James Conant & a. v. Timothy O'Meara & a.
167 N.H. 644
N.H.2015Background
- In 2005 Anita Conant suffered catastrophic injuries; James Conant retained attorney Timothy O’Meara on a contingency fee (33.33%).
- O’Meara learned the defendant’s insurance covered $11 million, negotiated, and pressured the Conants about settlement authority and fee reductions; disputes over fees escalated.
- At a February 25 meeting and later at arbitration, O’Meara testified that the Conants agreed to a $2 million fee; the court later found that testimony was false.
- The parties agreed to pay O’Meara $750,000 immediately, place $1,250,000 in escrow, and arbitrate the disputed remainder; the arbitration awarded O’Meara $837,000 of the escrow and the Conants $413,000.
- The Attorney Discipline Office prosecuted O’Meara for ethical violations; the Supreme Court disbarred him, concluding he lied under oath in the arbitration (O’Meara’s Case).
- The Conants filed an independent equitable action seeking disgorgement of all fees paid; the trial court set aside the arbitration award (fraud on the court) and ordered disgorgement of $837,000 and also disgorged the $750,000 paid pre-arbitration. Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Conant) | Defendant's Argument (O’Meara) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the arbitration award be set aside based on fraud (perjury) despite statutes of limitation? | Award procured by O’Meara’s perjury as an officer of the court; fraud-on-the-court exception allows setting aside untimely challenges. | Arbitration final and time-barred; perjury was not the kind of fraud that vitiates a judgment. | Court: Fraud-on-the-court (perjury by an officer of the court) permits vacatur; arbitration award set aside. |
| Does res judicata/bar preclusion prevent relitigation after arbitration? | Vacatur removes any preclusive effect; arbitration procured by fraud so it cannot preclude. | Arbitration decision should have preclusive effect. | Court: Because award was vacated for fraud, it has no preclusive force; res judicata argument not dispositive. |
| Is the Conants’ equitable claim to disgorge fees (the $750,000 paid before arbitration) time-barred? | Equitable relief and fraud-on-the-court doctrine justify avoiding limitations. | Claim is barred by the general three-year statute and arbitration timeline; not saved by fraud-on-the-court. | Court: Claim to disgorge $750,000 is barred by statute of limitations; trial court erred ordering its return. |
| Was full disgorgement of the $837,000 awarded by arbitrators proper? | Forfeiture required because O’Meara violated fiduciary duties and lied to secure fees. | Policy and proportionality argue against full forfeiture. | Court: Disgorgement of the $837,000 award was within the court’s equitable discretion and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Meara’s Case, 164 N.H. 170 (2012) (disciplinary decision finding O’Meara lied under oath at arbitration and supporting disbarment)
- Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) (recognizes fraud-on-the-court equitable exception to time bars for vacating judgments)
- Craft v. Thompson, 51 N.H. 536 (1872) (early New Hampshire precedent setting aside arbitration award for perjury/fraud)
- In re Estate of McCool, 131 N.H. 340 (1988) (attorney who breaches ethical duties may be denied fees)