Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Christopher M. Uhl

Download Download Order (PDF)

Docket No.: BAR 11-8

Issued by: Supreme Judicial Court

Date: August 9, 2011

Respondent: Christopher M. Uhl

Bar Number: 007897

Order: Temporary Suspension

Disposition/Conduct: Reciprocal Discipline



Christopher M. Uhl was admitted to the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1993 and in the State of Maine on May 16, 1994. In May 2010, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court temporarily suspended Uhl from the practice of law and, on July 28, 2010, Uhl was convicted in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, of six counts of tax evasion.1 Uhl is currently incarcerated.

After Uhl notified the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar of his status in Massachusetts, Bar counsel petitioned this Court for the imposition of reciprocal discipline pursuant to Maine Bar Rule 7.3(h)(1). The Court issued an Order and Notice providing Uhl an opportunity to oppose Bar counsel's request for reciprocal discipline. Uhl failed to file any response. He has not asserted that the disciplinary action taken in Massachusetts was flawed due to notice, process, or proof; has not asserted that the imposition ofreciprocal discipline in Maine would result in grave injustice; and has not asserted that the misconduct giving rise to the suspension in Massachusetts does not justify the same discipline in Maine.


After review, the Court ORDERS:

  1. The Petition for Reciprocal Discipline is granted pursuant to M. Bar R. 7.3(h), which permits the Court to enter an order imposing discipline in Maine when the discipline imposed in another jurisdiction warrants reciprocity;

  2. Effective immediately, Christopher M. Uhl is temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the state of Maine;

  3. Within thirty days of the entry of this Order, Uhl shall file with the Clerk and with the Board of Overseers an affidavit attesting to his compliance with the provisions ofM. Bar R. 7.3(i)(I)(C); and

  4. Uhl's suspension will continue, pending further order of this Court.

For the Court

Ellen A. Gorman Associate Justice Maine Supreme Judicial Court


1 The Massachusetts SJC order does not recite the reason for the suspension. In its petition the Board of Overseers appears to link the two events, although the suspension preceded the convictions. Uhl's convictions could result in the imposition of a suspension pursuant to M. Bar R. 7.3(d), but Bar counsel's petition referred solely 10 Rule 7.3(h).