Wednesday, January 2, 2013

F. Lee Bailey Denied Maine Bar Admittance

Former high-profile attorney F. Lee Bailey denied Maine Bar admittance

Noted attorney F. Lee Bailey was the featured speaker at the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce Early Bird Breakfast Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010.
Bailey was to work on the Dennis Dechaine case.   Statement Analysis has shown that Dechaine was guilty of the murder of Sarah Cherry.  
F. Lee Bailey, a longtime attorney who has represented many high-profile clients, including O.J. Simpson and Patty Hearst, was denied a bid to practice law in Maine.
Bailey, 79, passed the Maine Bar Examination in February. He had been licensed in Massachusetts and later in Florida. But he was disbarred in both of those states in the early 2000s after a Florida Supreme Court ruling on seven counts of attorney misconduct stemming from his handling of a case involving an accused marijuana dealer.
Bailey spent 44 days in federal prison before he was released after repaying millions of dollars worth of stock in a pharmaceutical company he had transferred from his former client’s assets.
“Mr. Bailey has not met his burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the requisite good character and fitness necessary for admission to the Maine Bar,” five members of the State of Maine Board of Bar Examiners concluded in a 22-page decision in November.
Four other members of the board wrote a minority opinion in a seven-page dissent.
In it, they said that Bailey had demonstrated “by clear and convincing evidence that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in the law and has otherwise satisfied the factors established by the Maine Bar.”
The majority members pointed to a number of factors that guided their decision, including the disbarments, recurring income tax questions and Bailey’s uncertain residency status.
Bailey appeared before the Maine Board of Bar Examiners on Oct. 31 to “resolve doubt regarding Bailey’s good character and fitness to practice law in light of the past disbarments,” the majority members wrote.
At that hearing, Bailey presented several witnesses who testified on his behalf, including Deborah Elliott, his partner, with whom he lives in Yarmouth.
He also offered to be supervised by Maine attorney Stephen J. Schwartz, who had agreed to confer monthly with Bailey regarding case management and clients’ funds.
According to the Board’s written report, Kenneth Fishman, an associate justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court who had worked with Bailey as a law partner and continues their friendship, said the case resulting in Bailey’s disbarment was an “aberration” and that “Bailey’s demeanor since [the Claude] Duboc [case] is now less arrogant and ‘far more humble’ than before.”
Bailey also submitted numerous affidavits and letters that spoke to his good character, including by former Maine Gov. John Baldacci.
The majority report cites a Maine Bar rule that says it treats a lawyer who has been disbarred in any other state “as if the attorney has been disbarred also in Maine.
One of the six factors the board is required to consider in determining whether an applicant should be readmitted to the bar is whether “the petitioner recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct.”
The majority of the board concluded that he had not recognized the wrongfulness of his past conduct.
Rather than accepting that he was disbarred because of his own misconduct, Bailey continues to place blame elsewhere,” the majority wrote.
Board members also wrote that Bailey was “less than forthright with this Board throughout the admissions process.”
The Sun Journal was unable to reach Bailey for comment Monday.


Anonymous said...

This is a damned shame. F.Lee Bailey is one of the few lawyers I've admired over the years. A shame too, that all his hard work, millions and vast expertise went down the drain, permanently, or so it would appear.

That's not to say he wasn't guilty as charged in former complaints and disbarments; however, I am aware that sometimes other vicious dog-eat-dog seething lawyers are lying through their teeth when they set about to get rid of another lawyer or judge they are highly jealous of or who refuses to play ball their way, and will do anything to dispense with them. They are evil in their pursuit to destroy someone else.

This is/was a brilliant man whose career is finis'. It's a damned shame however it came about. Rightly or wrongly, it looks like F.Lee Bailey is history, which makes me wonder; what is he doing up in frigid Maine in the first place! Has he lost his marbels? Living with a woman is no excuse.

He ought to know anyway, that Fla will take any criminal from anywhere in the country if they apologize up front, in writing, don't deny, be honest about what they did and work under supervision if stipulated (which rarely happens); and that's exactly what he ought to do, woman or no woman.

People ask, why there are so many criminals in Fla? They all came from elsewhere and crawled under the lose wire of the Fla easy right-to-work laws.

Anonymous said...

Why F. Lee Bailey chose to defend OJ Simpson is a reflection of who he really is. The money being paid to him, must have outweighed truth and justice. Too bad now. He should retire.

Anonymous said...

ummmm.... interesting Anon @ 10:39. Then every attorney and expert who represented OJ should retire or get out of the business? Are you saying that no attorney should ever represent any guilty party or one they believe not to be guilty even if they know they are guilty or turn out to be guilty eventually?

That would mean then, that no expert or other professional should ever give testimony for the defense that goes in his clients' "guilty" favor when it is in conflict with public opinion?

I think it is up to F.Lee Bailey as to whether he wants to retire or not, even at his on-coming advanced age.

He is such a brilliant man and lawyer, guilty of past crimes or not. IMO, he should look elsewhere and reapply. Even at his age he should be able to prove himself worthy and be able to start over if he wants too, if he can find a state that will accept him.

Lemon said...

Bravo Maine!

Skeptical said...

How the mighty have fallen. Sad but not surprising. Attorneys are second on the list of professions that display psychopathic tendencies. CEO's are first.

Trigger said...

In California we called him Flea Bailey.

It's a good thing that Patty Hearst had him for her lawyer. Most of us think that Patty's kidnapping was was just a rich kid's way of taking a "roller coaster ride vacation" to see how much trouble she could buy her way out of.

Those folks in Maine don't need another twist the facts lawyer, so they stopped his antics from the start.

Ya, gotta love it.

Anonymous said...

Skeptical, I think there are many different types of professionals who now rank both first and second, but I think I'd begin with sneaky LE officers and judges then move on to the lawyers next in line or parallel, running head to head.

And let's not leave out all the televangists who are on 24/7 scamming the poor and elderly out of every nickel they can get out of them, while they live high on the hog and buy bigger and better jets and houses, and etc.etc. The list goes on and on. Why bother.

BTW, I never said F. Lee Bailey was an honorable man, nor did I say he was an honest man. I said he was brilliant and a danged good lawyer, which he is. As to the honesty and honor, I don't sleep with the man so how would I know when most of those who do sleep with these men don't know either. They just think they do.

Justme said...

Bailey is either not so brilliant or he is dishonest and dishonorable. No brilliant person could believe O.J. was innocent. And to use deception to win a case isn't brilliant, it's dishonest and dishonorable. IMO

Justme said...

From :The Role of the Defense Attorney:
Not Just an Advocate
Roberta K. Flowers

Therefore, first and foremost, the officer of the court is required to make
decisions that reflect respect for the truth-seeking function of the trial process.
ABA Model Rule 3.3 emphasizes the im
portance of this responsibility even
requiring the attorney to disregard th
e confidentiality rules, if necessary.
officer of the court is required to
refrain from involving himself in
misrepresentation, fraud, and dishonesty.
The issue of client perjury has been
debated at length, and although ma
ny might argue to the contrary,
the ABA
Model Rules make it clear that the officer of the court cannot participate in
perjurious testimony, and if he becomes
aware of his involvement then he must
take reasonable steps to remedy it.

The typical case requires the criminal defense attorney
to “advocate with courage and devoti
on and to render effective, quality
However, in some situations the duty of the criminal defense
attorney may be protecting the system from unjust results. Justice considers
whether the issues of the substantive a
nd procedural rights of the accused have
been protected throughout the process.
Justice requires adherence to the right
methods and processes, through which justice
is accomplished. And in the end, it
requires that false testimony would not be the basis of a “just” conviction.


This is from a quick Google. I'm sure it can't be much different in other states.

Anonymous said...

Justme, this is where these creepy, disgusting and dishonorable "attorneys" fall by the wayside,

"However, in some situations the duty of the criminal defense
attorney may be protecting the system from unjust results."

It is an attorney's duty to defend his client, but when you see unjust results, they are bound to protect the system. Bailey, didn't do it.

Justme said...

Anon @ 10:39
That's how I read it too. The attorney's duty is to do everything honest to defend his client's right to a fair trial and equally important, to seek justice. Justice for his client and the accused. A proper defense would not include lies in any form, perjury, innuendo, false accusations, throwing unfounded claims into the trial with the intention of confusing the jurors, or any type of defense based on falsehood or meant to pervert true justice.

It seems pretty clear to me that the win-at-all-cost attorneys are overreaching their duty to their clients and that their real motivation is fame and fortune, not justice. What isn't clear is how so many attorneys keep their license to practice law.

Anonymous said...

JustMe, you are right of course, but that would include nearly all defense attorneys, many representing plaintiffs and most prosecutors. And don't leave out corrupt judges, hiding behind their mahogney walls cutting little deals with their buddies and those who owe then favors; then sit in open court and play along with the game. Now THAT, would shock your socks off! WAY worse than Bailey ever did.

I am the anon who defended Bailey's brilliance and legal expertise', which he was and is. I would go so far as to say that someday you will read his legal briefs and be astounded as to how brilliant he really was.

As to what initially happened that led to all this; Bailey was representing a cartel drug client down in Miami. He allowed this client to deposit hundreds of thousands of illegal US dollars into his unaudited trust account. A very siimple and legal thing to do under normal circumstances. I've done it myself on occasion.

But Bailey decided that some of this money belonged to him, took it out and deposited it into his own acount. This is where the trouble started. The drug cartel client sued him to get his illegal money back. This tipped off the IRS, who filed their own complaint and claim to their part of the illegal money.

Next comes all those posionous, venomous attys who wanted rid of Bailey once and for all, being so spiteful and jealous of him and fought HARD to have him disbarred, pulling every trick they could. The icing on the cake is that there isn't a one of them who wouldn't have done the same thing Bailey did, and there you have it comprised in a nutshell.

Yes, I do hope Bailey can resurface, as he really was a magnificient atty. Too bad, but the truth is he really did bring it all upon himself.

Justme said...

Anon said:
"but that would include nearly all defense attorneys, many representing plaintiffs and most prosecutors. And don't leave out corrupt judges, hiding behind their mahogney walls cutting little deals with their buddies and those who owe then favors; then sit in open court and play along with the game. Now THAT, would shock your socks off! WAY worse than Bailey ever did."

I can't argue that.

Anonymous said...

F. Lee Bailey received no money for defending O.J. Simpson. He was brought in by his old pal Robert Shapiro. After the case was over, Shapiro declined to pay Bailey anything, saying he was there all along as a volunteer.

It was Bailey's cross-examination of Det. Mark Fuhrman that broke the case and established reasonable doubt for Simpson. Fuhrman strenuously denied using the n-word in the past 10 years. Then tapes surfaced with Fuhrman using the word. Fuhrman was recalled to the stand and took the 5th. Had Fuhrman left open the possibility that he had said the word in the past 10 years, the Fuhrman tapes would have been irrelevant. Even prosecutor Marcia Clark was impressed with Bailey's systematic cross of Fuhrman.