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.
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.