Jeremey A. Miller (2014)

In that regard, Mr. Parker identified five cases he had been handling in which Mr. representation in various Maine collection matters. alleged that he had experienced difficulty determining the extent of LHDR/Mr. Miller's the only Maine lawyer affiliated with LHDR. Among other things, Mr. Parker's complaint (LHDR), a national debt resolution law firm. During the time period in question; Mr. Miller was At the time of the filing, Mr. Miller was also a partner in Legal Helpers Debt Resolution On April14, 2011, Attorney Stev Parker filed a grievance complaint against Mr. Miller. Miller & Associates, PLLC located in Concord, New Hampshire. of2008 and primarily practices law in New Hampshire. Mr. Miller has his own law firm, J. Maine Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Miller was admitted to the Maine Bar in November engaging in the practice oflaw in the State of Maine and subject to the Maine Bar Rules and the Jeremey A. Miller has been at all times relevant hereto an attorney duly admitted to and I. FACTS

of a public censure. censure. The Court remanded the matter to the Professional Conduct Committee for the issuance Commission of the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar warrants the issuance of a public Supreme Court ruled that the above captioned reciprocal discipline matter from the Grievance In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(12), on March 11, 2014, the New Hampshire

LD-2014-0001, In the Matter of Jeremey A. Miller

Richard H. Darling* Holly B. Fazzino, Administrator Alan J. Cronheim * non attorney member Susan R. Chollet* Mary Elizabeth Tenn Peter G. Beeson Martha Van Oot · Elaine Holden,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 • Fax 228-9511 Richard D. Sager Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Georges Roy* David M. Rothstein, Chair 4 Chene II Drive, Suite 102 Heather E. Kraris

managing attorneys ofLHDR. Furthermore, it appears that LHDR did not generally inform Mr. occurred in this grievance matter was the result of the case management practices adopted by the Panel D of the Grievance Commission ("The Panel") noted that much of the misconduct violations of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct. clients and his admitted neglect and failure to supervise an associate attorney resulted in competently represented. Mr. Miller has acknowledged that his lack of direct involvement with Miller instituted new office policies and procedures to ensure that all clients would be As a result of the events contributed to by his inadequate supervision of associates, Mr. Miller began making himself personally available to clients who requested him to do so. prospective clients did not physically meet with any LHDR employees, in October of2010, Mr. failed to adequately supervise the associate in violation ofM. R. Prof. Conduct S.l(b). While cases as referenced above. Mr. Miller had assigned those cases to an associate attorney, but Mr. Miller also recognized that he had neglected some litigation cases, including the"Parker" ofLHDR in Maine through advertising that raised concerns under M. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(b)(l). now agrees that his participation as a partner contributed to a systematic and continuous presence Miller's own law firm. Mr. Miller had no management role in the LHDR partnership, but he In 2009, Mr. Miller entered into a partnership with LHDR that was separate from Mr. representation. how his work with LHDR evolved and acknowledged some of the resultant lapses in client problems it caused. While Mr. Miller largely denied any professional misconduct he did explain acknowledged the complex issues presented by his partnership in LHDR and the resultant Mr. Miller filed a response to the grievance complaint. In that response, Mr. Miller clients were issued by the respective courts. at scheduled hearings and/or failed to respond to discovery, orders unfavorable to Mr. Miller's Mr. Parker also referenced that in certain cases in which Mr. Miller either did not appear did not respond to Mr. Parker's communications. contact Mr. Miller after Mr. Miller filed answers in some litigation matters, but that Mr. Miller scheduling orders or responses to discovery. Mr. Parker explained that he repeatedly tried to engage in any discourse with Mr. Miller concerning settlement offers, proposed motions, court Miller/LHDR represented the opposing parties. Mr. Parker reported that he was unable to p. 3 Page 3 of5

that, with respect to Maine clients, the conduct of firm lawyers, staff and independent contractors taking reasonable steps to ensure that the firm had in place measures giving reasonable assurance practices and procedures. However, he was a partner in the LHDR firm and was responsible for Mr. Miller had no involvement in the design ofLHDR's business model or LHDR's Consumer Credit Protection. restitution to some aggrieved clients as a result of the advocacy of the Maine Bureau of clients of Mr. Miller or LHDR. Further, Mr. Miller understands that LHDR has paid some The Panel noted that no bar grievance complaint against Mr. Miller has been filed by any agreement into evidence at the stipulated hearing. Discontinuance," was executed on December 6, 2012. The Panel received a copy of that concerning LHDR's representation of Maine residents. 'That agreement, the"Assurance of Since then, LHDR has voluntarily settled the issues raised by the State of Maine not violate any provisions of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct. associated with LHDR as subcontractors were adequately supervised so that their conduct did M. R. Prof. Conduct 5.1 and 5.3 to ensure that subordinate lawyers and the non-lawyer assistants (conununication). In his capacity as a partner ofLHDR, Mr. Miller had an additional duty under practice model, but that his conduct violated M. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 (diligence) and 1.4 The Panel found that Mr. Miller's detachment from clients was a direct result ofLHDR's relationship. continues to fulfill obligations to those individuals with whom he already has an attorney-client debt management law firm. While not accepting new cases from such firms, Mr. Miller accepted any new cases. Mr. Miller also declined to participate in new cases involving any other completed his representation of existing clients from the LHDR partnership, but he has not declined to represent any new clients ofLHDR. Mr. Miller has continued to represent or has 2011 Cease and Desist Order was issued in Maine, and upon being advised of it, Mr. Miller Illinois had issued a Cease and Desist Order against LHDR in Illinois. Subsequently, a June Additionally, Mr. Miller was unaware and LHDR did not inform him that the State of appreciate the import of that letter as it regarded the consumers assigned to his caseload. a related"warning" letter from the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection, but he failed to Miller of important events occurring in Maine concerning LHDR clients. Mr. Miller did receive p. 4 Page 4 of5

on June 14, 2013. The panel found that a Public Reprimand is the appropriate sanction, which was issued III. ANALYSIS

Mr. Miller's failures violated Maine Bar Rule 1.3, 1.4, 5.1 and 5.3. which was issued and imposed upon him pursuant toM. BarR. 7.1(e)(3)(C), (4). that the appropriate disposition of this case was a Public Reprimand to Jeremey A. Miller, Esq., executed waivers of any objection to this Report and waiver of appeals. The Panel concluded The Panel accepted the agreement of the parties, including Mr. Miller's separately Conduct, the Panel found that a Reprimand in GCF No. 11-130 serves those purposes. finding and Mr. Miller agreed that he did in fact violate the Maine Rules of Professional properly discharge their professional duties. SeeM. BarR. 2(a). Since the evidence supports a of the public from attorneys who, by their conduct, have demonstrated that they are unable to The purpose of bar disciplinary proceedings is not punishment, but rather the protection remorse for his violations of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct. taken responsibility for his transgressions. At the disciplinary hearing, Mr. Miller expressed his his clients were not properly served by the representation. The Panel noted that Mr. Miller has responsibilities to clients and the courts. Due to Mr. Miller's above-outlined failures, some of The Maine Rules of Professional Conduct specifically require attorneys to uphold their II. RULINGS OF LAW

He is directed to do so in the future. Miller is also reprimanded for his failure to engage in appropriate supervision of client matters. law firms, particularly so with regard to the use of non-lawyer assistants and subcontractors. Mr. reprimand to Mr. Miller and cautioned him to carefully assess potential associations with other obligations and, accordingly, some clients were harmed. As a result, the Panel issued a with respect to the lawyers and staff of his own law firm. Mr. Miller failed to fulfill those conformed to the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Miller had the same obligations p. 5 Page 5 of5

File Janet F. DeVito, General Counsel Jeremey A. Miller, Esquire Distribution:

Office's collection efforts. Mr. Miller shall be responsible for any costs incurred as a result of the Attorney Discipline legally-available post-judgment enforcement remedies and procedures. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(c). any county in the state, where it shall be docketed as a final judgment and shall be subject to all The Committee may file a copy of the final assessment of costs with the superior court in in the state. Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(b). disagreement, or enforce the assessment of costs by petition to the superior court in any county explaining the reasons for disagreement. Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(b). The Committee may resolve the (30) days of receipt of the Committee's statement of expenses, listing each disputed expense and The assessment of costs shall become fmal unless Mr. Miller responds in writing, within thirty include, but are not limited to: copying and costs associated with the publication of the censure. investigation and enforcement of this disciplinary matter. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(b ). Costs can Mr. Miller shall be responsible for the expenses incurred by the Committee in the V. COSTS

hereby issues a Public Censure. Board of Overseers. The Court concluded that a public censure is warranted, and the Committee is the equivalent to a public reprimand imposed by the State of Maine Grievance Commission, recommended to the Comt that for purposes of reciprocal discipline, a sanction of public censure The Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the matter on February 18, 2014, and IV. SANCTION