The following is a post from the blog NH Judges Are Sodomites at the following link: http://nhjudgesaresodomites.blogspot.com/2010/12/cynthia-gilman-lawyer-refuses-to.html. This post earns Cynthia P. Gilman the honor of being on the Unethical “Wall of Shame” at the bottom of this page.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
1. This grievance is against Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. of The Law Offices of Cynthia P. Gilman, at
2. I am the Respondent in the case XXXXX in the Cheshire Superior Court.
3. The Petitioner, is being represented by Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. of
4. False statements of material fact by Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq.:
- a. In a Motion to the Cheshire Superior Court, Cynthia Gilman made impossibly false “statements of fact,” maliciously implicating the Respondent as being several months in arrears on support.
- b. This action is directly counter to N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1), “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”
5. Wanton act to facilitate contempt and acting as an accessory to child abuse:
- a. On December 16, 2010, the Petitioner filed a motion for and was granted a temporary restraining order against the Respondent.
- b. On December 22, 2010 the Petitioner was explicitly Ordered by the Lynn District Court of Lynn, MA that she was to abide by the Parenting Plan set forth in the matter of 08-M-0302.
- c. At 4:51pm the Respondent contacted the Petitioner's counsel, Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. by phone regarding visitation pursuant to the Parenting Plan.
- d. During this call it was indicated that Atty. Gilman had contacted her client; while at the same time informing her client that defying orders of visitation would be an act of contempt, Atty. Gilman explicitly stated, “I recommended to my client that she not show for visitation.”
- e. To make matters worse, this recommendation to refuse to facilitate visitation comes the day before the Respondent was to spend Christmas Eve with his son; through this disgraceful action, Cynthia Gilman has acted directly as an accessory to both contempt and alienative abuse of the parties' 7-year-old child.
6. The Petitioner had a history of bad faith conduct leading to several Contempt findings against her; it is likely that she was counseled made this recommendation with knowledge that Contempt, even of visitation matters, carries virtually no weight in the Cheshire Superior Court.
7. The actions of Cynthia P. Gilman, Esq. are abhorrent acts of child abuse; furthermore, N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(a)(c) clearly states, “A lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.”
8. A “valid obligation” pursuant to a Parenting Plan not only existed in
9. As a member of the Bar in both NH and MA, Attorney Gilman ought to recognize her obligation to the law and the Orders of the courts, but instead stated a belligerently steadfast refusal to act in accordance with those Orders.
10. Attorney Gilman's actions, having been perpetrated with knowledge that her counsel was to commit an act of contempt and fraud against a Court, simply cannot be a more clear violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a), “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly or induce another to do so, or through the acts of another.”
11. Attorney Gilman's actions, are counter to Rule 8.4(b), as she has perpetrated a “criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.”
12. By recommending that her client commit a willful act of contempt, she has disregarded Rule 8.4(c), “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”
13. Through recommending a contemptuous act to her client, Attorney Gilman has taken violation of Rule 8.4(e) to a new extent, not only implying an ability to achieve results, but in fact actively guaranteeing results “by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.”
14. Bearing the title of “Esquire” ought imply that admission to the Bar holds one to a higher standard; this clearly contemptuous and abusive behavior from an “Attorney at Law” disgraces and disreputes the entirety of the legal profession, and the New Hampshire Bar as a whole.