John J. Curley, Jr. v. Kristin A. Gustafson, Esq.

Download Download Decision (PDF)

Disposition: Award to Respondent

Issued by: Fee Arbitration Commission

Docket #: FAC-14-294

Dated: December 1, 2014

Bar Number: 003691

The undersigned constitutes a duly-authorized Fee Arbitration Panel of the Fee Arbitration Commission of the Board of Overseers of the Bar. This Panel was designated to hear the controversy existing between the above-named parties as set forth in the Petitioner's Petition. A hearing was held on November 20, 2014, at Augusta, Maine. The Respondent appeared and testified.1 Based upon the parties' submissions and Respondent's testimony, the Panel finds as follows:

  1. The current balance due Respondent is $63,022.25.
  2. The Panel finds Respondent's fees and costs to be reasonable.
  3. Therefore, Petitioner owes Respondent $63,022.25 together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum, as of June 1, 2013.

In order to preserve the confidentiality of the written materials and the testimony submitted at the hearing, the findings of fact and conclusions are not set forth in the Award and Determination. This Award and Determination is accompanied, however, by a separate supplemental document which sets forth the findings of facts and conclusions of the Panel. By ruling of the Chair, the attached supplemental document shall not be considered part of the award, which is a public document. In accordance with Maine Bar Rule 9(j), the supplemental document shall be confidential and shall not be open to the public or disclosed to any person except as otherwise set forth in Maine Bar Rule 9(j).

The Award and Determination is in full settlement of all claims submitted to the Arbitration Panel.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed to this award on December 1, 2014.

Christopher L. Mann, Esq., Panel Chair
Peter T. Marchesi, Esq., Panel Member
Cathy A. DeMerchant, Public Member

1 Petitioner did not appear. On October 16, 2014, Petitioner was granted a continuance for illness. On the day of hearing, Petitioner again requested a continuance for illness, which was denied. He was offered the ability to participate by phone, but did not do so.