests) to give them back he went to his office. As I entered he grabbed me and threw me on the couch. He threw me many times whenever I was able to get out of his grip. I told him, ‘No Burt No! Get off me!’ to no avail.”

Hollenbeck is accused of violating the restraining order by contacting the wife on Dec. 22 and Dec. 23, 2008. During the latter conversation, he told her, “I can’t help you from prison,” according to the indictments. The alleged statement led to the witness tampering charge.

On Dec. 31, 2008, Hollenbeck was arrested for violating the restraining order. He posted $25,000 bail and was released from jail the next day. The restraining order remains active.

Read Full Post »

Judge: No Retrial For Chevalier

By PHILLIP BANTZ
Sentinel Staff
The Keene Sentinel: March 18, 2010

The effort to free a man serving 10 to 30 years in prison for kidnapping a Jaffrey woman has hit a legal roadblock. A Superior Court judge rejected a request to give Brian R. Chevalier a new trial.

In 2004, Chevalier, 43, was acquitted in Cheshire County Superior Court of 10 other criminal charges — including aggravated sexual assault, criminal threatening and burglary — but a jury found him guilty of the kidnapping charge.

His ex-girlfriend testified during the trial that Chevalier held her against her will and repeatedly raped her at her Jaffrey home. The Sentinel does not identify alleged victims of sexual abuse.

Chevalier’s attorney, Justin P. Nadeau of Portsmouth, who has volunteered his legal services, and two retired police officials — one is a state representative — believe the ex-girlfriend concocted the rape and kidnapping story.

They base their belief on her phone records from the night of the incident and a linguistic polygraph test of the statement she gave to police. The linguistic polygraph test, known as Scientific Content Analysis, or SCAN, is used by law enforcement officials to gauge the reliability of a person’s retelling of an incident.

The ex-girlfriend testified during Chevalier’s trial that Chevalier became angry while he was kidnapping her because she was receiving calls from an unidentified caller during a three and a half hour period, but her phone records show no calls during that time, according to Nadeau.

Her statement to police about the incident is inconsistent and she uses language that indicates she was not a victim, according to John M. Healy, a retired N.H. State Police lieutenant who teaches the SCAN technique.

One of Healy’s students, state Rep. Dudley “Dan” Dumaine, R-Auburn, who is a former Keene police officer, also believes Chevalier is innocent.

Healy, Dumaine and Nadeau believe the ex-girlfriend concocted the story after her estranged husband walked in on her and Chevalier the morning after they spent the night together. They say she feared she’d lose custody of her daughter if her husband brought up her infidelity during divorce proceedings.

In an e-mail to The Sentinel, the woman said her now-ex-husband was engaged to another woman before the attack.

“I have never had a reason to lie. I did not lie,” she wrote. “My divorce was final long before things went to trial. I could have refused to testify.”

She declined requests for a phone or in-person interview.

Meanwhile, Nadeau filed a motion with Coos County Superior Court requesting that Chevalier be given a retrial based on the phone records and SCAN of the ex-girlfriend’s statement. The case is playing out in Coos because Chevalier is imprisoned there.

Nadeau believes jurors will overturn the kidnapping conviction after they hear about the SCAN of Chevalier’s ex-girlfriend’s statement.

He also believes that Chevalier’s original attorney, now-retired public defender Hampton W. Howard, was ineffective because he did not introduce the ex-girlfriend’s phone records during the first trial. Howard could not be reached for comment.

Judge Peter H. Bornstein recently rejected Nadeau’s request for a retrial. He concluded that Nadeau failed to prove that introducing the phone records or SCAN results would lead to a different outcome during a retrial.

Also, Howard cross-examined the ex-girlfriend during the first trial and convinced jurors that Chevalier was not guilty of 10 of the 11 charges he faced, which led Bornstein to determine that Howard handled the case effectively.

“For all of those charges, the victim was the only witness. … It is apparent, given the outcome of the case, that the jury did not believe much of the victim’s testimony,” Bornstein wrote in his decision.

“The petitioner has not shown a reasonable probability that SCAN evidence, which would have served only to further impeach the victim, would have yielded a different result.”

As for the phone records, another Superior Court judge, Timothy Vaughan, rejected a previous argument from Chevalier that introducing that evidence would have resulted in a different verdict. Because Chevalier did not appeal Vaughan’s decision, he waived further litigation on the argument, Bornstein ruled.

Calling Bornstein’s decision “disappointing,” Nadeau said he will appeal to the N.H. Supreme Court for a retrial. If that fails, he’ll take his request to federal court.

Nadeau said Chevalier’s case has been one of the most expensive cases he’s ever handled for free, or pro bono, in his career.

“When you take on a case pro bono, you do it because you want to, because you believe in the cause,” he said. “I believe in Brian Chevalier. I believe that at the end of the day he will have a fair hearing.”

Read Full Post »

Hinsdale Greyhound Park Bankruptcy Case Settled

By PHILLIP BANTZ
Sentinel Staff
The Keene Sentinel: March 12, 2010

MANCHESTER — Surrounded by three lawyers, the man who ran the now-shuttered Hinsdale Greyhound Park walked out of U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manchester Thursday afternoon, closing the door on a Chapter 7 case that began in December 2008.

Joseph E. Sullivan 3rd declined an interview request through one of his attorneys, Arpiar G. Saunders Jr., after the hearing. Sullivan believes the “court order stands for itself,” Saunders said.

In the order, Chief Judge Mark W. Vaughn called the bankruptcy settlement “fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate.”

The settlement Vaughn approved calls for drawing $1,086,120 from the estate to repay the track’s creditors.

Dozens of bettors who were unable to withdraw their wagering accounts when the track closed stand to be repaid about half of what they’re owed, said Deborah Notinger, an attorney for the bankruptcy trustee, Michael S. Askenaizer. The court appointed Askenaizer to liquidate the track’s assets.

One of the track’s biggest bettors, Herschel Bird of Nevada, disapproves of the settlement. He suspects that Sullivan, who had a salary of more than $200,000 during the three decades he ran the track and took out $650,000 in loans from the business, may have hidden assets from Askenaizer.

“When you’re asked to take 50 cents on the dollar, you feel like you’re being ripped off,” Bird said. “Something doesn’t ring true about Sullivan’s finances.”

Sullivan stated in a deposition with Notinger that he is destitute and financially dependent on his sister, who loaned him $70,000.

Sullivan and his wife own a house and two properties in Swanzey valued at an estimated $575,000.

But after a $375,000 mortgage, they have about $200,000 in equity in those assets, according to Sullivan’s deposition.

Sullivan also lists $123,206 in other personal property, which includes a 2003 Cadillac Seville, a 2004 Jeep Cherokee, jewelry and art.

Based on the advice of his attorney, Bird did not file an objection to the settlement with the court, which might have altered the outcome of Thursday’s hearing. None of the track’s other creditors objected to the deal.

Under the settlement, $400,000 will be taken from the proceeds of a land deal Sullivan and business partner Carl B. Thomas, who owns Spofford-based Thomas Construction Corp., made with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Sullivan has to come up with another $400,000 by selling the remaining former track land.

That land, about 66 acres, belongs to Hinsdale Real Estate LLC, a holding company Sullivan and Thomas created before the bankruptcy filing.

Sullivan sold the track land, originally 91 acres, and buildings to the holding company for $3.3 million.

Later, the holding company sold 25 acres to Wal-Mart for $2.1 million. The remaining 66 acres have been assessed at $1.2 million. The buildings on the property are assessed at $3.5 million.

Sullivan disagrees with those assessments. He has made an unsuccessful attempt to have Hinsdale lower the assessed value of the land and buildings, which would result in a decrease in property taxes. He is appealing the town’s decision to the state.

Sullivan and Thomas have two years to hand over $400,000 to the bankruptcy estate by selling all or some of the 66 acres at and around the track before the court steps in and forces an auction of the property.

The $800,000 from that land sale and the Wal-Mart deal will be combined with $286,120 the bankruptcy estate has from the track’s other liquidated assets, such as computers, furniture and vehicles that were auctioned last spring.

A peripheral condition of the settlement calls for Thomas to buy Sullivan’s 75 percent interest in Hinsdale Real Estate for $500,000.

Sullivan owes Thomas about $2.3 million for two loans secured by mortgages tied to the former track property. Thomas is gambling that he can recover his debt on the mortgages and perhaps make a profit by selling the 66 acres, even after the court takes a $400,000 cut from the proceeds.

“That land is worth bupkus. Nothing’s selling in that area,” Notinger said after the settlement hearing. “He’s taking all the risk and we’re getting money up front.”

Askenaizer and Notinger have raised concerns that Sullivan’s deal with Hinsdale Real Estate prior to the bankruptcy filing was a fraudulent property transfer.

But they agreed in the settlement to not pursue the allegation by filing a lawsuit against Sullivan.

They say legal action would be expensive and, even if it were successful, Askenaizer would be responsible for selling the track’s remaining property to pay off Thomas’ debt and the creditors.

Bird, the Nevada bettor, criticizes Askenaizer and Notinger for being too passive in their handling of the track’s bankruptcy — he wanted them to thoroughly investigate Sullivan’s finances instead of relying on the deposition and his financial affidavit.

Bird wants to know what Sullivan did with the money he made while working at the track and the $650,000 in loans he took from the business. Sullivan’s two daughters were also on the track’s payroll for years, making about $25,000 annually, even though they did not hold regular jobs, according to two former track employees who asked to remain anonymous.

In his deposition with Notinger, Sullivan indicates that he used a portion of the $650,000 that he took from the track to correct accounting errors.

Sullivan said the track’s vice president of operations, whom Sullivan appointed to run the company for a stint in 2005, had a gambling problem and used company money to fuel his addiction.

“When I had to let him go I went back in and the accounting was a wreck and I set about rebuilding it,” he told Notinger.

One of the former track employees wrote in an e-mail that Sullivan “representing himself to be ‘the cavalry’ riding back in to put (Hinsdale Greyhound Park) back in operating order after less than a year of mismanagement is bull crap. Joe never stopped controlling operations at HGP, he just hid in the shadows.”

Meanwhile, Bird said the track’s creditors may have gotten a raw deal because the bankruptcy trustee system is flawed. He said trustees have a financial incentive in the outcome of Chapter 7 cases in which assets are available to liquidate, which rarely happens.

Trustees receive a percentage of the funds they gather for the bankruptcy estate based on a sliding scale that ranges from 25 percent for the first $5,000, 10 percent for the next $45,000, 5 percent for the next $950,000 and 3 percent of the balance. They can also be paid for legal services.

The amount of Askenaizer’s payout was unclear and he did not return a phone message before press time today. An attempt to reach Notinger was also unsuccessful.

Read Full Post »

Effort to Free Imprisoned N.H. Man Gains Momentum

By PHILLIP BANTZ
Sentinel Staff

The Keene Sentinel: February 21, 2010

A Portsmouth lawyer has joined the effort to overturn a kidnapping conviction against Brian R. Chevalier, a Merrimack man who has been in prison since the conclusion of his 2004 trial in Cheshire County.

Justin Nadeau, who last year won a landmark state case that paved the way for grandparents seeking visitation rights with their grandchildren, has taken Chevalier’s case pro bono.

Nadeau wants a judge to set aside Chevalier’s kidnapping conviction and hold another trial on the charge.

He argued during a hearing Thursday at Coos County Superior Court — the case is being heard in Coos because Chevalier is imprisoned there — that he has evidence that will prove Chevalier’s innocence.

If Judge Peter Bornstein declines to give Chevalier, 43, a second trial, Nadeau could take his argument to the federal level at U.S. District Court in Concord.

“This can definitely end right here in state court,” he said. “We’re hoping.”

A former Keene police officer, state Rep. Dudley “Dan” Dumaine, R-Auburn, and Justin M. Healy, a retired N.H. State Police lieutenant, also believe Chevalier is innocent. They say the statement that Chevalier’s accuser, an ex-girlfriend, gave to police doesn’t add up.

She wrote that Chevalier ambushed her inside her Jaffrey home, then held her hostage for 21 hours while he threatened and sexually assaulted her.

Her name is being withheld because The Sentinel does not identify alleged victims of sexual abuse. Attempts to contact her have been unsuccessful.

Chevalier was tried on 11 charges ranging from aggravated sexual assault to criminal threatening, burglary and kidnapping.

After deliberating for two days, a jury acquitted Chevalier of every charge but kidnapping. Because Chevalier had prior convictions for property crimes, he qualified for an enhanced prison sentence and received 10 to 30 years.

Chevalier’s lead public defender, Hampton W. Howard, had argued at trial that Chevalier’s ex-girlfriend concocted the rape and kidnapping story. He said the woman panicked when her estranged husband and young daughter walked in on her and Chevalier the morning after they spent the night together.

The woman feared she’d lose custody of her daughter if her husband brought up her infidelity during divorce proceedings, so she lied about her relationship with Chevalier to protect her own interests, Howard said in court.

Dumaine and Healy also concluded that she concocted the rape and kidnapping story after analyzing the written statement she gave to police after the incident. They used a linguistic polygraph test known as Scientific Content Analysis, or SCAN, to study the statement.

Healy trains local, state and federal law enforcement officials to use the technique. He was teaching a seminar in Boston when a police officer brought Chevalier’s ex-girlfriend’s written statement to class.

Healy used the document, which did not identify Chevalier or his ex-girlfriend, as an example of a blatantly deceptive statement. Healy found that the writer was inconsistent in her retelling of the incident and she used language that indicated she was not a victim.

Dumaine, a former longtime Keene police officer, enrolled in one of Healy’s seminars and, after seeing the statement, convinced Healy to track down Chevalier.

Nadeau said he trusts the SCAN technique and hopes a judge will allow Dumaine and Healy to testify about their findings if Chevalier gets a new trial.

Nadeau also wants to introduce the ex-girlfriend’s phone records — evidence that, like the statement analysis, was not presented during the first trial.

Nadeau said Chevalier’s ex-girlfriend testified that Chevalier kept her from answering the home phone and ordered her to play back any messages that were left on her answering machine.

She said she received several calls between 5:30 and 9 p.m., and each call made Chevalier more agitated because the caller kept hanging up without leaving a message, according to Nadeau.

She said Chevalier threatened to kill her if she didn’t tell him who was calling, and he dialed *69 in an attempt to identify the caller, Nadeau said.

But phone records show no calls were made to the ex-girlfriend’s house during the 31/2–hour timeframe she testified about, Nadeau said.

He said Howard, Chevalier’s former public defender, should have presented the phone records during trial to contradict the ex-girlfriend’s statements and “impeach her credibility.”

“This newly discovered evidence, the SCAN analysis and the phone records, would have had a profound effect on the jury and would have resulted in acquittal at trial,” Nadeau said.

Howard has retired from the public defender office. He did not return a message left at his residence.

In a March 2009 interview with The Sentinel, Chevalier proclaimed his innocence and said he was desperate to find a lawyer to fight for him.

“I’m not claiming to be an angel. I’ve done a lot of things. I’ve been in prison before,” he said. “But I did not do this. I did not rape or kidnap anyone. I’m just hoping that somebody will take another look at this case.”

Read Full Post »

Settlement Proposed in Hinsdale Greyhound Bankruptcy

By PHILLIP BANTZ
Sentinel Staff

The Keene Sentinel: February 25, 2010

A proposed settlement has been reached in the Hinsdale Greyhound Park bankruptcy case that would help reimburse creditors and forgive the former track’s president for an alleged fraudulent property transfer prior to the Chapter 7 filing.

The track closed in December 2008, leaving dozens of racing bettors with an estimated $500,000 in their wagering accounts holding the bag. The track also owes more than $1 million to additional creditors, including other tracks it did business with.

The proposal calls for drawing $400,000 from an escrow account and another $400,000 from the sale of the property at and around the now-defunct track, which includes 106 acres. The $800,000 will be combined with another $286,120 the bankruptcy estate has from the track’s other liquidated assets.

This would give bankruptcy trustee Michael S. Askenaizer $1,086,120 to help repay the track’s debts. A trustee is a third party appointed by the court to administer a debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

“The trustee believes, in his best business judgment, that this settlement with the settling parties is fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate,” Askenaizer wrote in the proposal.

As part of the proposed settlement, Askenaizer would agree to not sue Sullivan and his estate for an alleged fraudulent transfer of property to a real estate holding company, subordination of mortgages and a $650,000 promissory note former track president Joseph E. Sullivan 3rd took from the track when it was operational.

Askenaizer wrote in the proposal that while sufficient evidence exists to file and possibly win a lawsuit against Sullivan, doing so would “involve the expenditure of lots of attorneys’ fees and expert fees in order to prevail.”

And even if the lawsuit were successful, Askenaizer said he would have to sell the track’s remaining property, pay off a $2.3 million debt to Sullivan’s business partner Carl B. Thomas and cover property taxes and other costs from carrying the property.

“Given the depressed values of the commercial real estate market in southwestern New Hampshire, where the remaining property is located, the trustee believes refusing this settlement offer and litigating instead is not in the best interests of the estate,” Askenaizer wrote.

Before the bankruptcy filing, Sullivan sold the track’s property and buildings for $3.3 million to Hinsdale Real Estate LLC, a holding company he created with Thomas of Spofford-based Thomas Construction Corp.

The holding company later sold 23 acres to Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for $2.1 million, with $500,000 going into the bankruptcy estate escrow account that, under the settlement proposal, could be used to repay creditors. The rest of the proceeds paid off a portion of Sullivan’s debt from property taxes and loans.

Sullivan still owes Thomas about $2.3 million. The debt is tied to two loans for a total of $2.1 million, plus interest, that Thomas gave to Sullivan. The loans are secured to mortgages against the track property.

The settlement proposal gives Hinsdale Real Estate two years to sell the remaining track property, about 83 acres. The bankruptcy estate will take 65 percent of the sale proceeds until it receives $400,000. The other 35 percent will be used to pay Thomas for the mortgages.

The remaining $100,000 from the escrow account tied to the Wal-Mart land deal will be used to pay outstanding property taxes.

If the land doesn’t sell within two years, the property would go to auction.

A separate agreement under the settlement proposal would give Thomas full control over Hinsdale Real Estate. He plans to purchase Sullivan’s 75 percent interest in the company for $500,000, according to Askenaizer.

Askenaizer and Sullivan’s bankruptcy attorney could not be reached for comment. Sullivan has declined to answer questions about the case.

A hearing on the settlement proposal is slated for March 11 at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manchester.

Read Full Post »

O’Meara Closer to Disbarment

Timothy O'Meara

By PHILLIP BANTZ
Sentinel Staff

The Keene Sentinel: February 09, 2010

A personal injury lawyer based in Keene is one step closer to losing his license to practice law in New Hampshire.

A hearing panel for the N.H. Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office recommended Monday that Timothy A. O’Meara be disbarred for violating several rules of conduct.

The four-member panel of lawyers and non-lawyers concluded that O’Meara lied to a paralyzed client and her family and coerced them to sign an agreement to pay him $2 million in legal fees.

The panel determined that O’Meara placed his interests above the interests of his client.

In a scathing 40-page decision against O’Meara, panel Chairman Robert C. Varney wrote that “it is apparent greed got the best of Mr. O’Meara.”

O’Meara has referred questions about his disciplinary case to his attorney, Michael R. Callahan, who did not return messages left at his Concord office.

The panel’s recommendation to disbar O’Meara has been forwarded to the state’s Professional Conduct Committee, which will issue its own decision.

If the committee decides O’Meara should be disbarred, the case will be bumped up to the Supreme Court.

The state’s highest court has final say on any disciplinary cases that involve the possibility of disbarment or any other sanction greater than a six-month suspension from practicing law.

Disbarment is rare in New Hampshire. Only two lawyers have been banned from practicing law in the state since 2006.

Lawyers who are disbarred in one state are commonly disbarred in every other state where they are authorized to practice law.

O’Meara is a bar member in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Vermont.

Disbarred lawyers can apply for readmission, but they must retake the bar exam, pass character and fitness hearings and undergo rehabilitation, said James L. DeHart, general counsel for the N.H. Attorney Discipline Office.

“They’ve got to show that they’ve done something to rehabilitate their lives so their conduct is such that it’s not likely they will offend again,” he said.

In 2005, O’Meara agreed to represent Anita Conant after a paving company’s dump truck slammed into the back of her car.

Conant, a Hampton resident, was stopped at a lighted intersection in Pennsylvania, where she was attending her father’s funeral, when the speeding truck hit her car.

The car was launched into the air and sailed about 130 feet before it landed on its roof. The impact severed Conant’s spine. She was left paralyzed from the neck down.

O’Meara sued the paving company, Lyons & Hohl Paving Inc., and offered to settle the case for the company’s $11 million insurance policy limit through The Cincinnati Insurance Companies. Lyons & Hohl kicked in another $500,000 as part of the settlement.

The Conants say they never authorized the settlement, which represents less than half of what a certified life-care planner, who O’Meara hired, determined it would cost to care for Conant during her lifetime.

O’Meara disregarded the estimated life-care costs and went after the settlement because he wanted a quick payday, according to disciplinary counsel Landya B. McCafferty, who represented the Conants during the panel hearings.

McCafferty declined comment on the panel’s decision.

After the Conants confronted O’Meara about making the alleged unauthorized offer, O’Meara mailed a letter to Cincinnati Insurance stating that the Conants had withdrawn their settlement demand.

While he wrote the letter on Jan. 24, 2006, he dated it for Jan. 20 — several days before the insurance company had accepted O’Meara’s settlement proposal.

O’Meara testified during the panel hearings that the erroneous date was an innocent mistake.

“The Panel finds no credibility in Mr. O’Meara’s testimony that the date on the letter was just a ‘mistake,’” Varney wrote in the panel’s decision.

A correct date would have rendered the letter useless because Cincinnati Insurance had already accepted O’Meara’s offer for the policy limit by that date, according to the panel.

When the Conants learned of O’Meara’s alleged unauthorized settlement offer, they asked him to reduce his fee. They also asked what would happen if they fired him.

“Mr. O’Meara replied he would sue for his full one-third fee,” Varney wrote. “He also told the group he would win.”

However, O’Meara’s contract gave the Conants the option to fire him and pay him and any of the employees at his firm who worked on the case $275 an hour. O’Meara testified that he never told the Conants about this option, and he did not keep track of the hours his firm spent on the case.

During a heated meeting with the Conants, O’Meara agreed to insert “to be negotiated” into his contract for his legal fee. This happened after he failed to persuade the family to pay him $2 million in fees, according to the panel.

But O’Meara testified that the family did, in fact, make a verbal agreement to pay him $2 million during the meeting.

He said the new fee was not written into the contract during the meeting because he “has terrible handwriting” and because he was “on his way out the door of the Conant residence, it was snowing heavily, and it had been a long day,” Varney wrote.

The panel rejected both explanations, calling them “incredible.”

During the final day of mediation at a courthouse in Philadelphia, O’Meara used “strong-arm tactics” to pressure the Conants to sign a contract that gave him $2 million in legal fees, Varney wrote.

He told the Conants that he would walk away from their case, moments before the court hearing, if they continued to refuse to sign the contract, according to the panel.

The Conants signed the contract, but they disputed O’Meara’s legal fees once the case was settled. After arbitration, O’Meara received $1.6 million — the largest payment of his law career.

The panel’s decision to recommend disbarment was also influenced by Conant’s vulnerability, according to Varney.

Conant, who is unable to speak or care for herself, attended the panel hearings with her family. Strapped into a bulky wheelchair, she sat across the room from O’Meara, her respirator making an air-sucking whistle every few seconds.

The panel said O’Meara took advantage of the Conants while they were worried about an uncertain financial future and busy caring for Conant.

“The Panel finds that Mr. O’Meara inappropriately attempted to use these factors to leverage himself into a stronger position for negotiating a $2 million fee,” Varney wrote.

O’Meara’s checkered past also played a role in the panel’s decision.

He was publicly censured in 2003 for lying to a judge about an erroneous date he placed on a court document while representing himself in a divorce and child custody case. And when he was a student at Franklin Pierce Law Center he was suspended for cheating.

“This pattern of conduct indicates either the lack of a moral compass, or an inability to comprehend what constitutes acceptable conduct in the practice of law, or both,” Varney wrote.

Read Full Post »

O’Meara Guilty of Misconduct; Facing Disbarment

By PHILLIP BANTZ
Sentinel Staff

The Keene Sentinel: December 15, 2009

After 16 years of practicing law, a prominent Keene personal injury lawyer might have to find a new profession.

Timothy A. O’Meara committed deceit, dishonesty, fraud or misrepresentation while handling a multimillion-dollar lawsuit for the family of Anita Conant, a Hampton woman who was paralyzed in a crash four years ago, according to a hearing panel for the N.H. Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office in Concord.

The panel, which is composed of three lawyers and a non-lawyer, heard four days of testimony from O’Meara, the Conants and other witnesses before finding “clear and convincing evidence” that O’Meara violated state rules of professional conduct, panel Chairman Robert C. Varney wrote in a Dec. 2 report.

Disciplinary counsel Landya B. McCafferty, who acted as a prosecutor during the hearings, recommended Monday that O’Meara be disbarred in the states where he is licensed to practice law: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Vermont.

O’Meara’s attorney, Michael R. Callahan, asked that O’Meara not face any sanctions, or, at most, be reprimanded.

A reprimand is at the lowest end of the disciplinary spectrum; disbarment is the harshest penalty. Other sanctions include public censure and suspension.

While the panel has 60 days to determine what, if any, disciplinary action O’Meara should face, it is expected to release a recommendation within the next two weeks, Callahan and McCafferty said.

The panel’s recommendation will be forwarded to the state’s Professional Conduct Committee, which will issue its own decision, usually in less than six months.

The conduct committee consists of eight lawyers and four non-lawyers and has final say on disciplinary cases in which the maximum sanction is a six-month suspension from practicing law. The state Supreme Court determines cases involving possible disbarment.

Callahan said he will argue against any disciplinary action that is greater than reprimand. He can present his argument to the conduct committee and, if necessary, the state Supreme Court.

After exhausting those appeals, the final recourse is filing an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

After a horrific crash, family faces legal woes

In May 2005, Anita Conant was stopped at a traffic light in Pennsylvania, where she was attending her father’s funeral, when a dump truck slammed into the back of her car.

The impact launched Conant’s car 130 feet down the road before it landed on its roof in a ditch.

Conant’s spine was severed and she was paralyzed from the neck down.

A week after the crash, Conant’s husband, James Conant, hired O’Meara on the recommendation of his brother, Craig Conant.

After taking the case, O’Meara consulted a certified life-care planner who determined it would cost more than $23 million to care for Anita Conant during her lifetime.

Then O’Meara pursued an $11.5 million settlement from Lyons & Hohl Paving Inc., the company that owned the dump truck involved in the crash, and its insurer, The Cincinnati Insurance Companies, according to McCafferty.

He went after and eventually received the settlement without authorization from the Conants and with disregard for the life-care planner’s estimate because he wanted a quick payday, according to McCafferty.

O’Meara wanted to collect at least $2 million in legal fees from the settlement, but the Conants contested his fees and a judge awarded him $1.6 million — the largest payment of his law career.

Before the settlement was finalized, the Conants had asked O’Meara what would happen if they fired him. He threatened to sue them for a third of any settlement they received, according to McCafferty.

During the disciplinary hearing, O’Meara denied threatening the Conants with litigation.

But he also testified that he never informed the Conants that their contract gave them the right to fire him at any time.

If the Conants had fired O’Meara, the contract stated that they would have to pay him and any of his employees who worked on their case $275 per hour.

No one at O’Meara’s firm kept track of the hours that went into the Conant case, according to O’Meara’s testimony. That means O’Meara might not have been able to collect any legal fees if the Conants had fired him.

O’Meara also backdated a crucial letter to an attorney for The Cincinnati Insurance Companies, according to McCafferty.

The letter notified the attorney, Robert Davis, that the Conants were unwilling to accept the insurance settlement that was on the table.

The letter was written the same day Davis accepted O’Meara’s unauthorized offer to settle the case, but it was dated four days earlier, according to McCafferty.

O’Meara testified that the erroneous date on the letter was an innocent mistake.

In 2003, O’Meara was publicly censured for a similar mistake. He lied to a judge about having the wrong date on a document he filed with the court while representing himself in a divorce and child custody case.

Because O’Meara had maintained an unblemished disciplinary record since he joined the state bar in 1993, the conduct committee opted for public censure rather than a harsher sanction.

Few disciplinary cases in New Hampshire reach the level of disbarment, which usually cripples a lawyer’s career.

Only two lawyers were barred from practicing law in the state last year, and no lawyers were disbarred in 2006 and 2007.

Read Full Post »

Judge Delays Young Man’s Sentencing, Says Case Deserves More Thought

By PHILLIP BANTZ
Sentinel Staff

The Keene Sentinel: December 11, 2009

A Cheshire County Superior Court judge has requested more time to decide the fate of a 19-year-old facing up to 21 years in prison for a slew of crimes.

Adam M. Laramie was slated to be sentenced Thursday after pleading guilty in August to conspiracy to commit armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, robbery, theft by deception, theft and receiving stolen property.

Laramie tried to rob the Beaver Street Market and the Connecticut River Bank in Keene on Dec. 15, 2008. He also duped an acquaintance into cashing a forged check, stole a co-worker’s purse and had a laptop that was purchased with a credit card from the purse.

Laramie was living in Swanzey when he was arrested. He has been locked up at the Cheshire County jail in Westmoreland for the past year, awaiting an end to his case.

Judge John P. Arnold was expected to send Laramie to N.H. State Prison at the conclusion of Thursday’s hearing.

Instead, Arnold asked Laramie’s court-appointed attorney, Adam P. Kossayda of Keene, to delve deeper into the young man’s background and present his findings in about a month.

Kossayda replaced Laramie’s original attorney, Michael C. Shklar of Newport, after Laramie accused Shklar of pressuring him to accept a plea deal. Shklar denied the allegation.

In a letter to The Sentinel in late November, Laramie wrote that he wanted to back out of the plea bargain he accepted while Shklar was representing him, but the court has denied his requests.

Arnold announced his decision to continue the sentencing hearing after lengthy discussions in his chambers with Kossayda and Assistant Cheshire County Attorney Kathleen G. O’Reilly. He said Laramie’s case raised “interesting issues.”

O’Reilly had asked Arnold to send Laramie to prison for four to 21 years, followed by a suspended prison sentence of seven to 14 years.

The suspended sentence would hang over Laramie’s head for 15 years after his release from prison. The sentence could be imposed if he was caught breaking the law during that time.

O’Reilly said in court that she would have asked for a lengthier prison sentence if Laramie were older.

“We have some very serious crimes here,” she said.

Kossayda argued during the hearing for six months to be shaved off the minimum end of the proposed prison sentence. He agreed to the remaining terms of the plea negotiation.

“He (Laramie) stands here pleading with you to have those six months of his life,” Kossayda told Arnold. “He’s owned up to (the crimes) by pleading guilty. He’s asking for some sort of leniency here.”

Saying that he was not offering excuses or justification for the crimes, but only some sort of explanation, Kossayda told Arnold about Laramie’s tumultuous childhood:

Laramie and his five siblings were raised in hotel rooms and homeless shelters as their mother struggled to make ends meet. When he was 7, Laramie was sexually assaulted. He was also physically abused.

That Laramie has a juvenile criminal record, which O’Reilly mentioned in court, is no surprise, given his upbringing, Kossayda said.

The string of crimes that led Laramie to the courtroom Thursday began soon after he was introduced to heroin on his 18th birthday in September 2008, Kossayda said.

Soon, Laramie had trouble staying employed and needed money to feed his addiction, he said.

Three months after he tried heroin, Laramie and three accomplices called in a bomb threat to Keene State College to create a diversion so they could rob the Connecticut River Bank, according to O’Reilly.

After making the bomb threat, the foursome approached the bank, some of them carrying weapons and masks, but abandoned the plan when a police cruiser rolled by them.

Later that day, Laramie entered the Beaver Street Market wearing a mask. He displayed a gun and demanded all the money in the store’s cash register. But the clerk didn’t take Laramie seriously — he thought the gun was a fake.

“Then I just played dumb, acted like I couldn’t open the register,” the clerk said in an interview after the incident.

“Finally he just got frustrated and left the store.”

Four police detectives who played a role in the investigation that led to Laramie’s arrest, or who were interested in the case, attended the hearing, as did Laramie’s father, stepmother and girlfriend.

Laramie glanced back toward his supporters before a bailiff led him from the courtroom. Arnold warned him to stay out of trouble in jail as he left.

“The issue now is: What’s the appropriate sentence?” Kossayda said after the hearing. “I’m going to figure out why we’re here and hopefully provide the court with enough information to make an appropriate sentence.”

Read Full Post »

Did Prominent Personal Injury Lawyer Break the Rules?

By PHILLIP BANTZ
Sentinel Staff

The Keene Sentinel: November 11, 2009

CONCORD — Testimony ended Tuesday in the case of a Keene lawyer accused of lying to his paraplegic client and forcing her family to accept an insurance settlement so he could collect a large payment.

A hearing panel for the N.H. Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office in Concord will decide whether Timothy A. O’Meara violated any rules of conduct in his dealings with the family of a Hampton woman whose spinal cord was severed in a May 2005 crash.

If the panel determines O’Meara violated any rules, it will decide what penalty he should face and make a recommendation to the Professional Conduct Committee. The panel and committee are both composed of lawyers and non-lawyers. Possible penalties O’Meara could face include reprimand, public censure, suspension or disbarment.

During the panel hearings, which began in October, disciplinary counsel Landya B. McCafferty presented the evidence against O’Meara, who was defended by Concord attorney Michael R. Callahan.

The family of Anita Conant hired O’Meara about a week after the crash that left her confined to a specialized wheelchair. Conant was attending her father’s funeral in Pennsylvania when a paving company’s dump truck slammed into the back of her car at about 55 mph while she was stopped at a red light.

The Conant family received $500,000 from the paving company, Lyons & Hohl Paving Inc., and $11 million from its insurer, The Cincinnati Insurance Companies. O’Meara wanted to collect at least $2 million in legal fees from the settlement, but the Conants contested his payment and a judge awarded him $1.6 million — the largest payment of his law career.

The settlement will not cover Conant’s daily medical expenses — it’s expected to cost more than $23 million to care for her during her lifetime, according to a certified life-care planner O’Meara hired while suing the paving company and its insurer.

O’Meara went after the $11.5 million settlement despite the life-care planner’s estimate for Conant so he could get paid quickly, McCafferty said.

Conant was positioned directly across the room from O’Meara during Tuesday’s hearing, watching him as he testified for about five hours, her ventilator unleashing an air-sucking whistle with each breath she took. Her husband, James, and their two sons, Sean and Todd, and daughter, Ashley, also attended the hearing.

The Conants say O’Meara settled their case without their authorization and pressured them to agree to pay him $2 million in legal fees at the last minute during a mediation hearing in Philadelphia. They also say he threatened to sue them for a third of any settlement they received and lied during testimony about his handling of the case after they contested his fees.

O’Meara contends that he had the authority to request an offer from the paving company, but not accept it. He says he never finalized the offer, which the Conants initially rejected but later accepted after hiring a new attorney. The Conants said they felt they had no other choice but to take the offer because of O’Meara’s dealings.

As for threatening to sue the Conants, O’Meara said he only mentioned during an emotionally charged meeting at their house months before the case was settled that litigation would be an option if they fired him. He denied making any threats.

The contract the Conants signed with O’Meara gave them the right to fire him at any time and pay him and other employees at his firm who worked on their case $275 per hour, McCafferty said.

But no one at O’Meara’s firm kept track of the hours that went into the Conants’ case, and O’Meara never told the Conants they could easily fire him because he knew he’d have trouble collecting any fees, McCafferty said.

O’Meara is also accused of backdating a letter to Robert Davis, an attorney for The Cincinnati Insurance Companies.

The letter notified Davis that the Conants were unwilling to accept the $11 million insurance settlement. It was written the same day Davis accepted O’Meara’s offer to settle the case for that amount, but dated four days earlier, McCafferty said.

O’Meara said the erroneous date on the letter was an innocent mistake.

This is not the first time O’Meara has been accused of changing the date on an official document, McCafferty said during Tuesday’s hearing.

In 2003, he was disciplined for lying to a judge about having the wrong date on a document he filed with the court while representing himself in a divorce and child custody case.

The conduct committee publicly censured O’Meara rather than suspending or disbarring him because he’d maintained a clean disciplinary record since joining the state bar in 1993.

While attending law school at Franklin Pierce University, O’Meara was suspended for a semester for cheating on a group project. He said he was the first person in his group to admit to cheating because he felt guilty.

The hearing panel is expected to decide by mid-December whether O’Meara violated any rules while representing the Conants.

Read Full Post »

Intended Victim in Murder-For-Hire Plot Dies

By PHILLIP BANTZ
Sentinel Staff

The Keene Sentinel: November 10, 2009

Constance and Guido Boldini

In a tragic twist, the intended victim of a foiled murder-for-hire plot hatched by a Hancock mother and son has died.

Michelle L. Hudon, 37, lost her battle with cancer Sept. 3, according to an obituary. Her ex-boyfriend Guido Boldini and his mother, Constance, were in N.H. State Prison when Hudon died. A year earlier, they were meeting with an undercover officer posing as a hit man, arranging to have Hudon killed.

Guido Boldini, 43, wanted Hudon dead because they were involved in a custody battle over their 4-year-old boy, according to testimony during his sentencing hearing in April.

Constance Boldini, 76, solicited the hit man — she walked into Gino’s Bar & Grill on Court Street in Keene and told the owner, Gino C. Mola, that she “understood he was a man who could get things done,” Cheshire County Attorney Peter W. Heed said during her sentencing hearing in May.

Mola contacted Keene police and agreed to let them record his phone conversations with the Boldinis and set up surveillance at his business. The police had an undercover officer act as a hit man and meet with the Boldinis. They also warned Hudon about the plot.

Hudon told police and prosecutors she was leaving Guido Boldini because he was “controlling” and “domineering,” Heed said. Guido Boldini also easily manipulated Constance Boldini, Heed said.

While sitting inside a vehicle parked outside Gino’s and wired with audio and video surveillance, the Boldinis hashed out a deal with the fake hit man: They would pay him $10,000 to kill Hudon and give him what they had in their pockets, $100, as a down payment, according to Heed.

The Boldinis were arrested when they stepped out of the vehicle.

Guido Boldini pleaded guilty to criminal solicitation to commit murder in April and was sentenced to eight to 20 years in N.H. State Prison. Constance Boldini pleaded guilty to the same charge in May and was sentenced to 4 1/2 to 15 years in prison.

Hudon’s parents, Richard and Arlene, of Merrimack, are fighting for custody of the child she had with Guido Boldini and declined comment until the dispute is resolved.

Hudon also had two older sons, Bryan and Gregory, who are living in Merrimack, according to the obituary.

Read Full Post »