| ► Attorney Barbara Shea of Greenwich, CT; serial offender |
 |
 |
|
Attorney Barbara Shea of Greenwich, CT; serial offender
The state of Connecticut provided Barbara S. Shea with a law license in 1985.
The Statewide Grievance Committee found Barbara guilty of the following misconduct.
Barbara’s 1st bite at the Attorney Misfit Apple Tree
Barbara was hired to represent a client in a divorce matter. The client paid Barbara a $5,000 retainer fee. After initiating divorce proceedings, Barbara told the client that the $5,000 retainer was depleted and requested an additional $5,000. The client agreed to charge $2,500 on her credit card and Barbara advised her she would complete the matter for the additional $2,500.
Shortly thereafter, Barbara told the client that if she didn’t provide a $5,000 debit on her credit card, she would not go to court on the client’s behalf the next day.
The client and her husband didn’t own any property together. The client was not employed. The client did not obtain any support payments from her husband. Ultimately, Barbara filed a motion to withdraw from the divorce matter. The client was then forced to conclude the divorce matter pro se.
The committee then ruled that the $7,500 fee charged by Barbara was unreasonable given the results she obtained for the client. The committee ordered that Barbara refund $3,750 (50%) of the $7,500 to the client.
As a consequence of his misconduct, the enablers for Attorney Misfits sitting on the Statewide Grievance Committee punished Barbara by gifting her with a complimentary reprimand.
Barbara’s 2nd bite at the Attorney Misfit Apple Tree
Ms. Yvonne Brown hired Barbara to represent her in a divorce proceeding against Robert Brown. Ms. Brown and Barbara entered into a fee agreement that provided for a “refundable retainer fee of $15,000 and personal items to be held in escrow.” Subsequently, Ms. Brown delivered personal and financial records to Barbara, photographs, and valuable items of person property, including a Faberge cloisonné dessert service valued in excess of $50,000.
Subsequently the client asked Barbara to return the original documents and personal property to her or to a mutually agreed third party. During the course of negotiations to resolve the divorce, the parties agreed that Mr. Brown would receive at least the $50,000 Faberge dessert service.
Several weeks later, Barbara sold some of the client’s personal property, including the Faberge dessert service by claiming that Ms. Brown owed her additional attorney fees. Of course there was nothing in the fee agreement that allowed for Barbara to sell anything. In fact, the property was to be held in escrow.
As a consequence of his misconduct, the enablers for Attorney Misfits sitting on the Statewide Grievance Committee punished Barbara by gifting her with a complimentary 120-day suspension of her law license.
Barbara’s 3rd bite at the Attorney Misfit Apple Tree
In one matter, Barbara was hired to represent a client regarding a motor vehicle infraction. At the initial meeting, the client paid Barbara a $200 retainer fee. Barbara appeared at the scheduled trial and was granted a 30-day continuance to prepare a defense.
Over the next several weeks, the client was unsuccessful in trying to contact Barbara by phone. The client then decided to fire Barbara and again unsuccessfully attempted to advise her she was fired. Despite receiving court permission to withdraw, Barbara failed to return the client’s file to her.
As a consequence of his misconduct, the enablers for Attorney Misfits sitting on the Statewide Grievance Committee punished Barbara by gifting her with yet another complimentary reprimand.
Barbara’s 4th bite at the Attorney Misfit Apple Tree
Barbara was hired to defend a client in a motor vehicle matter and was paid a $250 retainer fee. The client was a truck driver who had been issued a citation as a result of a stop at a police radar site. Another truck driver, Irene Valmas, was also stopped that day and retained Barbara at the same time as the new client. The client and Ms. Valmas had the same scheduled trial dates.
Over the next several weeks, the client, through Ms. Valmas, was unsuccessful in attempting to contact Barbara by phone. Because he was unable to contact Barbara, the client decided to fire her; however, he was not successful in contacting her to tell her she was fired.
On the day of the trial, Ms. Valmas, the client and Barbara appeared in court. The court granted Barbara’s request to withdraw but refused to continue the case, thereby causing the client to represent himself. However, Barbara left the courthouse without handing over the client’s file to him.
As a consequence of his misconduct, the enablers for Attorney Misfits sitting on the Statewide Grievance Committee punished Barbara by gifting her with yet another (3rd) complimentary reprimand.
As we speak (ca. February 2013) Barbara practices at 60 Parsonage Road in Greenwich, Connecticut.
|
