Cantini Case Highlights Board Action
Dublin Core
Title
Cantini Case Highlights Board Action
Subject
Divorce
Malpractice--United States
Description
Lawyer Gerald Cantini has been sued and gone to court many times because of his divorce, malpractice suits, and in multiple investigations. He has had multiple lawyers defending him during his trials but they tend to quit due to his difficult nature.
Creator
Crabtree, Peter
Dillon, John
Source
Crabtree, Peter and John Dillon. “Cantini Case Highlights Board Action.” Rutland H, September 9, 1996.
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1996-09-23
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Format
4 JPGs
300 DPI
Language
English
Coverage
Rutland, VT
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
[Newspaper Title] Rutland H
[Subheading] Vol. 136-No. 229
Rutland, Vermont Copyright
Monday Morning, September 23, 1996
[Article Title] Cantini Case Highlights Board Action
[Start column] MANCHESTER-Lawyer Gerald Cantini has hired many attorneys over the last few years-to handle his divorce, to defend him in malpractice suits, and now, to represent him in a pending professional misconduct investigation.
But Cantini’s relationship with two lawyers who chaired the state panel that oversees legal ethics in Vermont has raised questions about whether the board failed to act promptly in a pair of disciplinary cases brought against him.
J. Eric Anderson, who chaired the conduct panel from 1989 to 1993, waited nine months before finally blowing the whistle in 1994 on Cantini for allegedly cheating clients, according to former members of their staff. Cantini and Anderson shared an office at the time and Anderson was Cantini’s lawyer in a divorce.
Deborah Banse, the lawyer who succeeded Anderson as head of the conduct board, signed a letter, meanwhile, dismissing a unrelated complaint against Cantini while also representing him.
Anderson’s hesitancy to move against Cantini, and the appearance of conflict of interest on Banse’s part, may add fuel to the debate over the conduct of the Professional Conduct Board, the 15-member panel that polices lawyers in Vermont. Lawyers who have defended clients before the board have questioned recently whether the disciplinary process itself has adhered to the highest standards of ethics and fairness.
Responding to some of these concerns, the Vermont Bar Association named a committee last week to review the lawyer disciplinary process.
[Section Title] Possible Conflicts
The Cantini case raises questions about lax enforcement and delayed investigation of misconduct allegations because of his ties to former chairs.
Anderson, Banse and Cantini all practice in Manchester. The information about their cases comes from conduct board documents, affidavits filed with the board, Bennington County court files, depositions taken in connection with a malpractice lawsuit, and interviews with the principals. Both Cantini and his attorney, Peter Hall of Rutland, declined to comment last week.
Cantini has been the target of five malpractice suits in recent years and two complaints to the conduct board, a 15-member panel that enforces the state lawyer disciplinary code. The first complaint dates back to 1989, when Dorset resident Katherine Graf accused Cantini of conflict of interest because he allegedly drafted a defective contract while representing both Graf and a building contractor she had hired.
But this complaint-involving a serious allegation of ethical violations- languished at the board for years. Finally, in 1994, conduct board chair Banse wrote a letter dismissing the complaint, citing the length of time that had passed and the difficulty in finding witnesses. Banse said in her letter, however, that the panel had warned Cantini to “familiarize himself fully” with the profession’s conflict of interest standards.
Banse said in an interview that she removed herself from all conduct board matters involving Cantini. She said she signed the letter because “it was my job.”
[Bottom of page] See Page 9: Case
[End page]
[Start page]
[Section title] Divorce Dispute
[Start paragraph] But Banse was drawn into the next misconduct complaint filed against Cantini because of her work for him in his fiercely contested divorce case unfolding in 1994 in Bennington Superior Court.
On the day after she wrote the letter dismissing the conflict of interest complaint, Banse appeared in Bennington Family Court on Cantini’s behalf. The conduct board chairwoman was fighting a motion for contempt brought by Cantini’s ex-wife in an alimony dispute.
Cantini testified that both his health and deteriorating legal practice made it impossible to meet his obligations. He claimed to have earned only $15,000 in the first six months of the year, according to court records.
But Cantini’s legal assistant, Judi Michel, said in an interview that Cantini was paid more than $15,000 for out-of-pocket expenses alone.
In an affidavit filed with the conduct board, Michel said Anderson -- then a member of the conduct board and Cantini’s office-mate – returned to the office that day and referred to Cantini as “a master of deception.” Anderson was present in court as a spectator, according to Michel.
As for Cantini, when he came back from the courtroom “he told me he cried in front of Judge (Richard) Norton and Norton ‘fell for it,’ ” Michel wrote.
Norton denied the motion for contempt on the grounds that Cantini could not afford to pay alimony, according to court records.
[section title] Early Warnings
[start paragraph] Despite Cantini’s testimony, both Anderson and lawyer Robert Hartwell, who also shared offices with Cantini, did not report him, Michel said. Then in August 1994, Michel sat down with Anderson and Hartwell and reviewed the office’s trust account ledger, Cantini’s billings and other evidence she had compiled, according to the affidavit.
“I told Eric (Anderson), ‘If you don’t report Gerry … I’m going to do it,’ “Michel said in an interview. “This is after being after him since Thanksgiving of ’93 to August of ’94. He (Anderson) didn’t want to get involved.”
Bookkeeper Jan Kelley recalled in an interview that she met with Anderson around November 1993 and told him about Cantini’s orders “not to record income” and “to put certain bills through the office account that were really personal.”
“I thought he should do something,” Kelley said of Anderson. “I didn’t think what was being asked of me was proper conduct. And I didn’t believe as a bookkeeper I should be doing what was asked of me.”
Kelley also contends that she raised questions earlier about $5,000 that appeared to be missing from a client’s trust account.
Anderson acknowledged in an interview that he
did not act immediately when staff members came to him in 1993 with ledger sheets showing Cantini had allegedly dipped into a trust account. Although they shared an office, Anderson has denied legal claims that he was Cantini’s partner.
But the allegations against Cantini did not gain momentum until he took the witness stand on the alimony issue and allegedly misled the judge, according to Michel.
Anderson cited Cantini’s courtroom testimony in the complaint he filed with the conduct board, nine months after the staff members first came to him.
Anderson, in his letter to the conduct board outlining his allegations, called attention to the fact that Deborah Banse, the conduct board chair, was also Cantini’s lawyer. The complaint accuses Cantini of taking money from the trust account, charging excessive fees and then hiding his income to avoid paying alimony.
“I think its important that you know that Deborah Banse is representing Gerry in connection with his ex-wife’s efforts to collect alimony,” Anderson wrote to Shelley Hill, who prosecutes cases before the conduct board. “I hope that this matter will be discussed with Deborah and that you and/or Deborah will feel free to talk to me about this matter at any time.”
Michel, the former legal assistant and office manager, said Anderson only files the complaint after she threatened to. And she said the conduct board bungled its initial investigation and has dragged its feet since then.
Michel said in an interview that former conduct board investigator Anne Buttimer served Cantini with a subpoena in October 1994. “She wasn’t out that door a half hour and Gerry (Cantini) is pulling out filed to take out,” Michel said.
Michel said she called the conduct board in a panic, urging them to protect the documents that would incriminate Cantini. “They’re supposed to be the policing agency. I’m a secretary,” said Michel. “Why am I calling them up to secure the records?”
According to bookkeeper Kelley, the subpoena was served nearly a year after she and Michel first approached Anderson with their concerns about Cantini.
But Anderson said he wanted to be convinced of the allegations.
“I wanted to be sure myself of what the people on the staff were saying,” Anderson said. “This is nothing I did lightly. When other lawyers are faced with having to report another lawyer, it’s not done lightly.”
[End page]
[Start page]
[section title] Banse’s role
Anderson represented Cantini in Cantin’s divorce before Banse took that job. He said last week that he told Banse of his concerns about Cantini’s conduct around the time he filed the complaint.
“I said she needed to consider that she stop representing him,” Anderson said.
Banse was asked in an interview why, when she was the chairwoman of the Professional Conduct Board, she did not drop Cantini as her client after he had been accused of misconduct. “I was never told the substance of any complaint,” she said.
But Michel confirmed Anderson’s version of the story, saying she and Banse discussed the allegations of misconduct in full.
Court documents show that Cantini replaced Banse with another attorney six months after Anderson filed the complaint with the conduct board. By the time the board formally opened the second investigation against Cantini in July, Banse had finished her term as a member,
Banse, however, was chair of the conduct board in 1994 when she signed the letter dismissing the conflict of interest complaint against Cantini. Banse’s letter of June 1994 did not mention that Cantini had been her client since February of that year.
In the letter dismissing the complaint, Banse said the case was old and that the board had difficulty in finding witnesses. Conduct board records show, however, that cases equally old were resolved by either a private admonition or public reprimand.
Anderson did not fault Banse for writing the letter dismissing the Graf complaint while she represented Cantini. “Those kinds of letters are completely ministerial. It could have been a secretary signing it. … I’m sure Deborah Banse had nothing to do with the decision” to dismiss the complaint, he said.
But professor Michael Mello, who teaches constitutional law and legal ethics at Vermont Law School, said that Banse should not have signed the letter dismissing the Cantini complaint if she was also his lawyer.
“As a technical matter I think she clearly should not have signed the letter,” said Mello. “Someone else in the chain of command can come forward and do it. The biggest problem it seems to me is that it creates an appearance of impropriety.”
[section title] Praise for Banse
The current chairman of the Professional Conduct Board, Middlebury lawyer Robert Keiner, said in an interview that Banse was “highly respected” as chairwoman of the conduct panel. But without commenting on the specifics of the Cantini case, Keiner said a conduct board chair should probably not sign a letter dismissing a misconduct complaint against a client.
“I’m not sure under the circumstances you’ve spelled out that the code necessarily mandates that. But in order to avoid exactly what we’re going through now, apparently, it might have been more prudent at the time to simply … step aside and let the vice chair deal with it or let the entire board deal with it,” Keiner said.
Although emphasizing he was not commenting on any specific case, Keiner said the code of professional conduct also requires lawyers to report allegations of attorney misconduct, as long as the information was not acquired through the attorney-client relationship.
No public records are kept of the board’s votes when they dismiss a complaint. The board rules say that misconduct complaints that do not lead to formal charges are secret. Wendy Collins, a lawyer who serves as counsel to the Professional Conduct Board, said she could not comment on questions about Banse because of the confidentiality issue.
[section title] Other Cases
Cantin’s attorney, Peter Hall, cited the conduct board’s confidentiality requirements when declining to comment last week.
“I’m not aware of any public complaint against Gerald Cantini, nor have I seen anything purporting to be issued by the Professional Conduct Board in this matter,” he said. “My understanding under the rules that govern the PCB is all such complaints are in fact confidential, and should not be, and as a result won’t be, the subject of any public discussion by me on behalf of my client.
Although the conduct board warned Cantini in June1994 to “familiarize himself fully” with the profession’s standards on conflict of interest, he has been sued twice over that issue since.
In September 1994, the former owners of the Arlington Inn filed a
[new page] Mello, the law school professor, questioned whether the proceedings should be secret. Even frivolous complaints should be public, he said.
“I think the whole thing should be open. If someone files a frivolous lawsuit there are ways to deal with that. It’s unfortunate frivolous complaints might be filed against a lawyer. It’s unfortunate frivolous malpractice cases are brought against doctors. That doesn’t mean we keep them secret,” he said.
Anderson said that regardless of what the conduct board’s critics think, “the board members work very hard at this job. They take it very seriously. I think they are, at least when I was on the board, fair-minded.”
Anderson served on the conduct board from 1984 to 1993. He was chairman during the last four years of his tenure, presiding over the board while the Graf complaint was pending. Anderson said he could not recall being involved in any conduct board case concerning Cantini.
[End page]
[new page; start paragraph] lawsuit in Bennington Superior Court claiming that Cantini failed to disclose a conflict when he helped them buy the property.
Robert and Sandra Ellis paid nearly $1.5 million for the inn in 1991 and then lost it through foreclosure. They argue that Cantini should have told them he was connected to the real estate firm that represented the seller of the property.
In the most recent malpractice case, Ernest Salo or Winhall contends that he was duped in 1992 by Cantini and his own brother intro signing a quit-claim deed rather that a mortgage deed on his house. Cantini is alleged to have represented both brothers. The lawsuit was filed in May.
Two other malpractice lawsuits against Cantini were recently settled out of court for undisclosed sums. Cantini settled with the parents of a Manchester youth who was convicted of molesting two minors. The Vermont Supreme Court overturned the conviction in 1992, ruling that Cantini provided “ineffective” counsel.
Cantini also settled with Cheryl Bentsen, who sued him for allegedly mishandling her divorce. Bentsen’s attorney, Deborah Bucknam, told the court that she would prove that Cantini failed to keep track of time he billed Bentsen for.
Bucknam also said she would show that Cantini failed to adequately represent Bentsen because he was embroiled in his own divorce. Bucknam told the court that there would be “extensive testimony” that Cantini took “extraordinary, including illegal, steps to avoid alimony payments” in his own divorce case.
[End page]
[Subheading] Vol. 136-No. 229
Rutland, Vermont Copyright
Monday Morning, September 23, 1996
[Article Title] Cantini Case Highlights Board Action
[Start column] MANCHESTER-Lawyer Gerald Cantini has hired many attorneys over the last few years-to handle his divorce, to defend him in malpractice suits, and now, to represent him in a pending professional misconduct investigation.
But Cantini’s relationship with two lawyers who chaired the state panel that oversees legal ethics in Vermont has raised questions about whether the board failed to act promptly in a pair of disciplinary cases brought against him.
J. Eric Anderson, who chaired the conduct panel from 1989 to 1993, waited nine months before finally blowing the whistle in 1994 on Cantini for allegedly cheating clients, according to former members of their staff. Cantini and Anderson shared an office at the time and Anderson was Cantini’s lawyer in a divorce.
Deborah Banse, the lawyer who succeeded Anderson as head of the conduct board, signed a letter, meanwhile, dismissing a unrelated complaint against Cantini while also representing him.
Anderson’s hesitancy to move against Cantini, and the appearance of conflict of interest on Banse’s part, may add fuel to the debate over the conduct of the Professional Conduct Board, the 15-member panel that polices lawyers in Vermont. Lawyers who have defended clients before the board have questioned recently whether the disciplinary process itself has adhered to the highest standards of ethics and fairness.
Responding to some of these concerns, the Vermont Bar Association named a committee last week to review the lawyer disciplinary process.
[Section Title] Possible Conflicts
The Cantini case raises questions about lax enforcement and delayed investigation of misconduct allegations because of his ties to former chairs.
Anderson, Banse and Cantini all practice in Manchester. The information about their cases comes from conduct board documents, affidavits filed with the board, Bennington County court files, depositions taken in connection with a malpractice lawsuit, and interviews with the principals. Both Cantini and his attorney, Peter Hall of Rutland, declined to comment last week.
Cantini has been the target of five malpractice suits in recent years and two complaints to the conduct board, a 15-member panel that enforces the state lawyer disciplinary code. The first complaint dates back to 1989, when Dorset resident Katherine Graf accused Cantini of conflict of interest because he allegedly drafted a defective contract while representing both Graf and a building contractor she had hired.
But this complaint-involving a serious allegation of ethical violations- languished at the board for years. Finally, in 1994, conduct board chair Banse wrote a letter dismissing the complaint, citing the length of time that had passed and the difficulty in finding witnesses. Banse said in her letter, however, that the panel had warned Cantini to “familiarize himself fully” with the profession’s conflict of interest standards.
Banse said in an interview that she removed herself from all conduct board matters involving Cantini. She said she signed the letter because “it was my job.”
[Bottom of page] See Page 9: Case
[End page]
[Start page]
[Section title] Divorce Dispute
[Start paragraph] But Banse was drawn into the next misconduct complaint filed against Cantini because of her work for him in his fiercely contested divorce case unfolding in 1994 in Bennington Superior Court.
On the day after she wrote the letter dismissing the conflict of interest complaint, Banse appeared in Bennington Family Court on Cantini’s behalf. The conduct board chairwoman was fighting a motion for contempt brought by Cantini’s ex-wife in an alimony dispute.
Cantini testified that both his health and deteriorating legal practice made it impossible to meet his obligations. He claimed to have earned only $15,000 in the first six months of the year, according to court records.
But Cantini’s legal assistant, Judi Michel, said in an interview that Cantini was paid more than $15,000 for out-of-pocket expenses alone.
In an affidavit filed with the conduct board, Michel said Anderson -- then a member of the conduct board and Cantini’s office-mate – returned to the office that day and referred to Cantini as “a master of deception.” Anderson was present in court as a spectator, according to Michel.
As for Cantini, when he came back from the courtroom “he told me he cried in front of Judge (Richard) Norton and Norton ‘fell for it,’ ” Michel wrote.
Norton denied the motion for contempt on the grounds that Cantini could not afford to pay alimony, according to court records.
[section title] Early Warnings
[start paragraph] Despite Cantini’s testimony, both Anderson and lawyer Robert Hartwell, who also shared offices with Cantini, did not report him, Michel said. Then in August 1994, Michel sat down with Anderson and Hartwell and reviewed the office’s trust account ledger, Cantini’s billings and other evidence she had compiled, according to the affidavit.
“I told Eric (Anderson), ‘If you don’t report Gerry … I’m going to do it,’ “Michel said in an interview. “This is after being after him since Thanksgiving of ’93 to August of ’94. He (Anderson) didn’t want to get involved.”
Bookkeeper Jan Kelley recalled in an interview that she met with Anderson around November 1993 and told him about Cantini’s orders “not to record income” and “to put certain bills through the office account that were really personal.”
“I thought he should do something,” Kelley said of Anderson. “I didn’t think what was being asked of me was proper conduct. And I didn’t believe as a bookkeeper I should be doing what was asked of me.”
Kelley also contends that she raised questions earlier about $5,000 that appeared to be missing from a client’s trust account.
Anderson acknowledged in an interview that he
did not act immediately when staff members came to him in 1993 with ledger sheets showing Cantini had allegedly dipped into a trust account. Although they shared an office, Anderson has denied legal claims that he was Cantini’s partner.
But the allegations against Cantini did not gain momentum until he took the witness stand on the alimony issue and allegedly misled the judge, according to Michel.
Anderson cited Cantini’s courtroom testimony in the complaint he filed with the conduct board, nine months after the staff members first came to him.
Anderson, in his letter to the conduct board outlining his allegations, called attention to the fact that Deborah Banse, the conduct board chair, was also Cantini’s lawyer. The complaint accuses Cantini of taking money from the trust account, charging excessive fees and then hiding his income to avoid paying alimony.
“I think its important that you know that Deborah Banse is representing Gerry in connection with his ex-wife’s efforts to collect alimony,” Anderson wrote to Shelley Hill, who prosecutes cases before the conduct board. “I hope that this matter will be discussed with Deborah and that you and/or Deborah will feel free to talk to me about this matter at any time.”
Michel, the former legal assistant and office manager, said Anderson only files the complaint after she threatened to. And she said the conduct board bungled its initial investigation and has dragged its feet since then.
Michel said in an interview that former conduct board investigator Anne Buttimer served Cantini with a subpoena in October 1994. “She wasn’t out that door a half hour and Gerry (Cantini) is pulling out filed to take out,” Michel said.
Michel said she called the conduct board in a panic, urging them to protect the documents that would incriminate Cantini. “They’re supposed to be the policing agency. I’m a secretary,” said Michel. “Why am I calling them up to secure the records?”
According to bookkeeper Kelley, the subpoena was served nearly a year after she and Michel first approached Anderson with their concerns about Cantini.
But Anderson said he wanted to be convinced of the allegations.
“I wanted to be sure myself of what the people on the staff were saying,” Anderson said. “This is nothing I did lightly. When other lawyers are faced with having to report another lawyer, it’s not done lightly.”
[End page]
[Start page]
[section title] Banse’s role
Anderson represented Cantini in Cantin’s divorce before Banse took that job. He said last week that he told Banse of his concerns about Cantini’s conduct around the time he filed the complaint.
“I said she needed to consider that she stop representing him,” Anderson said.
Banse was asked in an interview why, when she was the chairwoman of the Professional Conduct Board, she did not drop Cantini as her client after he had been accused of misconduct. “I was never told the substance of any complaint,” she said.
But Michel confirmed Anderson’s version of the story, saying she and Banse discussed the allegations of misconduct in full.
Court documents show that Cantini replaced Banse with another attorney six months after Anderson filed the complaint with the conduct board. By the time the board formally opened the second investigation against Cantini in July, Banse had finished her term as a member,
Banse, however, was chair of the conduct board in 1994 when she signed the letter dismissing the conflict of interest complaint against Cantini. Banse’s letter of June 1994 did not mention that Cantini had been her client since February of that year.
In the letter dismissing the complaint, Banse said the case was old and that the board had difficulty in finding witnesses. Conduct board records show, however, that cases equally old were resolved by either a private admonition or public reprimand.
Anderson did not fault Banse for writing the letter dismissing the Graf complaint while she represented Cantini. “Those kinds of letters are completely ministerial. It could have been a secretary signing it. … I’m sure Deborah Banse had nothing to do with the decision” to dismiss the complaint, he said.
But professor Michael Mello, who teaches constitutional law and legal ethics at Vermont Law School, said that Banse should not have signed the letter dismissing the Cantini complaint if she was also his lawyer.
“As a technical matter I think she clearly should not have signed the letter,” said Mello. “Someone else in the chain of command can come forward and do it. The biggest problem it seems to me is that it creates an appearance of impropriety.”
[section title] Praise for Banse
The current chairman of the Professional Conduct Board, Middlebury lawyer Robert Keiner, said in an interview that Banse was “highly respected” as chairwoman of the conduct panel. But without commenting on the specifics of the Cantini case, Keiner said a conduct board chair should probably not sign a letter dismissing a misconduct complaint against a client.
“I’m not sure under the circumstances you’ve spelled out that the code necessarily mandates that. But in order to avoid exactly what we’re going through now, apparently, it might have been more prudent at the time to simply … step aside and let the vice chair deal with it or let the entire board deal with it,” Keiner said.
Although emphasizing he was not commenting on any specific case, Keiner said the code of professional conduct also requires lawyers to report allegations of attorney misconduct, as long as the information was not acquired through the attorney-client relationship.
No public records are kept of the board’s votes when they dismiss a complaint. The board rules say that misconduct complaints that do not lead to formal charges are secret. Wendy Collins, a lawyer who serves as counsel to the Professional Conduct Board, said she could not comment on questions about Banse because of the confidentiality issue.
[section title] Other Cases
Cantin’s attorney, Peter Hall, cited the conduct board’s confidentiality requirements when declining to comment last week.
“I’m not aware of any public complaint against Gerald Cantini, nor have I seen anything purporting to be issued by the Professional Conduct Board in this matter,” he said. “My understanding under the rules that govern the PCB is all such complaints are in fact confidential, and should not be, and as a result won’t be, the subject of any public discussion by me on behalf of my client.
Although the conduct board warned Cantini in June1994 to “familiarize himself fully” with the profession’s standards on conflict of interest, he has been sued twice over that issue since.
In September 1994, the former owners of the Arlington Inn filed a
[new page] Mello, the law school professor, questioned whether the proceedings should be secret. Even frivolous complaints should be public, he said.
“I think the whole thing should be open. If someone files a frivolous lawsuit there are ways to deal with that. It’s unfortunate frivolous complaints might be filed against a lawyer. It’s unfortunate frivolous malpractice cases are brought against doctors. That doesn’t mean we keep them secret,” he said.
Anderson said that regardless of what the conduct board’s critics think, “the board members work very hard at this job. They take it very seriously. I think they are, at least when I was on the board, fair-minded.”
Anderson served on the conduct board from 1984 to 1993. He was chairman during the last four years of his tenure, presiding over the board while the Graf complaint was pending. Anderson said he could not recall being involved in any conduct board case concerning Cantini.
[End page]
[new page; start paragraph] lawsuit in Bennington Superior Court claiming that Cantini failed to disclose a conflict when he helped them buy the property.
Robert and Sandra Ellis paid nearly $1.5 million for the inn in 1991 and then lost it through foreclosure. They argue that Cantini should have told them he was connected to the real estate firm that represented the seller of the property.
In the most recent malpractice case, Ernest Salo or Winhall contends that he was duped in 1992 by Cantini and his own brother intro signing a quit-claim deed rather that a mortgage deed on his house. Cantini is alleged to have represented both brothers. The lawsuit was filed in May.
Two other malpractice lawsuits against Cantini were recently settled out of court for undisclosed sums. Cantini settled with the parents of a Manchester youth who was convicted of molesting two minors. The Vermont Supreme Court overturned the conviction in 1992, ruling that Cantini provided “ineffective” counsel.
Cantini also settled with Cheryl Bentsen, who sued him for allegedly mishandling her divorce. Bentsen’s attorney, Deborah Bucknam, told the court that she would prove that Cantini failed to keep track of time he billed Bentsen for.
Bucknam also said she would show that Cantini failed to adequately represent Bentsen because he was embroiled in his own divorce. Bucknam told the court that there would be “extensive testimony” that Cantini took “extraordinary, including illegal, steps to avoid alimony payments” in his own divorce case.
[End page]
Original Format
Newspaper
Vol. No./Issue No.
vol. 136, issue 229
Contributor of the Digital Item
Weber, Sophie
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Dickinson, Terra
Files
Citation
Crabtree, Peter and Dillon, John, “Cantini Case Highlights Board Action,” HIST299, accessed July 4, 2024, http://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/265.