Seth T. Carey v. Board of Overseers of the Bar
192 A.3d 589
Me.2018Background
- In 2016 the Maine Board of Overseers brought three disciplinary informations against attorney Seth T. Carey; Carey agreed to an order admitting misconduct and accepting a negotiated two‑year suspended suspension with 28 conditions.
- The disciplinary matters arose from (1) testimony by four judges about Carey's lack of core competence, (2) a physician's complaint about deposition conduct in a workers’ compensation matter, and (3) IOLTA trust‑account misuses.
- Less than two months after the agreed discipline, Carey filed a broad suit in Superior Court naming judges, court employees, Board prosecutors and staff, MCILS, the Lewiston Sun Journal, the Clerk’s Office, and others, asserting numerous torts and statutory claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (and some governmental defendants moved for summary judgment); the Superior Court dismissed most claims, finding statutory immunities (Maine Tort Claims Act), prosecutorial/judicial immunity, Anti‑SLAPP protection, First Amendment protection for reporting on court proceedings, sovereign immunity for certain statutory claims, and procedural defects (untimely/abandoned 80C).
- Carey appealed, principally challenging dismissal based on MTCA immunities and dismissal of claims against the Lewiston Sun Journal. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MTCA immunities bar Carey's tort claims against judges, Board/MCILS employees, and prosecutors | Carey argued defendants’ conduct (false testimony, conspiracy, malice) falls outside MTCA immunity; claims should proceed | Defendants asserted judicial/quasi‑judicial, discretionary, and prosecutorial immunities under 14 M.R.S. § 8111(1)(B)‑(D), and bad‑faith exception does not negate absolute immunities | MTCA immunities apply; complaint fails to plead facts overcoming statutory immunities; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether witnesses’ statements to disciplinary authorities are privileged | Carey alleged judges and others made false/embellished statements and conspired to harm him | Defendants invoked absolute/qualified privilege for statements in judicial/quasi‑judicial proceedings and duty to report misconduct | Court treated those statements as privileged; Carey waived relitigation by agreeing to the negotiated order; privilege bars his claims |
| Whether Lewiston Sun Journal’s reporting is actionable | Carey claimed libel, invasion of privacy, false light, and other torts based on news coverage of the discipline | Sun Journal argued First Amendment protection for reporting on public court filings/proceedings and that Carey failed to plead specific false statements | Court held First Amendment protection applies and Carey pleaded only conclusory, non‑specific allegations; dismissal under M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) affirmed |
| Whether procedural/other defenses preclude relief (80C, Anti‑SLAPP, sovereign immunity, failure to prosecute) | Carey challenged dismissal but did not meaningfully contest many procedural rulings on appeal | Defendants pointed to untimely/abandoned 80C appeal, Anti‑SLAPP dismissal against physician, sovereign immunity for MUTPA/RICO, and failure to oppose summary judgment | Court affirmed on these grounds as well; many claims procedurally barred or insufficiently pled |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunbar v. Greenlaw, 152 Me. 270, 128 A.2d 218 (recognizing absolute privilege for witnesses in judicial proceedings)
- Mehlhorn v. Derby, 2006 ME 110, 905 A.2d 290 (issues not developed on appeal are waived)
- Nadeau v. Frydrych, 2014 ME 154, 108 A.3d 1254 (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; view pleadings in plaintiff’s favor)
- Day’s Auto Body, Inc. v. Town of Medway, 2016 ME 121, 145 A.3d 1030 (principle that liability is the rule and immunity the exception under MTCA)
- Truman v. Browne, 2001 ME 182, 788 A.2d 168 (qualified privilege for reporting suspected professional misconduct to regulatory agencies)
- Seacoast Hangar Condo. II Assoc. v. Martel, 2001 ME 112, 775 A.2d 1166 (court need not accept legal conclusions in pleadings)
- Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (First Amendment protects reporting of public court filings/proceedings)