28 May 2008

KingCast open letter to NH Attorney Discipline counsel James L. DeHart, regarding Troy Watts/Dan Mullen/Bruce McKay missing Ethics Complaint.

7008 0150 0000 0138 3572 Delivered 10:49 AM on May 29, 2008
Dear Attorney DeHart:

Enclosed please find the second Affidavit with the requisite language for the Grievance against Attorney Mullen. I note that in your 21 May 2008 letter to me you state:
"With respect to the merits, it is necessary that you provide some evidence supporting your allegations," because it appears I have "only speculation that the documents in question had ever been provided to Mr. Mullen."

With all due respect, Sir, I have a complaint from Troy Watts, a duly-licensed attorney explicitly telling the town to forward the complaint to the insurance carrier, who at the time was and is Dan Mullen. That provides enough reason for you to inquire of Attorney Mullen -- who has not yet responded to the Court on this issue since I notified him back on 7 May 2008 in this post and via email and snail mail.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2008/05/kingcast-mothers-day-notice-of-bad.html


It is now fully three (3) weeks later, 27 May 2008. If I had not seen that document I would want the Court to know that fact sooner than later; I probably wouldn't want to wait three (3) weeks. As such, I would think your mission to address possible Ethical violations would be compromised if you fail to ask the question in the wake of Attorney Mullen's silence. Now if I should receive notice from him that he has NOT received the documents, and if the town does not dispute this, that would be grounds for you not to act on the complaint but until then it appears that you are ethically bound to investigate this matter with all deliberate speed and earnestness at your command.

On an unrelated note, I think your upcoming seminar on multijurisdictional practice looks interesting.

Very truly yours,
Christopher King on behalf of KingCast.net

cc: Troy Watts, Esq.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just a point out... the insurance company is not Dan Mullen. In fact, the insurance company said that they would not be involved in this case. While Dan Mullen is a rep of the insurance company, he is not the company. Any information that the company may have is not necessarily information that Atty. Mullen would have accessible.

Christopher King said...

Let me help you with that:

Dan Mullen is the insurance company representative and we knew that waaaay back when in the Primex posts. Believe me, if the Town had sent the information to Primex it would have crossed Mullen's hands, and most likely would have been sent straight to him.

Given his silence over the past three (3) plus weeks on this issue the investigating body would be derelict not to inquire.

If he says "hey, I never got it," and the Town says "hey, we never sent it to him," that's fine.

Then we know the Town disregarded the Complaint against Bruce McKay that specifically directed them to forward the information to Primex.

And we report that to the U.S. House.

Simple.