Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
F. Lee Bailey Board Decision-11!30!12

F. Lee Bailey Board Decision-11!30!12

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5 |Likes:
Published by Adam Michael Sacks

More info:

Published by: Adam Michael Sacks on Jan 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Members: Archer, Barkin, Briggs, Courtney, Fuchs, Mills, McGill, Rosenblatt,SilversteinMajority: Archer, Briggs, Mills, Rosenblatt, SilversteinDissenting: Barkin, Courtney, Fuchs, McGillSTATE OF MAINEMAINE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS)IN RE: F. Lee Bailey ) Decision of the Board) Pursuant to M. Bar Admission R. 9(d)F. Lee Bailey seeks admission to the Maine bar, contending that he has producedsatisfactory evidence of good character and fitness to practice law as required by MaineBar Admission Rule 9 and Maine Bar Rule 7.3(j). As discussed more fully below, thisBoard concludes that Mr. Bailey has not met his burden of demonstrating by clear andconvincing evidence that he possesses the requisite good character and fitness necessaryfor admission to the Maine bar.
F. Lee Bailey had a long and brilliant legal career, which ended in disbarment inmultiple jurisdictions. This decision does not attempt to recount all of his history butinstead focuses upon those aspects of Bailey’s history that are necessary to a fullunderstanding of this Board’s conclusions.Bailey graduated from law school in May 1960 and was admitted to practice inMassachusetts in November 1960.
He moved to Florida in 1985 and was admitted to
In 1970, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts censured Bailey for his conduct in connection withthree separate cases between 1964 and 1969. The following year, 1971, the Supreme Court of New Jersey
the Florida bar in September 1989. Over the years, he had a successful legal practicewith a mix of civil and criminal cases, including many high-profile clients.In 1994, Claude Duboc hired Bailey to represent him in connection with federaldrug smuggling and money laundering charges. In light of the strength of the caseagainst Duboc, Bailey employed a strategy of cooperation to forfeit as many of Duboc’sassets as possible “in the hope that the court would credit [Duboc] at sentencing for hiscooperation.”
 In re Bailey
, 450 F.3d 71, 74 (1
Cir. 2006).
See also
Bd. Ex.
21 at 3, ¶ 8. Duboc held significant real and personal property, including two estates in Francethat required “substantial infusions of cash for maintenance.”
10. Ultimately,Duboc’s 602,000 shares of Biochem Pharma stock then valued at $5,891,352.00 weresegregated and transferred to Bailey’s Credit Suisse investment account “from which tomarket, maintain and liquidate the French properties and all other assets.”
¶¶ 12-13.
See also
Florida Bar v. Bailey
, 803 So. 2d 683, 685, 687 (Fla. 2001). Duboc then pledguilty and awaited sentencing.
at 686.Following the transfer, Bailey derived $4 million from selling shares of theBiochem stock and borrowing against them.
at 687. He transferred $3.5 million of those proceeds to his personal money market account, which was not a lawyer’s trustaccount.
By December of 1995, Bailey had transferred all but $350,000 of thoseproceeds into his personal checking account.
From this checking account, Bailey
suspended Bailey’s privilege to practice
 pro hac vice
in New Jersey for a one-year period for, as he described to thisBoard, writing and circulating “angry letters.”
Both the Board and Bailey submitted exhibits. For convenience, the Board’s exhibits shall be referred toas “Bd. Ex.” and Bailey’s exhibits shall be referred to as “Bailey Ex.”
paid personal expenses and used funds toward the purchase of a residence.
Baileyasserted his conduct was permissible because he believed he was permitted to payhimself attorney fees as the case progressed, subject to recapture in the event the Judgelater disapproved any of the fees taken.In addition to the Biochem stock transactions, Bailey sold Duboc’s “JapaneseStock” in July of 1994 and deposited approximately $730,000 into his Credit Suisseaccount.
at 686. He then transferred those funds into his personal money marketaccount and commingled those funds with his own.
. In August of 1994, after thefunds accrued interest to his personal account, Bailey paid the $730,000 to the UnitedStates Marshal.
At least at the time of the proceedings before the Florida Bar in2001, Bailey had not accounted for the accrued interest. Bd. Ex. 21 at 5.In the fall of 1995, Duboc expressed his intention to replace Bailey as counsel andrequested that Bailey turn over all of Duboc’s funds and assets to his new counsel.
 In re Bailey
, 786 N.E.2d 337, 344 (Mass. 2003). By the end of the year, Bailey had not madethe transfer and Duboc’s new counsel filed a motion to substitute with the court.
Fivedays before the hearing on the motion to substitute, Bailey sent a letter to the presiding judge in the case, Judge Maurice Paul.
; Bd. Ex. 25. Even though Judge Paul had yetto sentence Duboc, Bailey’s letter referred to Duboc as a “multi-millionaire druggie” anddisparaged both Duboc and Duboc’s new counsel. Bd. Ex. 25 at 2-3. The last paragraphof the letter admits it was sent ex parte, stating “I have sent no copies of this letter toanyone
. at 4. Bailey testified at the hearing before this Board that the ex parte letterwas an attempt to warn Judge Paul about a possible future bribe attempt.3

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->