Rumford’s advertising guardian has been delisted

RUMFORD. The Maine Board of Bar Overseers has removed Rumford attorney Melanie A. Allen from the state’s list of active judicial trustees for multiple violations, including failure to report disciplinary action taken against her last year.

Allen, who graduated from the University of Maine School of Law in 2017 and was admitted to the Maine Bar later that year, is a self-employed attorney at Swift River Legal on Congress Street.

In September, Allen was the subject of an Ad Litem Review Board hearing after a complaint that she engaged in misconduct under the state’s guardian ad litem rules.

Guardians ad litem are appointed by courts to protect a person’s best interests in legal cases, which most often involve family and custody issues.

In November 2023, Allen was subject to a complaint by the Guardian Ad Litem Review Board, alleging that she failed to notify the courts and her clients of the 2023 disciplinary action taken by the Board of Bar Overseers, according to hearing records. This disciplinary action was a formal warning issued by the Board of Supervisors for missing a scheduled hearing date in a custody case and later failing to submit required witness lists and evidence to the court or opposing counsel.

In 2019, Allen represented a client who sought to reverse a parental visitation order following a divorce, and later withdrew the case.

In 2020, Allen again represented the same client in a family and custody case involving another request to modify parental rights stemming from the underlying custody case. Representing this client, Allen failed to appear at a pre-trial conference on March 9, 2021.

During the bar’s investigation of the complaint against Allen, she admitted that her office had received notice of the conference attendance on that day, but she had not recorded or noted that date in any of her files or records. When asked, she could not remember why she did not show up, noting that the behavior was unusual for her.

While the case was ongoing, Allen received notice of another hearing scheduled for March 8, 2022 — almost a year later — for which she was required to provide lists of witnesses and evidence, but she did not remember whether she sent them to the court or the opposing attorney. and could not provide any documentation that she had done so.

Without witnesses and evidence lists, Allen “was unable to present what she believed to be sufficient evidence” in her client’s case on the scheduled hearing date. The client, who was offered the opportunity to testify on her own behalf but chose not to, then decided to withdraw her application for change of parental rights and responsibilities and her application was denied.

Then, according to the board’s investigation, “the parties’ custody and other rights and responsibilities with respect to the minor child were ordered to be restored in accordance with the provisions of the prior control order, which included time with the child’s father,” which Allen’s client sought to modify.

In her defence, Allen told investigators she was dealing with a busy practice at the time and had some staffing and remote practice issues, but has since hired a staff member and implemented digital resources to improve her ability to organize and monitor the demands of her practice .

Based on its investigation on July 14, 2023, the Board of Supervisors determined that Allen’s violations of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct jeopardized her client’s case.

She has since taken full responsibility for her misconduct, according to investigators, and has fully acknowledged her lack of diligence and competence, and understands that her conduct negatively impacted her client. In her practice, she also took measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.

When a finding of misconduct was recorded and a warning issued, Allen was required to report the disciplinary action to the Maine State Bar attorney, the courts, and all parties in all cases in which she was assigned at the time of the disciplinary action. was pending and at the time of the final decision.

According to investigators, Allen knew about the authority based on an email she sent in May 2023 to the coordinator of guardian ad litem services in the administrative offices of the courts, who directed Allen to report the disciplinary petition to the Bar Review Board. A few months later, Audrey Braccio, an adviser to the Board of Supervisors, sent Allen an email asking him to notify him of the disciplinary petition.

Alain did not respond to this request.

A month later, board officials contacted Allen again by phone, asking her to comply, and she said she would that day, but “did not respond that day or later,” according to investigators.

In October, a board adviser contacted Allen again by email asking him to agree, but the email was never opened. A few weeks later, board counsel sent her a certified letter asking her to comply with the disciplinary disclosure rule.

Allen responded to that inquiry by stating that she had received prior notices and was aware of her duty to disclose, although she learned “late in the process,” but that her “work for families in Maine takes precedence over compliance” with the rules governing this. work

In his response, Allen did not provide any of the requested documents and asked investigators to take into account the severely overburdened system “in which we operate” and that “families and those of us who want to refer them face a staggering lack of resources at every turn.”

Allen acknowledged that she did not inform the Board of Supervisors of the complaint, while noting that it was a complaint with which the board was already “clearly aware” and asked the board to consider her belief “that I was successful in representing the best interests of those children who were involved , and consider it a higher priority’ than the ‘technical aspects of my role’ to report disciplinary action.

Days later, Allen was sent a formal complaint detailing her inability to respond, to which she did not respond. She was eventually disciplined for these failures and for failing to provide documentation of the previous disciplinary warning.

The board had the option of reprimanding Allen rather than delisting her, but “while fortunately no child was harmed in this case, the board believes there has been prejudice to the public and the court” that Allen acted willfully to disregard the requirements and orders board that her misconduct was not minor and likely to be repeated in the future.

The board’s decision preserves Allen’s continued obligation to notify the courts and all clients she represented during that time period of her previous disciplinary actions.

The review board’s decision does not affect Allen’s license to practice law.

She did not respond to an email from the Sun Journal seeking comment.