Hamilton v. Greenleaf
| Decision Date | 05 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. C,No. 7688,7688 |
| Citation | 677 A.2d 525 |
| Parties | Richard HAMILTON v. A. Caroline GREENLEAF. DecisionLawum 95 71. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Richard Hamilton, Ogunquit, pro se (orally).
John N. Kelly (orally), Kelly, Remmel & Zimmerman, Portland, for Defendant.
Mark G. Lavoie, Portland, for amicus curiae Maine State Bar Association.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, and LIPEZ, JJ.
Richard Hamilton appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (Cumberland County, Bradford, J.) dismissing his complaint against A. Caroline Greenleaf. We vacate the judgment.
By his present complaint, Hamilton, inter alia, claims that Greenleaf has engaged in a conflict of interest by her representation of certain named clients on Hamilton's claims against them. He seeks damages from Greenleaf for the alleged defamation and emotional distress he suffered by reason of her intentional, malicious, reckless or negligent conduct in this representation. Hamilton, inter alia, alleges: Hamilton, an accountant, was represented by the law firm of Ainsworth & Thelin, P.A., in the years 1990 and 1991. Also during that period Hamilton performed accounting services for Ann B. Flannery, Lynette J. Breton, Breton Flannery Woodworks, and Breton Flannery Woodworks, Inc. (collectively "Breton Flannery"). Although Greenleaf, an attorney, did not directly represent Hamilton, she was a member of the law firm of Ainsworth & Thelin from 1989 until 1992 and, while so employed, she represented Breton Flannery. Greenleaf also currently represents, and is the corporate clerk of, Breton Flannery. By its representation of Hamilton during 1990 and 1991, Ainsworth & Thelin gained knowledge of certain matters that could be used against Hamilton or be harmful to him and, because Greenleaf was a member of the firm during this period, this information may be known to her. Because of her involvement with Breton Flannery, Greenleaf should have known that she would be called as a witness in any dispute between Hamilton and Breton Flannery.
On July 5, 1994, Hamilton served on Breton Flannery a small claims statement for monies allegedly owed to Hamilton for accounting services he performed in 1990 and 1991. Hamilton later advised Breton Flannery in writing that he intended to file a complaint in the District Court. By a letter dated August 2, 1994, Greenleaf, as counsel for Breton Flannery, responded in writing to Hamilton's previous communications. The letter, a copy of which was sent to Breton Flannery, chronicled alleged sub-par accounting services on Hamilton's part coupled with a warning that, should Hamilton pursue legal action for the collection of the monies allegedly owed to him, Breton Flannery "may file counterclaims which may equal or exceed [his] claim for damages."
In considering this matter following a hearing on Greenleaf's motion to dismiss the action, the trial court focused entirely on the letter written by Greenleaf to Hamilton. The court dismissed the complaint, stating that it "is based in its entirety on the letter written by [Greenleaf] in defense of her clients' position ... [and she] has an absolute privilege to be free from liability for any statements made by her in the letter to [Hamilton]." From the judgment entered accordingly, Hamilton appeals.
Hamilton contends that the trial court erred by its determinations that the complaint in its entirety is based on Greenleaf's letter to Hamilton, that the contents of the letter are absolutely privileged, and that, accordingly, the action should be dismissed. We agree. The purpose of a complaint in modern notice pleading practice "is to provide defendants with fair notice of the claim against them." Bowen v. Eastman, 645 A.2d 5, 7 (Me.1994). Dismissal of a civil action is proper when the complaint fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and, on such a challenge, "the material allegations of the complaint must be taken as admitted." McAfee v. Cole, 637 A.2d 463, 465 (Me.1994) (citing Richards v. Soucy, 610 A.2d 268, 270 (Me.1992); Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, Inc., 486 A.2d 97, 98 (Me.1984)). In reviewing the trial court's dismissal of an action, "we examine the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory." Id. (citing Larrabee, 486 A.2d at 99). We will uphold a dismissal "only when it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that he might prove in support of his claim." Hall v. Bd. of Envtl. Protection, 498 A.2d 260, 266 (Me.1985) (citations omitted). The legal sufficiency of a complaint challenged pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is a question of law....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Theriault
... ... that had commissioned the report as part of an internal ... personnel matter. Hamilton v. Drummond Woodsum , 2020 ... ME 8, ¶¶ 16-18, 223 A.3d 904 ... (b) ... Step Two: Devoid of Any Reasonable ... good faith,” not because of a conflict of interest ... Hamilton v. Greenleaf , 677 A.2d 525, 52728 (Me ... 1996). Third, the privilege may be lost by “unnecessary ... or unreasonable publication beyond the scope ... ...
-
Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc.
...that would entitle the plaintiff to relief" pursuant to a valid cause of action. McAfee, 637 A.2d at 465, quoted in Hamilton v. Greenleaf, 677 A.2d 525, 527 (Me.1996). "The legal sufficiency of a complaint challenged pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is a question of law." Hamilton, 677 A.2......
-
Bean v. Cummings
...to relief pursuant to some legal theory.'" Shaw v. S. Aroostook Cmty. Sch. Dist., 683 A.2d 502, 503 (Me. 1996) (quoting Hamilton v. Greenleaf, 677 A.2d 525, 527 (Me.1996)). We will uphold a dismissal only when it appears beyond doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set o......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Darling's
...complaint in modern notice pleading practice is "to provide defendants with fair notice of the claim against them." Hamilton v. Greenleaf, 677 A.2d 525, 527 (Me, 1996). With this purpose in mind, it is clear that Darling's sought damages based on Ford's modification-and breach-of its franch......
-
An Ethical Rabbit Hole: Model Rule 4.4, Intentional Interference With Former Employee Non-disclosure Agreements, and the Threat of Disqualification, Part I
...has no competitive privilege in a client when it would be conflict of interest to represent the client). 197. See Hamilton v. Greeleaf, 677 A.2d 525, 527-28 (Me. 1996) (providing that the lawyer loses absolute litigation privilege for litigation communications if the lawyer's representation......