Board of Overseers of the Bar v. William B. Entwisle, Esq.
Download Download Decision (PDF)
Docket No.: GCF#14-434
Issued by: Grievance Commission
Date: July 20, 2015
Respondent: William B. Entwisle, Esq.
Bar Number: 003933
Disposition/Conduct: Disobeying the obligations or rules of a tribunal, Failure to provide timely discovery to the accused, Misconduct
M. Bar R. 13
On July 20, 2015 with due notice and pursuant to Maine Bar Rule 13, Panel A of the Grievance Commission conducted a public disciplinary hearing concerning misconduct by Respondent William B. Entwisle, Esq. The Board of Overseers of the Bar (the Board) commenced this disciplinary proceeding by filing a Stipulated Disciplinary Petition on June 11, 2015.
At the hearing, Entwisle was present and represented by Attorney Marvin H. Glazier, and the Board was represented by Bar Counsel J. Scott Davis. Complainant Brian C. Danielson was not in attendance at the hearing. At least by April 27, 2015 the Board had been notified by the U. S. Postal Service that the last mailing address provided by Danielson was void, i.e. mailings were now "not deliverable" to him. In addition, although Board staff had earlier had email correspondence with Danielson, on June 8, 2015 the email address provided by Danielson was no longer in service. Prior to the hearing date, the parties submitted that stipulated proposed sanction Report for this Panel’s review and consideration.
Having reviewed the stipulated, proposed findings as presented by counsel, the Panel makes the following disposition:
Respondent William B. Entwisle, Esq. of Ellsworth, Maine has been at all times relevant hereto an attorney duly admitted to and engaging in the practice of law in the State of Maine, subject to the Maine Bar Rules and the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct. He was admitted to practice in Maine in 1988 and has been employed as a criminal prosecutor since 2003.
On or about September 14, 2014, Brian C. Danielson filed a complaint with the Board against Entwisle alleging that he acted improperly in his capacity as an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) for Prosecutorial District #7 (comprising Hancock and Washington Counties). As stated in the Stipulated Disciplinary Petition of April 22, 2015 in this matter, ADA Entwisle now admits and agrees he engaged in misconduct that violated Rules 3.4(c); 3.8(b); and 8.4(a) of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct for which he should receive a reprimand.
The conduct that resulted in those Rules violations by ADA Entwisle is set forth as follows:
Accordingly Entwisle now agrees that his conduct and actions In these two separate criminal prosecutions violated M. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c) (disobeying the obligations or rules of a tribunal); 3.8(b) (failure to provide timely discovery to the accused); and 8.4(a) (conduct in violation of any provision of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct) in each instance.
The Maine Rules of Professional Conduct specifically require attorneys to uphold their responsibilities as officers of the court. Accordingly, based upon ADA Entwisle's improper actions and lack of appropriate professional judgment, the Panel finds - as he agrees - that he violated M. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(c); 3.8(b); and 8.4(a). The Panel notes that ADA Entwisle has taken responsibility for his behavior. He has acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions and expressed remorse to the Panel for his violations of those particular portions of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct. Bar Counsel has confirmed to the Panel that ADA Entwisle has no prior disciplinary or sanction record on file with the Board.
The Panel further notes that the purpose of bar disciplinary proceedings is not punishment, but rather the protection of the public from attorneys who have demonstrated that they are unable to properly discharge their professional duties. Since the evidence supports a finding and ADA Entwisle agrees that he did in fact violate the above-referenced portions of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, the Panel finds that a public reprimand serves those purposes.
Therefore, the Panel accepts the agreement of the parties, including Attorney Entwisle's separately executed waiver of the right to file a Petition for Review, and concludes that the appropriate disposition of this case is a Public Reprimand. Pursuant to M. Bar R. 13, the Panel hereby issues that Reprimand to William B. Entwisle, Esq.
Date: July 20, 2015
M. Ray Bradford, Jr., Esq., Panel Chair
Sarah McPartland-Good, Esq., Panel Member
Milton R. Wright, Public Member