| |
 |
State of Maine v. Michael A. Doyle
Lawyers: Berne Fee Arbitration March 1, 2002 Fee Arbitration RE: Richard S. Berne Attached is a copy of the complaint to the Ethics Panel which gives rise to this request for Fee Arbitration. If this panel requires a copy of all the exhibits cited in the Ethics Complaint and can not obtain them from the Board of Overseers please advise. First, let us consider the ten thousand-dollar fee for defending the criminal indictment. Mr. Berne's misconduct, in addition to what I cited in the letter of February 16th to the Board of Overseers, includes supplying the State with copies of my documents acknowledged in a letter dated August 11, 1998, from the State to VanDyke. What is conspicuous by their absence are copies of numerous memos and letters from Dyer and DeTroy in my file that would demonstrate that I was not only not warned; but that Dyer and DeTroy carried on for over seven months telling us to "warn our clients so they would be less inclined to cooperated with the State". A reasonable person would not expect to be told in one of twelve memos from Dyer to Doyle to tell the clients, "the investment is working" if it was a Ponzi. Berne failed to provide copies of six letters from DeTroy that would totally discredit his later proffer. Berne continued to work against my interests by attempting to have me plead guilty to a felony he knew I did not commit to protect his friend DeTroy from a malpractice suit. I was defrauded of the $10,000 by Berne by his misconduct and misrepresentation to me of the contents of my file, his giving aid to DeTroy at my expense, his lying about the reason to be interviewed by the Securities Department, his failure to warn me that I was a target of a felony investigation, and his failure to provide to the State what he knew to be documents that would demonstrate that I was misled by both Dyer and DeTroy. Next, please consider the three thousand-dollar fee for representation to, and for defending me from, violations of the rules and regulations of the NASD. On March 17, 1998, I advised Berne, by fax, that the Dallas office of the NASD was not treating this product as a security and to "please call him to verify the information." Berne refused to comply with this request. His compliance would have revealed that the Dallas office of the NASD had levied fines in the amount of $5,000 and a 30-day suspension of the licenses of those similar in status to me. Due to Berne's failure to properly represent me I was fined $25,000 payable before I can ever reactivate my license. I contend that Berne's malfeasance will cost me an additional twenty thousand dollars. I contend that I was defrauded of all fees paid to Berne. Had Berne disclosed that I had memos and letters from Dyer and DeTroy in my file, supporting my position against what he knew to be DeTroy's position, yet telling me he could not mount a defense with them I would not have engaged him as my lawyer. This fraud of Berne's then carries over to the NASD case. Beyond the first point of his inept work I would not have paid him the $3,000 for this case based on his dishonestly in the felony case. Consequently, I request that all fees, a total of $13,000, be ordered to be refunded.
| |||||||
