Lawyer’s Fake Letter Complaining About Boss Puts Her in Hot Water

Legal Ethics

Lawyer’s Fake Letter Complaining About Boss Puts Her in Hot Water

Posted Jun 30, 2008, 01:09 pm CST
By Martha Neil

Attorney Maureen Duggan wasn't happy with her boss at a state agency in Connecticut. But she was afraid that openly complaining about him could put her job at risk.

So she drafted a letter in 2004 that was written to appear as if the sender were a parking lot attendant complaining about Duggan's boss. She decided it wouldn't be right to send it, she says in court documents. However, when she told her husband of that decision, he misunderstood and thought she meant he should send it—and he did, reports the Connecticut Law Tribune in an article reprinted in New York Lawyer (reg. req.).

That letter sparked an investigation that led to Duggan's boss, former state Ethics Commission Director Alan Plofsky, losing his job and filing a federal lawsuit. That lawsuit, in turn, led to a deposition in January at which Duggan was asked about the letter and admitted drafting it.

And now it looks like Plofsky might not be the only one who suffers job consequences as a result of the letter, the legal publication reports. The state is looking into possible action against Duggan under the administrative policies that apply to Connecticut employees, and the letter also may fall within the "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" prohibited by Rule 8.4(3) of Rules of Professional Conduct.

"I felt between a rock and a hard place," Duggan says in a deposition, explaining her thinking at the time she wrote the letter. "I had a family to support and I couldn't walk away from my job. My husband wasn't working at the time. And on the other hand, I was going in to employment where I felt that the conduct and how the office was being run and how I was being treated personally by Mr. Plofsky was becoming increasingly problematic."

Earlier coverage:

ABAJournal.com: "Conn. Ethics Counsel’s Fake Letter Helped Get Ethics Chief Axed"

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Neil - 5 months, 3 days, 23 hours, 35 minutes ago

With reasoning skills like that Duggan is not fit to be a lawyer.
Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 5 months, 3 days, 21 hours, 17 minutes ago

The root of the problem was the negative atmosphere in the office caused by Mr. Plovsky, the boss, and his unfair treatment of her, which could not get rectified or addressed in the office. I think there ought to be a better vehicle to address office problems between bosses and employees so that this won’t occur. I sympathize with Maureen, who could not get results at work. Mr. Plovsky also appears to be victimized, but he will survive. In all likelyhood, Maureen won’t do well afterward. In a better-run office, she wouldn’t be in this situation.
Posted by ABC - 5 months, 3 days, 20 hours, 33 minutes ago

Assuming the facts are as represented, the solution is simple. The injured Plovsky should be made whole. The woman lawyer who wrote the letter should be fired forthwith. What entity would want such a snake-in-the-grass working in the organization. No one knowing what she did would now hire her as a lawyer or a dishwasher. After firing, inorder to get another job she’ll have to lie. However, it doesn’t sound as though she would would have any difficulty doing that. Come to think of it, have disbarment proceedings begun yet?
Posted by Sequential - 5 months, 3 days, 19 hours, 54 minutes ago

Anyone else reminded of that Simpsons episode where Homer writes a nasty letter to Burns and Marge convinces him not to mail it but then Bart mails it anyway? Classic!
Posted by EBC - 5 months, 3 days, 19 hours, 53 minutes ago

Her behavior was deplorable. I’ve had bosses over the years who were anywhere from difficult to unethical. One non-attorney boss repeated asked me to act in ways I believe are barred by the rules of professional conduct. Difficult as that was, I found a way to deal with it—by brining it up to the company’s general counsel. It caused a rough patch of about 18 months (where I would have rather been anywhere other than work)—however, I feel I took the high road.

Regarding post #3—before agreeing that Plovsky should be made whole, it would be good to know precisely what he was canned for. Maybe, despite the completely smarmy way in which events came to light, he was still engaging in behavior that should have resulted in dismissal. Does anyone know?
Posted by Perfectly happy ... - 5 months, 3 days, 19 hours, 48 minutes ago

Let the gender wars begin ... despite which side of the issue your sympathies lie (both sides are wrong, of course), there are more mature ways of dealing with the situation than “mistakenly” sending a false whistle-blower letter to get the guy fired. Why is it that her financial situation was so much more crucial than his? As anyone who has ever worked in a state agency knows, there are proper mechanisms for dealing with the situation and most agencies take these charges seriously (see Ohio AGO). It’s unfortunate that her revelation to not send the letter didn’t rise to the level of deletion. Now she can live with the consequences.
Posted by MN - 5 months, 3 days, 19 hours, 17 minutes ago

This behavior calls for disbarment. She is a disgrace to the profession and the Connecticut Bar! Hopefully she gets sued in civil court for the damage she has caused also. Also, I do not even think you can refer to what was going on in her head as reasoning. I have no doubt there were plenty of mechanisms in place to deal with the problem, if there really were even a problem.
Posted by J - 5 months, 3 days, 18 hours, 19 minutes ago

If it is an honest mistake (the husband sending the letter when she really didn’t intend too) then it’s a sort of sorry situation. Yes, Dugan should have sent a complaint letter in her own name or followed whatever channels of complaint were already available to her if there was unethical conduct that needed to be reported. At the same time, many therapists and counselors recommend the technique of the “unsent letter,“ where you air grievances in a letter that is never meant to be sent just to get them off your chest and sort through them. Having someone else mistakenly send one of these letters is almost an “I Love Lucy” type situation (and they ought to be destroyed or tucked away in a safe place away from the eyes of others if you are going to use this venting technique).
Plovsky only deserves some sort of restitution if the contents of the letter were false, and Dugan should get some sort of reprimand or lesser punishment for her misbehavior (if the letter’s contents are true).
If the letter’s contents were false (which the article does not seem to indicate), then Dugan deserves a harsh punishment and Plovsky deserves restitution.
Posted by Stan Hecht - 5 months, 3 days, 17 hours, 47 minutes ago

Lots of speculation and opinions with no facts.
Posted by sb - 5 months, 3 days, 10 hours, 35 minutes ago

The prior article reads: “An investigation resulted and the commission, reportedly relying heavily on information from Duggan AND TWO OTHER STAFF ATTORNEYS that documented other alleged issues, dismissed Plofsky in 2004.“ So, basically, the guy was actually a dirtbag, and the only thing Ms. Duggan did wrong was write the letter using someone else’s name. Sure, that’s wrong, and I guess the ethics people can decide how bad they think it was, but people, way too many of you are trying to crucify this woman. Unlike what is being assumed by many of you, Plofsky was apparently getting fired with or without Ms. Duggan’s letter. Plus, evidently the husband sent the letter, and she didn’t intend for it to be sent. That’s like me buying a knife, intending to kill someone, then changing my mind, then someone stealing the knife and killing that person anyway, and prosecuting me for murder. Nonsense. Chill out, people, try to be a little less judgmental.
Posted by EBC - 4 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 36 minutes ago

Ms. Duggan has failed to initiate (nevermind exhaust) her administrative remedies. No, wait, she failed to think. I don’t intend to crucify her, but c’mon, it’s not that hard to figure out. She allegedly told her husband that she wrote it and decided not to send it, and he took it upon himself to send it anyway? Nice job using your spouse as a patsy. He can just say “oops” and you’re off the hook? I don’t think so.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Legal Ethics