Sex dating in bridgton maine Fullsex chat girl russia girl live no dares
Pongratz told Bolduc that if she wanted to have sex with him, “that would be fine.” She responded, “You’re my lawyer, you’re not supposed to talk like this.” Having refused Pongratz’s invitation, Bolduc left for home in her own car as soon as they arrived in Raymond. Following November 5, Bolduc discussed events related to her case by telephone with Pongratz’s legal assistant and, on at least one occasion, by telephone with Pongratz.On December 4, 2007, Bolduc called Pongratz’s legal assistant to inform her that she had retained Thomas Bell as her new attorney.Download Decision (PDF) Docket No.: BAR-09-14 Issued by: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Date: April 8, 2010 Respondent: Miklos M. Bar Number: 009563 Order: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Disposition/Conduct: Standards of Care and Judgment; Interest in Litigation The evidentiary hearing on the information filed by the Board of Overseers of the Bar was held on February 26, 2010. The second was held on November 5, 2007, a Monday, and began at 9 a.m. During the course of the representation, Pongratz and Bolduc participated in two court-sponsored mediation sessions at the Bridgton courthouse.She testified that at the diner “he said a few inappropriate things” that made her feel uncomfortable, but further testified, “I don’t really remember” the inappropriate things he said.Pongratz’s proposal of a quid pro quo of sex in exchange for the forgiveness of legal fees is the most serious professional misconduct alleged by the Board.He showed her the photograph and told her that she “had a nice ass.” Bolduc objected to the photograph having been taken and insisted that Pongratz delete it, which he did.
The Court rejects Pongratz’s suggestion that Bolduc’s claims regarding his professional misconduct are a complete fabrication motivated by her dissatisfaction with the outcome of the mediation held on November 5th and her desire to avoid paying the money she owes for his services.
During their breakfast together at the diner in Bridgton, Pongratz and Bolduc discussed her case and matters unrelated to her case. Once at the bar in Gray, Pongratz and Bolduc each consumed two beers and discussed her case and matters unrelated to her case.
While there, Pongratz took a photograph of Bolduc’s buttocks with his cell phone when Bolduc was turned around and not facing him.
In all but one respect that is addressed below, the Court finds that the inconsistencies between Bolduc’s report of the events of November 5th in her handwritten complaint, her testimony before the Board, and her testimony before the Court, are largely the product of her lack of experience with the legal process and in providing testimony, the fact that she had not reread her handwritten complaint after she submitted it in March 2008, and the passage of time.
There is one significant aspect of the Board’s allegations against Pongratz that the Court concludes has not been established by a preponderance of the evidence.