Mary Hurley: Shawn Allyn, candidate for Hampden County District Attorney, was disrespectful of the law in Carbone case The Republican Editorials August 18, 2014 Mr. Allyn, also made forceful, but unsubstantiated, accusations toward the District Attorney’s office, the very office he seeks to lead. By Mary E. Hurley This letter is in response to the article, Contest for DA: Anyones to win, Aug. 10, page A1. I am writing as both the former Mayor of Springfield as well as a life-long resident and recently retired District Court judge in Hampden County for nearly twenty years. With those experiences, I was shocked to read the decision rendered by Judge Philip Contant, a judge for thirty years, regarding Shawn Allyn’s conduct in Commonwealth v. Dean Carbone. This is a serious matter of public interest because Mr. Allyn is vying to be Hampden County’s next District Attorney, a position, that must be held by someone of unquestionable ethics, honesty, and principle. Based on his conduct, I have serious doubts about his qualifications to hold this important position. Most importantly, Judge Contants decision was much more than a “ tongue-lashing” as described in the article. In the twenty-five page decision (see decision below), Judge Contant carefully details the facts in his findings. Judge Contant disqualified Shawn Allyn from representing a client, which the judge notes is a “drastic action.” It was, in my opinion, amply warranted by Allyn’s egregious and unethical behavior. The facts of the case center around a motor vehicle accident involving Dean Carbone. Carbone was driving a car in which his two children were passengers. The driver of a second car was killed in the accident, and Carbone became the target of a criminal investigation. In the first of many dubious and unethical moves, Allyn sued Carbone, a “long-standing” client of his, on behalf of the children. Allyn’s action in suing his own client is a fundamental and clear violation of the attorney-client relationship and the rules of professional conduct. Allyn then settled the lawsuit with Carbone’s insurance company in exchange for payments to Allyn’s children. But before the civil settlement was finalized, Allyn sought to be appointed by the Commonwealth to defend Carbone in the criminal action. So, while suing Mr. Carbone, Allyn sought and was appointed to defend Carbone, which required him to simultaneously argue opposite positions and represent opposing sides. Moreover, Allyn “orchestrated” his criminal representation of Carbone to be as a bar advocate, meaning he was paid on the taxpayers’ dime. In his decision, Judge Contant pointed out that at no time during Mr. Allyn’s appointment as counsel did Mr. Allyn disclose that Allyn was representing Carbone’s children in a suit against Carbone. The judge only became aware of this conflict of interest when the District Attorney’s Office exposed it. This situation presented a textbook conflict of interest. Indeed, Judge Contant found that Allyn’s “period of simultaneous representations of parties in the two cases with conflicting and adverse interests and the circumstances of his orchestrating his own appointment as counsel for Dean Carbone in the instant criminal case created a strong likelihood that impermissible conflicts and divided loyalties put him in violation of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.” (emphasis added) The Judge then lists the many rules that were broken by Allyn, including disclosure of a client’s confidential information, conflict of interest rules, and rules requiring loyalty to clients. The Court found that “a reasonably prudent, disinterested attorney would clearly see the peril.” Shawn Allyn did not. Judge Contant was troubled not only by Mr. Allyn’s disservice to his clients but also by another “disturbing aspect of the proceedings on this Motion has been, that on an number of occasions, Attorney Allyn, both in oral argument and in written submissions to this Court, and to the Superior Court in the civil case has made, what the Court finds to be, at the very least disingenuous, and misleading statements and arguments, and some statements which are simply not true.” (emphasis added) The Judge then goes on to list pages of self-serving, disingenuous, misleading, inaccurate and untrue statements made by Shawn Allyn. The truth of Mr. Allyn’s statements was outwardly doubted by the Court. “If Attorney Allyn did in fact have multiple discussions with the BBO (Board of Bar Overseers) about these circumstances, the Court (given Attorney Allyn’s inaccurate slant on the underlying facts) would question what details Attorney Allyn presented to the BBO. Said representations relative to Attorney Allyn’s purported BBO consultations are particularly troubling to this Court.” Mr. Allyn, also made forceful, but unsubstantiated, accusations toward the District Attorney’s office, the very office he seeks to lead. In response to the office’s request that the Court inquire into Mr. Allyn’s conduct, Mr. Allyn claimed that the District Attorney’s office acted in bad faith and engaged in a “conspiracy” against him. He went so far as to propose that the DA’s office should be required to pay Mr. Carbone’s legal fees, apparently forgetting that the Commonwealth (really the taxpayers) was already paying Mr. Allyn as a bar adovcate. Judge Contant, found that Allyn’s participation in the case “severely taints and undermines the integrity of the legal system, the fair, scrupulous and proper administration of justice, and the necessary high standards of professional conduct” (empahasis added). Judge Contant went on to summarize the most troubling aspects of Attorney Allyn’s actions by highlighting “the total circumstances by which Attorney Allyn orchestrated and secured his court appointment to represent Mr. Carbone in the criminal case while he was still actively representing Mr. Carbone’s children in the substantially-related civil claim against Mr. Carbone. Attorney Allyn’s disturbing and repeated use of a number of disingenuous, misleading, and untrue statements/arguments/representations (even in his Affidavit) in defense of his actions in these matters.” In short, he lied to the Court. Ethically, Judge Contant has an obligation to report this incident to the Board of Bar Overseers for disciplinary action. I can only imagine the chaos Mr Allyn’s suspension or disbarment would have on the District Attorney’s Office. After reading the facts and Judge Contant’s decision, I can only echo his conclusions and findings. Mr. Allyn’s actions were disrespectful of the law and courts. They demonstrated a disregard for professional rules of ethics, and reflect a motive to make money from an unsuspecting system, despite any regulation, legal, ethical, or otherwise. Mr. Allyn’s offensive and egregious conduct undermines the ethical and practical rules of the court system. For this behavior, it is my strong belief that Shawn Allyn should not serve the good people of Hampden County as their next District Attorney. Ms. Hurley is former Mayor of Springfield and recently retired District Court judge in Hampden County. Photo: Holyoke attorney Shawn Allyn, right, is shown here with his clients Dean and Patricia Carbone. Dean Carbone is accused in a vehicular homicide case. Allyn was his defense attorney until a judge threw him off the case weeks before trial, citing potential ethical violations by the lawyer. (Stephanie Barry / The Republican) The judges 25-page ruling is at the Masslive link.
Posted on: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:14:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015