Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Christopher W. Keenan, Esq.
Download Download Decision (PDF)
Docket No.: Bar-20-4
Issued by: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Date: November 16, 2020
Respondent: Christopher W. Keenan, Esq.
Bar Number: 003338
Order: Reciprocal Discipline
Disposition/Conduct: Public Reprimand
M. Bar R. 26(e)
- Christopher W. Keenan, Esq., was admitted to practice law in the State of Maine in 1986.
- Attorney Keenan is also a member of the New Hampshire bar, where he was admitted in 1986.
- On January 8, 2020, the Board of Overseers of the Bar (the Board) received a certified copy of the New Hampshire Supreme Courts December 17, 2019, Order with incorporated exhibits.
- By its terms, the Courts Order imposed a Public Reprimand and Order on Costs upon Attorney Keenan resulting from his violations of Rules 1.15 and 8.4(a) and Sup. Ct. R. 50, as stipulated, of the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Specifically, Attorney Keenan stipulated, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court found, that he had failed to properly account for and reconcile his trust account.
- The Board and Attorney Keenan stipulate for the purposes of this proceeding that the violation forming the basis of the New Hampshire Supreme Courts December 17, 2019, Order was a continuation of related conduct that had resulted in a 2017 disciplinary proceeding.
- Neither the Board nor Attorney Keenan have demonstrated that it clearly appears upon the face of the record from which the order is predicated, that
(1) The 2019 New Hampshire procedure was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; or
(2) There was such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the Court could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or
(3) The discipline imposed would result in grave injustice or be offensive to Maine public policy; or
(4) The reason for the original order no longer exists.
- Attorney Keenan acknowledges that the above constitutes a sufficient basis to warrant the imposition of reciprocal discipline.
- The Court has reviewed M. Bar R. 21(c) and the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions. Based upon its review, the court is satisfied that a public reprimand fulfills the purpose of lawyer regulation in this instance.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to M. Bar R. 26(e), the Court imposes upon Attorney Keenan a Public Reprimand due to his admitted professional conduct violations. The clerk shall enter this order on the docket.
Dated: November 16, 2020
Daniel F. Driscoll
Judge, Single Justice by Designation