$64,000 Question – Where’s the Accident Report? What exactly caused this “Accident”? As far as “Proof” goes, please show us all the “Proof”, Facebook ‘Fact Checker(s)’, regarding Donald Trump’s TWO (2) Impeachments & his recent Indictment in New York city? So many questions, so few answers.
Atty. Roland L. Milliard
Question: Why don’t sharks ever attack Lawyers?
Answer: Professional courtesy.
— Boston personal injury lawyer James Sokolove in a TV commercial
__________________________________________________
Question: Why did God create snakes before He created Lawyers?
Answer: He needed the practice.
— a scene from the popular AMC TV show, ‘Better Call Saul’
First of all, I respect Internet forums which solicit opinions from various people, even the ones that adhere to rules which I might happen to disagree with. They’re certainly entitled to their First Amendment right of Free Speech so even though I may not agree with their setup, I can certainly respect them. Hence, we have the words of a great philosopher who once said, “That’s why God created both chocolate and vanilla ice cream.”
Heck, there are probably a fair number of web surfers who have come here on, One Bad Decision Away from Homelessness, only to shake their heads and say, “Why is this Moderator running his site THIS way when he ought to be running it THAT way?” To those particular folks, I would just suggest that they click on the option titled, ABOUT, and read the part that states, “If this particular website is not to your liking, please feel free to do your web surfing elsewhere.” The items that you happen to see posted on this blog are ones that I happen to have an interest in, and I’m definitely not trying to compete in some type of Internet popularity contest.
The reason I bring this up is that while I was recently posting comments on a lawyer-related site, AVVO.com, specifically about my former attorney, Roland “Conflict of Interest” Milliard, whose office is located in Dracut MA, I noticed that this forum not only solicited comments from current and former clients, but it also wanted to hear from fellow lawyers, as well.
Needless to say, I don’t know why this site does that. My former lawyer in question, Atty. Milliard, got an outstanding review on this site from another attorney whose office is about 25 miles from Milliard’s and does most of their practice in the Boston area, while Milliard mostly works out of the Lowell MA area. So they’re not really in direct competition with each other.
But what positive outcome could another lawyer have by publicly trashing Milliard on a site like that? Let’s say, for example, a lawyer who had just publicly criticized Milliard on that forum is approached by a guy who’s faced with a Divorce and a Child Support situation. Then Milliard, ironically, is approached by that guy’s wife for representation on the same legal matter. The lawyer who just trashed Milliard on the Internet now finds himself with a Conflict of Interest of sorts because much of the husband’s case is contingent upon being able to amicably negotiate with the opposing counsel (in this case Milliard) to at least settle somewhat for what they were hoping for. Not only does Milliard have the proverbial upper hand by representing a Wife in a Massachusetts Family Court situation, he’s probably going to be less inclined to openly negotiate with an attorney who publicly criticized him on an Internet blog.
It should be noted here too that Milliard also served as President for the Greater Lowell Bar Association, an organization comprised of a couple hundred local attorneys, about 5-6 years ago. Yet, all this guy could get was one (1) fellow lawyer to post a review on that rather popular Internet site on his behalf? The one lawyer who posted a review on Milliard, for example, received approximately a dozen outstanding evaluations them self on the same site. So why not show the same type of love and respect for a former President of the Greater Lowell Bar Association? Could it perhaps be that those couple hundred lawyers didn’t want to compromise their credibility or reputations by claiming that Milliard was a tremendous attorney when they realized, in their heart of hearts, that nothing could be further from the truth?
Most of the reviews I found on AVVO by attorneys evaluating other attorneys were absolutely outstanding. It’s as if they’re all “good buddies” with each other outside the courtroom and they have no qualms about submitting positive reviews on behalf of their rivals, even if they’re engaging in some type of impropriety and actually deserve to be publicly called out on their shortcomings. But let’s get real – other lawyers honestly don’t have the same “skin in the game”, (i.e., paying their outrageous fees) as current and former clients do when retaining attorneys for their services. And with all the criticism and jokes about shady lawyers – how often do you hear about them actually being prosecuted in court for some type of impropriety?
If something like mismanaging clients’ Retainer fees get blatantly out-of-control, you might hear about them getting either suspended or disbarred, but not really that often. There seems to be more stuff in the media trashing dishonest auto mechanics than dishonest lawyers, although I think the percentages are basically about the same. It seems like more people are intimidated by confronting lawyers probably because they’re often worth a lot more money than most people, along with their usual ability to play semantics (a.k.a. bullCRAP) with just about every argument they make.
Intelligence, Confidentiality, Assertiveness & Courtroom Savvy
One of the compliments that lawyer gave Milliard in their review was that he’s very smart. So what the heck does that really mean? Milliard, Alan Dershowitz, and F. Lee Bailey all successfully passed the Massachusetts Bar Exam to become “bonafide” lawyers. Maybe Milliard scored a number of points higher on that exam than either Dershowitz or Bailey. If so, what the heck does that prove? If you’re paying one of these “professionals” in the neighborhood of about $300 per hour to successfully represent you in a Court of Law, are you more concerned about your attorney’s “intelligence” or their “courtroom savvy”, a.k.a. their ability to possibly sway a Judge or a Jury into their way of thinking?
And since we’re talking about Atty. Milliard here, what would you gauge as a higher priority when selecting a Lawyer to possibly represent you in Court: Confidentiality or Courtroom Savvy? My basic beef with Milliard is that he chose to ignore Massachusetts Rules for Attorneys by backstabbing me and representing a client who sued me – all without first getting my permission. Besides that, Milliard has an absolute piss-poor losing record on representing high-profile cases throughout his nearly 30 year legal career. In the great words of disgraced comedian, Bill Cosby, “the proof is in the pudding.”
In the half dozen or so postings I’ve done on this forum regarding Atty. Milliard, I’ve never referred to this guy as being stupid, and I would agree with that lawyer on their Internet review that he’s probably got a higher I.Q. than the average schmuck on the street.
Another great myth a lot of people usually get screwed on when choosing a lawyer to represent them, is going with someone perceived to either be a Pitbull or an s.o.b. – Milliard, incidentally, fits both of these descriptions – inside or outside of a courtroom. But again, how the heck does “assertiveness” supersede “courtroom savvy” when going with someone to represent your best interests in a lawsuit? Granted, with all other factors being equal, I would just assume go with a lawyer who’s more aggressive in their approach than one who’s passive because I would tend to feel more comfortable on my chances of winning. But if my attorney is cut from the same cloth as Mahatma Gandhi, for example, and he’s got a passive, uncanny knack for constantly convincing the Judge and Jury into his way of thinking, then that might be the right way to go in Court.
Mixed reviews here when it comes to ‘Relatives’
One fascinating comment that lawyer posted on Milliard’s Internet review was that they’d have no qualms whatsoever, on having one of their relatives represented by Milliard. After reading that line, I couldn’t help but think of the community Milliard’s office is situated in, Dracut Massachusetts, which the main activity involving its Police department is in regards to, Domestic violence issues – especially on the Thanksgiving Day holiday, when relatives are usually all together.
So I doubt the lawyer posting that statement could successfully pass a Polygraph (Lie Detector) test making the same comment – unless, of course, they were thinking of a relative that they truly hate or dislike. But I think I can easily pose a few questions here, based on Milliard’s own previous testimony, that that lawyer would NOT want to be asked about while being attached to one of these machines:
On November 2012, Milliard was quoted in the Lowell Sun that he had about eight (8) convicted sex offender clients who visit his office on a regular basis. So if you had a young nephew or niece about 5-6 years old, would you want them to accompany either your brother or sister into Milliard’s waiting room, and then see a strange looking individual who says to them, what a beautiful boy or girl they’ve got there. Do you see a potential problem with that scenario already? And what exactly is the restroom situation in Milliard’s office? Can only one person use it at a time, or can a few people use it simultaneously?
If you had a brother or a male cousin who needed a lawyer for an upcoming Divorce and Child Custody battle, would you honestly want them to watch Milliard’s YouTube video on how EASY and SIMPLE it is for husbands to get custody of their kids after a Massachusetts Divorce case? Heck, as a Massachusetts lawyer yourself, DO YOU honestly think it’s EASY and SIMPLE for a husband to win custody of their kids after a Massachusetts Divorce? It’s obvious that Milliard was just preying on vulnerable, desperate husbands grasping for some semblance of hope to retain a normal relationship with their kids again.
Last and by all means Least, if you had a relative who was facing either an ‘Operating Under the Influence’, or a, ‘Driving Under the Influence’ conviction, why the heck would YOU want a complete Shyster like Milliard to represent them when he couldn’t even defend himself of that same charge back in ’99??? At that point in time, Milliard already had about eight (8) years of experience as a lawyer – he was probably well aware of what he was facing from a Defendant’s perspective. It’s sort of like Milliard is just taking his client’s money to build his own bank account, and then going through the motions of pretending to be a Lawyer and representing them in court. If you think I’m wrong here, let’s see Milliard’s “success” rate on representing clients facing DUI or OUI situations. Somehow I think if Milliard was ever pressed on the issue, he’d probably claim those types of files are “confidential” and nobody else’s business.
Milliard avoids mentioning ‘Legal Case’ experience on AVVO resume
On promoting himself and his law practice on the AVVO website, Milliard came off as extremely dull, boring and lackluster — especially for an attorney who’s been involved in that profession for almost three decades and is currently 60-something. Milliard isn’t exactly viewed as a “rising star” at this point in his career, he’s more like someone who’s “rounding Third and heading for Home”, professionally speaking.
When submitting reviews for a couple other local lawyers, Milliard referred to himself as a, “Speeding and traffic ticket attorney” — as if to indicate that’s his specialty. Dude…seriously? Way back, when I was on friendlier terms with Milliard, I specifically asked him for advice on challenging a Speeding ticket, which I wound up failing miserably. This begs the question though, what is his clients’ success rate on fighting (and actually winning) Speeding ticket hearings in Court? If they’re like most cases Milliard represents, I would assume the final verdicts must really suck on his clients’ behalf.
I distinctly remember him telling me that one of the best ways an individual can beat a speeding ticket in Court is if the actual Officer who gave you that Citation didn’t show up for the hearing — that’s how the law goes in Massachusetts anyway. So if Milliard does have any high-ranking contacts with that community’s Police Department, or maybe an influential politician in that town or city, I can see that scumbag exploiting this option to try to ensure that that particular Officer failed to show up for that hearing at that time and date. However, if the Officer did show up for that hearing, I would bet my money for the Speeding Ticket to still be upheld over Milliard’s client at least 99.9 percent of the time. Hence, it’s worth demanding Milliard to substantiate his “success” rate in these types of cases, otherwise, just go elsewhere for your legal representation.
Can you imagine if popular, successful lawyers like Alan Dershowitz or F. Lee Bailey suddenly referred to themselves as, “Speeding and traffic ticket attorneys”? It would be absolutely hysterical, as well as the proverbial end of their respective careers for all intents and purposes. But then again, when we’re talking about Atty. Milliard, who still promotes a ‘Free Initial Consultation’, appears to frequently represent Court Appointed clients, and posted a YouTube video claiming just how EASY and SIMPLE it is for divorced husbands to win custodial rights of their kids, then calling yourself a “Speeding and traffic ticket attorney” makes about as much sense as anything else all in a vain attempt to dupe vulnerable clients to avail themselves with his rather poor excuse of a Law practice.
Milliard starts off by talking about his stint in the U.S. Navy, and ending it by stating that he was staunchly involved with both the American Legion and AMVETS. Words like: “successful” and “winning” were no where to be found in this self-initiated Resume. So citing one’s military experience, along with any subsequent involvement they may have with veterans’ groups, might be valuable for a person running for public office, or maybe seeking a government job like with the Internal Revenue Service, Homeland Security, etc., but again, if you’re paying an attorney about $300 per hour you basically just want to retain a lawyer capable and qualified of winning your case. Who really cares about all this patriotic military crap?
It should be noted here too, I happen to be an honorably-discharged military veteran (U.S. Air Force) and Milliard still chose to represent an individual who never served in the military to sue me in Court. So aside being in blatant conflict of interest between a lawyer and his client, where was Milliard’s military veteran allegiance to me six years ago?
Milliard’s explanation of which part of his Navy tenure was spent in the Reserves (one weekend a month and two weeks in the Summer) versus Active Duty (contractual full-time obligation usually for at least two years) is vague and ambiguous at best. In the ‘Work Experience’ section of his AVVO resume, Milliard claims he served as a ‘Legal Officer’ during his Navy stint, yet he didn’t actually attend law school till the year after he left the military. Are we to believe that the Navy prosecutes, convicts, and incarcerates its own members with a justice system which its Legal Officers are not required to hold law degrees?
Quick, can somebody please get me the phone number to, Ripley’s Believe it or Not.
For some strange reason, Milliard stated, “In the time I have been practicing, I have handled well over a thousand cases, both Civil and Criminal.” As the great Philosopher once said, So What? Since we’re talking about Atty. Milliard here: Did he win most of those “well over a thousand cases”? I seriously doubt it.
As far as Atty. Milliard touting his stint(s) as the President of the Greater Lowell Bar Association, lets not kid ourselves here — he wasn’t exactly elected to that post because of his savvy and successful courtroom reputation. While about 99.9 percent of the lawyers practicing in the Greater Lowell area are too busy representing and “actually winning” for their clients, Milliard instead chose to plan wine and cheese social gatherings for his fellow rival attorneys. Why would any would-be client — with at least a half of a brain in their head — even remotely consider this as a viable qualification to retain Milliard to represent them in a lawsuit?
The thing most disturbing about Atty Milliard’s blurb on AVVO were the items he chose to ignore. Unlike many other attorneys, Milliard had nothing posted under the categories of “Speaking Engagements” or “Publications”. Not surprisingly, Milliard also chose not to submit AVVO a photo of himself to help promote this particular section — but maybe that was a good thing since Milliard sort of looks (and acts) like the Second Coming of the late great actor Chris Farley in the movie, Tommy Boy.
But even more than that, why didn’t Milliard cite anything on his AVVO resume about his ‘Legal Cases’? Out of supposedly, “more than a thousand cases”, Milliard couldn’t even pick out at least a dozen successful verdicts? Seriously? That might, arguably, be the ONLY relevant part of AVVO resumes. What better way to gauge the actual effectiveness of an attorney than researching several of their previous successful cases?
Another point that’s definitely worth mentioning here — for those who are not familiar with Dracut Massachusetts, it happens to be a “border town” to the state of New Hampshire. Most attorneys who have offices in Dracut, not only have licenses to practice Law in Massachusetts but neighboring New Hampshire as well. A lot of the lawyers situated in Dracut even have licenses to practice in Florida, where many of the local residents go “wintering” every year. Atty. Milliard, on the other hand, is only licensed to practice Law in Massachusetts — that probably concedes a lot of potential clients away to rival attorneys due to Milliard’s own laziness and lack of versatility.
In summary here, I guess a lawyer can socialize with other lawyers to have lunch or maybe a few drinks somewhere, but a client has a heck of a lot more at stake whenever they’re faced with a lawsuit or a court case. I would highly suggest that if you’re looking for a good lawyer to represent you, and you’re familiar with AVVO or avvo.com, please take other lawyers’ comments with a grain of salt – in the long run, they’re probably not going to help you.
As for more information on Atty. Roland Milliard, please check out some of the other postings on this site I’ve done on this guy. Do an Archive search on LowellSun.com to look up some of this guy’s high profile cases. Why not go to the Lowell (MA) District Court to investigate his own OUI conviction back in ’99? That should give you a pretty good start to figure out what Atty. Milliard is all about. In other words, if life were fair — which it obviously is not — Roland Milliard should’ve been DISBARRED from ever practicing Law again in Massachusetts (or anywhere else in this country), a long, long, long time ago. Before giving Milliard some type of ridiculous Retainer fee, just remember the great statement in the Biblical book of 1 Corinthians – “If a man (or woman) be Ignorant, let him (or her) be Ignorant.”
P.S. I would’ve loved to have posted all these aforementioned comments on the AVVO website itself, unfortunately, some bimbo representative there named, Anna chose to ban me from that forum stating that she/it didn’t actually think I was ever represented by Atty. Milliard and I needed to substantiate my claims against him. When I mentioned that it should investigate Lowell Sun newspaper Archive files, or look into the Lowell (MA) District Court for Milliard’s OUI arrest in ’99 yourself, Anna stated that the onus wasn’t on AVVO to investigate any adverse claims made against lawyers. So instead, AVVO relegates itself to posting a whole bunch of false information (a.k.a., Lies) on attorney reviews due to its own laziness and professional incompetence.
File Under: Even More, Very Very Fake News.
Atty. Roland L. Milliard, office situated in Dracut MA
$64,000 Question: Why did the Dracut (MA) Water Supply District almost double its posted ‘Legal’ expenses, from $31,116 in 2016 to $54,941 in 2017, without being involved in any apparent pending lawsuit? Secondly, why did the DWSD nearly triple the annual stipend of its most recently hired attorney Roland “Conflict of Interest” Milliard, from $8,580 in 2016 to $24,156 in 2017?
Or maybe the better question here is, why the heck would the DWSD hire a shyster lawyer like Milliard in the first place? Back in ’98, Milliard represented a client, Bill Morin, who was suing the Dracut Water District for Defamation of Character, and Violating his First Amendment Rights. The following year, Morin was elected Water Commissioner and then decided to drop his lawsuit. Morin still holds his elected post with the DWSD, and Milliard has now joined that bureaucracy as a part-time lawyer since 2016 probably via one of the Water District’s famous, “Nationwide Searches“.
The DWSD is a small obscure government entity, which is separate from the Town of Dracut. It basically provides the water supply needs for most of Dracut and part of neighboring Tyngsboro MA. The Dracut Water District operation is so obscure, it’s rarely covered by the local media and it’s been about 15 years since there’s been a contested race for a Commissioner’s or Clerk’s seat even though they offer a more lucrative annual stipend than a seat on either the Dracut Board of Selectmen, or the Dracut School Committee.
Needless to say, it’s fairly simple for a jerk like Milliard to “fly under the proverbial radar of public scrutiny” and pocket about $25K per year at the DWSD for “doing something“. In 2017, there was also another attorney on the DWSD’s payroll named, Arthur C. Sullivan Jr., who grossed a little more than $26K, plus $5K that was paid to an entity called, KP Law, P.C.
One important duty for the DWSD lawyer(s) is initiating Property Tax Liens on its delinquent rate payers, YET, money paid to the Middlesex County Registry of Deeds was nearly cut in half from two years ago ($6,675 in 2016, to $4,875 in 2017). So again, how does DWSD “justify” almost doubling its Legal expenses since 2016?
Besides Morin, Robert Corey and William “Zee” Zielinski all serve as the DWSD Commissioners and were obviously there two years ago when Milliard was hired as a DWSD attorney. My question to all three gentlemen: Dudes…Seriously??? Did you ever hear of a thing called, Google searches? How about, the Lowell Sun? What about Milliard’s pathetic inability to save his own fat butt from a personal drunk driving fiasco back in ’99?
Was the hiring of Milliard at the DWSD, considered a “political favor” to one of your campaign supporters, or maybe a “questionable” friend? Can you say, “Quid Pro Quo”? I mean, I just assumed you three guys had a lot more brains (or is, “integrity” the more appropriate word here?) than making a hiring like that.
So in other words, your Dracut constituents are supposed to believe here that out of the few hundred lawyers currently working in the Greater Lowell area, Roland L. Milliard was the absolute BEST and BRIGHTEST you could come up with to serve as a Water District attorney? What a bunch of, bullCRAP! Granted, I’m quite familiar with the cliche, “You’re better off with the Devil you know rather than the Devil you don’t know“, HOWEVER, when the “Devil you know” is nothing but a Train Wreck waiting to happen, I’d say you’re much better off with a “Devil you Don’t know“, such as a Law student who just passed the Massachusetts Bar Exam last week. Are there any questions as to why Dracut MA is often referred to as, Somerville with Trees?
Can you imagine that Atty. Milliard was actually elected, just fairly recently, President of the Greater Lowell Bar Association? What a tremendous ethical “role model” and “standard bearer” for all lawyers in the local area to follow. For the life of me, I can’t understand why all the lawyers from the Greater Lowell area didn’t continue to reelect Milliard as President of the Bar Association over and over and over again just like the Russian people do with Vladimir Putin. Someday, hopefully, some lawyer with a good conscience will come forward and spill the beans on why Milliard was only a “one termer” in that post.
Also, did I mention on the popular Lawyer critique internet forum, AVVO, Milliard refers to himself as a, “Traffic and Speeding Ticket Lawyer”, I assume, his “specialty”. First of all, when I was a little more amicable with Milliard years ago, I personally sought and applied his advice when challenging a Speeding Ticket — I wound up failing miserably and losing my case. This begs the question from Atty. Milliard — what exactly is the success rate of his clients who have actually contested their speeding tickets at a Court hearing? I would assume it’s about the same rate — if not worse — as most of his regular Court cases.
Secondly, why the heck would the Dracut Water Supply District seek after and retain a self-proclaimed, “Traffic and Speeding Ticket Lawyer” to serve as one of its regular attorneys? Aside from completely wasting and abusing Dracut taxpayer money, it makes no sense whatsoever.
Textbook Definition of an, ‘Ambulance Chaser’
According to a website called, howlmag.com, Milliard became associated with a gay rights activist and social worker from Lowell MA named Troix Bettencourt via a gay-themed talk show on a now-defunct Boston radio station:
[…But Troix ended up in an unlikely support system. He met politicians and lawyers, influential men and women who were gay.
Troix went public with his story, appearing on national TV talk shows, talking to the press in print and on the radio.
In 1993, he was a key speaker at the historical march for gay and lesbian rights in Washington D.C., where at age 18, he championed the issues in front of an estimated one million people.
One night, when Troix was telling his story on WFNX radio’s One in Ten program, a Dracut lawyer named Roland Milliard was listening and called in. “He started talking about state law and how what was happening to me, to people I knew, was illegal,” Troix said.
Roland ended up representing Troix in a lawsuit against the state of Massachusetts. They won.
On Dec. 10, 1993, Massachusetts made history when the Gay and Lesbian Student Rights Law was signed by Gov. William Weld. Massachusetts became the only state in the country to have full support for LGBT students through its governor…]
Although the origins of the attorney-client relationship between Milliard and Bettencourt were a wee bit unorthodox here to say the least, it apparently paid big dividends for both parties. I emphasis the word, “apparently” here because it’s not exactly clear from the aforementioned excerpt what, “they won” from the state of Massachusetts. Was it $100 million, or more like just $1? Who knows? If I were writing this piece for howlmag.com and I were trying to make Bettencourt and Milliard “look good” to my readership, I would’ve definitely mentioned the dollar amount if it were an exorbitant court award. But since the specifics of the actual court award wasn’t that clear in this article, I tend to think it was a wee bit on the low side.
The Stigma associated with Court-appointed Clients & Lawyers
Here’s an excerpt that was published in the Lowell Sun on Nov. 2012 quoting Milliard about a proposal by his former Landlord/Secretary to have a Child Daycare organization move into a neighboring unit of the same condominium building, and then I’d like to bring up a couple of points:
{…“From having worked with me, (Effie Keriakos) knows I have clients who are not permitted to be around children or a day care,” said Milliard. “Her claim that it’s personal is a smoke screen for her to get what she wants, which is a new tenant to fill an empty space, while leveraging a position where she could force me to leave by placing me in the same building with a day care.”
Milliard read from a list of sex offenses eight of his clients have been charged with in court cases since 2010, including child rape, possession of child pornography, and sexual assault on children under 12 and under 14…}
So is it a little unusual for a lawyer, situated in Dracut Mass., to have at least 8 (eight) convicted child molesters as clients all within a two year span? It’s not like there’s a convicted child molester (sex offender) lurking behind every telephone pole in Dracut — a suburban community about 35 miles north of Boston. It’s not as if Dracut is the modern day version of Sodom and Gomorrah. And again, let me reiterate, it’s certainly NOT because of Milliard’s “reputation” for getting court verdicts in his client’s favor (just the opposite is true). I tend to believe that these eight convicted child molesters got stuck with Milliard as, “court appointed clients“. Many of Milliard’s clients, whose situations are published in the Lowell Sun or posted on YouTube, appear to be via the court-appointed system.
Now don’t get me wrong, I believe people facing criminal charges and can’t afford a lawyer are entitled to have professional legal representation at taxpayer’s expense. From a lawyer’s perspective, court-appointed clients are usually viewed as, a nightmare waiting to happen because the evidence by the Police and the District Attorney is, more often than not, stacked against them. And if it happens to be a high-profile case, the results will most likely be published in the Media and negative verdicts just go to further hurt the lawyer’s reputation.
My question here is, is Roland Milliard availing much of his law practice to serving as a court-appointed attorney out of the goodness of his heart, or because that’s really the ONLY way he can keep himself financially afloat? Personally, with Milliard, I think the latter is a heck of a lot more accurate than the former.
Elected officials (maybe subcontractors?) exploiting DWSD employees’ health insurance
Furthermore, since Milliard has annually grossed more than $5K from the Dracut Water District since 2016, is this guy enrolled on the DWSD employees’ health insurance coverage per Massachusetts General Law 32b (which, in essence, would give him about another $20,000 annually worth of that ever valuable, and much sought after, perk)? Even though Milliard is only considered a, “subcontractor” on the DWSD financial records, stranger things have taken place in Dracut politics. If Milliard is not getting health insurance coverage thru the DWSD employees’ plan, could he be enrolled through the State of Massachusetts (also covered by M.G.L. 32b) via serving as a Court-appointed attorney for at least $5K worth of cases per year? Knowing Roland Milliard the way I do, I think these questions are DEFINITELY worth asking.
Heck, I recently heard from a fairly reliable source that both Morin and Zielinski are currently enrolled on the DWSD employees’ health insurance coverage, yet the elected Water Commissioner’s annual stipend is about a couple grand less than the $5K minimum requirement set forth under M.G.L. 32b — so how did they possibly finagle that arrangement??? Apparently, the Dracut Water Supply District is considered so “unique” that it can impose it’s own rules and standards totally separate from the State of Massachusetts. Un-BLEEPIN-believable!
Getting back to court-appointed attorneys, I can fully understand a law student who recently passed the Bar Exam pursuing court-appointed clients to try to make a name for themselves, HOWEVER, Milliard is now 60-something and has been practicing Law for almost 30 years. See, the lawyer whom I affectionately refer to as, ‘Atty. Conflict of Interest‘, doesn’t even justifiably qualify as a “has-been“, he’s more like a “never-was“.
Maybe Dracut Water Commissioners Morin, Corey, or Zielinski could amply explain to us all what’s so great about Roland Milliard, as well as why they almost doubled DWSD Legal expenses (and nearly tripled Milliard’s annual stipend) from one year ago. For that matter, perhaps the DWSD Commissioners could elaborate a little bit on what exactly Milliard’s responsible for in the Water District, and what he’s accomplished since his hiring in 2016. I’d absolutely love to hear (or read) their comments regarding this situation.
Atty Roland L. Milliard
($64,000 Question: How far would you guestimate it is from Dracut High School — a.k.a. the “Christos Daoulas 4-School Complex” — to Atty. Milliard’s office in Pilgrim Place? According to MapQuest, it’s .17 of a mile, or just a wee bit longer than a regulation-sized football field. In other words, if Pilgrim Place at 1470 Lakeview Avenue were an apartment building instead of a business condo complex, none of Atty. Milliard’s “alleged” sex offender clients could legally reside there because they’d be too close to a school complex.
It should also be noted here that the 4-schools located in this particular vicinity cover grades K-12 — a.k.a. a literal “pedophile’s smorgasbord” and a lot of those youngsters commute right on the sidewalk in front of Pilgrim Place on Lakeview Avenue to and from their schools. At a daycare facility, the youngsters are usually escorted to and from the establishment by at least one of their parents. If Atty. Milliard chooses to cater to “alleged” sex offenders as his clients, shouldn’t HE visit them at their respective residences versus having them come to his law office, which is about a football field away from Dracut’s main school complex? With this blatant public admission today in the Lowell Sun, I think both the Board of Selectmen and School Committee should vote and force Atty. Milliard to immediately move from his present location for the safety and welfare of our children. At the very least, they should require Milliard to hire Dracut Police Detail officers to monitor the Pilgrim Place parking lot during normal school hours if he insists on remaining in that location.
Did you ever watch an episode of “Judge Judy”, which the plaintiff testified that the defendant is a regular Cocaine user because they (the plaintiff) said they personally sold and snorted coke with that defendant themselves? The defendant, of course, would then deny those allegations. Then when it came time to render a verdict on the show, Judge Judy would usually dismiss the allegations against the defendant but whack the Plaintiff with something like a $1000 fine for being so utterly stupid — I bring this up because the dopey plaintiff in that Judge Judy scenario is very similar to Atty. Milliard raising issue about representing a number of sex offenders out of his law office. As the old cliche goes, “Discretion is the better part of valor” and the possible of number of sex offenders Milliard may represent is something he would’ve been much better off keeping to himself. Instead, in a vain attempt to screw over his former secretary/landlord who is now opening up a child care center in the same office condo plaza (Pilgrim Place), Milliard is just screwing himself as well as any positive reputation he may have had as a Dracut attorney. Or perhaps the more appropriate cliche here is, “Cutting off your nose to spite your face”.
Let’s get real here, ladies and gentlemen, by reading through this article as well as watching the subsequent Lowell Sun video, it sure sounds as if the bulk of Milliard’s law practice predominately focuses on alleged sex offenders — am I wrong? What’s YOUR take after reading this article and watching the video?
Can you imagine going into Atty. Milliard’s office for an appointment with your young child, while a total stranger is exiting his office and looking at your kid saying, “oh, what a beautiful young boy/girl you’ve got there”. While most parents would take a comment from a complete stranger as a rather nice compliment, you’ve really got to scratch your head and wonder, “gee, I wonder why that individual was just in there consulting with Atty. Milliard? Hmmmm.”
On the flip side of that scenario, what do you suppose strangers — or even people you’re remotely familiar with — think of YOU walking out of Atty. Milliard’s office after a consultation? Specifically, in light of a Lowell Sun investigative article like this, could YOU be perceived as one of Atty. Milliard’s, “sex offender clients”? Just for the record here, let me publicly disclose that in the half dozen or so “meetings” I’ve had with Atty. Milliard, it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OWN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR. I honestly don’t believe the words: “sex”, “intercourse”, “b.j.’s”, etc., were ever used in our entire face-to-face or telephone dialogue — either jokingly or otherwise. I just wanted to make that point crystal clear.
The following excerpt from the attached Sun article here, I happened to find rather troubling from several different fronts:
{…“From having worked with me, (Effie Keriakos) knows I have clients who are not permitted to be around children or a day care,” said Milliard. “Her claim that it’s personal is a smoke screen for her to get what she wants, which is a new tenant to fill an empty space, while leveraging a position where she could force me to leave by placing me in the same building with a day care.”
Milliard read from a list of sex offenses eight of his clients have been charged with in court cases since 2010, including child rape, possession of child pornography, and sexual assault on children under 12 and under 14…}
Really Counselor, are we supposed to believe that eight (would that be a grand total of eight clients who were up on child sex-related charges, OR, eight of a larger number of your clients who faced child sex-related charges since 2010? Given your crappy track record on high profile court cases, Counselor, I would guess it’d probably be the former rather than the latter) of your clients were “Pearl Harbored” by a corrupt court system into these particular convictions? Could it be possible that some of them – if not ALL eight of them – were convicted of these particular crimes because they were represented by an extremely incompetent attorney who, historically, chokes on many of these high-profile cases? Which includes, incidentally, HIS OWN OUI CONVICTION, that he got whacked with back in ’99 (see earlier on this blog).
Also, is it just me, ladies and gentlemen, or does this whole excerpt appear like a defense attorney throwing his clients under the proverbial bus? Aren’t lawyers supposed to defend their clients’ reputations through thick-and-thin — regardless of what they may have told them in “private” discussions? Nothing like flushing your already outrageous legal fees right down the toilet, I always say.
So I guess it’s pretty safe to assume, that Ms. Keriakos won’t be blaming Atty. Milliard should one of his clients, who happens to be a convicted sex offender, ever confront one of the youngsters staying in the daycare center. I believe a parent is REQUIRED to physically pick-up or drop-off their child from this type of facility, but with all this public hoopla initiated largely by Atty. Milliard, this should really “seal the proverbial deal” protecting these alleged child sex predators from any potential liability should some type of incident occur in the future.
Now, I may not be a lawyer, but couldn’t Atty. Milliard have remedied this situation a lot more discreetly without having to blab his story in the Lowell Sun? Perhaps send a certified letter to both the Dracut Police Chief and the Massachusetts Attorney General marked, “CONFIDENTIAL”? It’s obvious that Atty. Milliard is still ticked off at Ms. Keriakos from their previous associations with each other, but if Milliard’s law practice and/or clients are adversely effected by all the negative publicity generated by this Sun article, Milliard justifiably, has nobody else but himself to blame for that screw-up.
Wow, and just earlier this year, Atty. Roland “Conflict-of-Interest” Milliard screwed me over in favor of a client with more money and more political clout. He’s obviously still chasing “the big one” like Atty. Frank Galvin – portrayed by the late great Paul Newman — in the movie, “The Verdict” to somehow, someway turn his rather “questionable” reputation and transform it into a noble legacy. Good luck on that one, Counselor.
Also, this article brings up a good point as to apparently why Milliard switched to having a female secretary. When he was representing me from the time he first moved into the Pilgrim Place office condo plaza till about 2000, Milliard had employed a male secretary who looked like a cross between Justin Bieber and Ricky Martin – I often wondered if that guy was hired for his typing ability, dictation skills or something else. Oh well, whatever floats your boat, I guess.
And getting back to the subject of “conflicts of interests”, what the heck would possess Milliard to hire his Landlord as his Secretary? During her nine-year tenure as Milliard’s secretary, Ms. Keriakos was probably gathering evidence to use to raise his rent and/or possibly evict him from that condo unit at some future point. Whatever specifically were the arrangements between the two, I’m fairly sure that in that time frame she served as his personal secretary, Ms. Keriakos knows where a lot of Milliard’s “alleged skeletons are buried” in his law practice. I’ve dealt with many lawyers, as well as many landlords, in my day and I’ll tell ya honestly — If I were a lawyer, I’d NEVER hire my landlord as my personal secretary, and, on the same token; if I were a landlord, I’d NEVER retain the professional services of a lawyer whom I was currently renting a unit/property. I think it’s just a matter of keeping your private life, “private”. Milliard would’ve been much better served, I believe, had he just kept Justin Bieber’s clone as his secretary during that nine-year span. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Furthermore, I find it rather fascinating how a 55 year-old guy like Milliard, who’s been practicing law now for about 21 years still has a “landlord” collecting rent in his business condo — isn’t it more financially savvy to OWN property rather than RENT it??? On the flip-side of that, I’m probably the worst person in the world to criticize somebody on apparent piss-poor financial behavior.
Incidentally, did I mention that Atty. Milliard is the President of the Greater Lowell Bar Association? What a great role model for all the local attorneys to follow, don’t you think? But given Milliard’s crappy court success rate, I’d bet the farm on Effie Keriakos to prevail should the two ever go up against each other in a lawsuit.
Attached article posted on: http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_22062953/prospective-day-care-lawyer-sex-offender-clients-collision?source=rss_viewed , 11-25-12.)
By John Collins
jcollins@lowellsun.com
Updated: 11/25/2012 07:12:18 AM EST
“I will hold the Town liable should there be any adverse impact on my practice or to any of my clients,” Dracut attorney Roland Milliard, a tenant at Pilgrim Place on Lakeview Avenue, warned in a letter to Town Manager Dennis Piendak last month.
DRACUT — While a Dracut couple’s application to open a new day care at 1470 Lakeview Ave. is pending with the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, a criminal defense attorney whose clients include sex offenders has complained to state and town officials that a child-care business on the premises will conflict with his practice.
Attorney Roland Milliard, a 16-year tenant of Pilgrim Place, an office building housing multiple commercial condominium units at 1470 Lakeview Ave., contacted Town Manager Dennis Piendak last week to cite multiple objections to sharing the building with a day care.
Countering Milliard’s argument, Arthur and Effie Keriakos, co-owners of the unit that would house the day care, said the lawyer’s claim that his sex-offender clients and children may interact is “baseless.”
Effie Keriakos said Milliard’s effort to block the rental is to settle a personal score. Keriakos said she was Milliard’s former legal secretary for nine years as well as his former landlord at Pilgrim Place for 15 years. Her employment and Milliard’s tenancy both ended badly in Milliard’s view, she said.
Milliard denied that personal animosity has anything to do with his objections to the day care’s location.
Public documents made available to The Sun by Building Inspector Dan McLaughlin show the town recently issued Arthur Keriakos a change-of-use occupancy permit for the 700-square-foot Unit 1 of Pilgrim Place, which was previously occupied by an insurance agency. Keriakos applied for the permit on behalf of prospective tenants Karen Ngugi and Wilson Muraga of Dracut, who plan to open “Read With Us School,” a day-care facility for up to 11 school-age children.
Responding to Milliard’s objections, McLaughlin issued a report Nov. 14 to Piendak and the Board of Selectmen. The report said there is no town zoning law or other legal reason to deny Keriakos’ application for a change-of-use permit to open a day care in their office unit.
In response to a Sun inquiry about Muraga’s application to the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, Kathleen Hart, a spokeswoman for the EEC’s day-care licensing division, reported “the application for a provisional large group and school-age, child-care license for ‘Read with Us School’ is currently pending, (and has not yet been granted).”
In addition to Milliard’s law practice, Pilgrim Place houses offices for another attorney, a financial planner, two accountants and a driving school.
In his complaint to the town, Milliard raised a secondary objection to having a day care and driving school share a parking lot, thus placing children at further risk from inexperienced drivers, he said.
Effie Keriakos said the proposed business would be on the ground floor with an entrance accessible only by parents dropping off and picking up enrolled children.
“I have kids of my own, and I’m also the owner of the unit. If I thought that kids attending the day care would be in any sort of danger, I would never put the business in there and put a child at risk,” said Effie Keriakos. “(Milliard’s office) door doesn’t come close, and there’s no outdoor playground on the premises. If there was, then I’d be concerned.”
The day care will provide transportation to take the children to local playground facilities daily, Keriakos said.
According to Effie Keriakos, no other party that has been apprised of the dispute to date has agreed with Milliard’s “risk” assessment, including town officials and a state EEC investigator who visited the site and spoke with Keriakos and Muraga, she said.
Milliard noted the rear-exit door of the proposed day care connects to the main entrance and bottom of the stairwell leading to his second-floor office.
“From having worked with me, (Effie Keriakos) knows I have clients who are not permitted to be around children or a day care,” said Milliard. “Her claim that it’s personal is a smoke screen for her to get what she wants, which is a new tenant to fill an empty space, while leveraging a position where she could force me to leave by placing me in the same building with a day care.”
Milliard read from a list of sex offenses eight of his clients have been charged with in court cases since 2010, including child rape, possession of child pornography, and sexual assault on children under 12 and under 14.
“Should the Town see fit to issue the permit,” wrote Milliard in his letter to Piendak, “I suggest you ask the Chief of Police to station a police officer on the premises from one half hour prior to the opening of the child-care center to one half hour after it closes.”
Muraga said Milliard has no right to obstruct his business from opening.
“The Town of Dracut has no problem with it. The state doesn’t have a problem with it. And I am going through the person who is renting the unit to me, and they do not have a problem with it,” said Muraga. “I suggest (to Milliard) that if you have a problem with it, you should move somewhere else.”
After 16 years at the location, he has no plans to move, Milliard said.
Milliard rents his second-floor law office from Gerard Bolduc, who operates a tax-accounting business in the second-floor unit located directly above the proposed day care. Bolduc said he also opposes a day care at Pilgrim Place because it “inappropriately” expands the building’s original intended use for office and retail.
At a recent meeting of Pilgrim Place’s board of trustees, which includes Arthur and Effie Keriakos, it was agreed Keriakos and/or Muraga will bear any additional building-insurance costs associated with opening an educational facility, Bolduc said. Bolduc was also assured by Keriakos that noise from the day care below won’t be an issue, but he said he remains unconvinced of that.
Follow John Collins on Twitter @johncolowellsun.
Atty. Roland L. Milliard
(Source: Lowell District Court, Lowell Massachusetts, Docket Number — 9911 CR 4090, dated 6/25/99 )
I came across this little tidbit regarding my “former” lawyer whom I refer to as, Attorney Conflict-of-Interest (see earlier on this blog), Roland Milliard (law office situated in Dracut Mass.). I guess on June 25, 1999 — which was between the time Milliard actually represented me in court and then rejected representing me again claiming he’d be in “conflict of interest”, Milliard (date of birth: 3/28/57) got whacked himself for Operating Under the Influence of Liquor by the Lowell Police Department.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy, as far as I’m concerned.
Keep in mind now at the time of this particular arrest, Milliard was 42 — not exactly a kid — and had been practicing law for at least seven years — not exactly a “rookie” attorney. I would’ve assumed Milliard must’ve represented a couple dozen individuals who were charged with similar violations at this point of his career. One would also assume, since his own butt was personally in a sling here, this would probably be the absolute best legal effort on Milliard’s part.
Final verdict: $500 fine, 1 (one) year loss of license, Motion to Dismiss — DENIED, Motion to Recuse — DENIED. In other words, GUILTY.
Milliard claimed he was denied independent blood exam
Milliard did have enough God-given common sense to have another local attorney represent him before the court, probably to help keep his emotions in check. But his Motion to Dismiss was based upon being “denied his right to an independent blood examination by the Lowell Police Department”. Commonwealth v. King, 429 Mass. 169 (1999) .
Wow, and all this time I just ASS-U-MEd that the ONLY options an individual stopped on a drunk driving charge was they could either: take a Breathalyzer test, OR, refuse to take a Breathalyzer test. But why the heck would any community pass a law to afford an alleged drunk driver the right to take an independent blood test in lieu of the aforementioned???
For example, lets say the cop stops you at about 11 p.m. — you’re about 8-10 hours away from any legitimate independent health clinic that draws blood from being open to the public. In that span of time, most of the alcohol would already be out of your system and you’d be considered, “sober”. If I were a Selectmen or a City Councillor in Massachusetts, I would fight tooth-and-nail to abolish a phoney-baloney law like that. It sounds like something that was deliberately set-up as an “obscure” thing all the beautiful politically-correct residents of Massachusetts (i.e. the Kennedy family) utilize whenever they get caught drunk driving.
Thank God, the Lowell District Court saw through Milliard’s flimsy bullBLEEP on this one.
Milliard’s absolute best legal defense???
So if I we’re to assume this was Milliard’s “best effort” since it personally involved himself, exactly how many alleged drunk driving clients (a fairly popular crime, at least according to the local newspapers) do you suppose he represented in his 21 year career as a lawyer? A couple dozen? A couple hundred? In all likelihood, ALL with a similar type verdict as Milliard got himself.
If they’re going to falsely label a fraud like Atty. Milliard “an officer of the court” he ought to be LEGALLY REQUIRED to disclose to any potential drunk driving client his own failed experience before the court regarding this particular crime — even if he’s ordered by the court to serve as a Public Defender on a DUI or OUI recipient.
For those who have never had the opportunity of actually meeting Roland Milliard, he’s sort of a caloric-challenged version of Paul Newman’s character, Atty. Frank Galvin in the great 1982 courtroom flick, The Verdict . Check out what IMDb.com’s movie storyline stated about Atty. Galvin, which one would swear that this character was modeled after Milliard:
Frank Galvin is a down-on-his luck lawyer, reduced to drinking and ambulance chasing…Blundering his way through the preliminaries, he suddenly realizes that perhaps after all the case should go to court: to punish the guilty, to get a decent settlement for his clients, and to restore his standing as a lawyer.
Ironically, or maybe not so ironically, Milliard’s most successful high profile case – in my humble opinion – was definitely “alcohol-related”.
Apparently, in the late 90’s, a number of Dracut High School seniors were apprehended in the White Mountain resort community of Lincoln N.H., for being allegedly intoxicated in public following their traditional Prom ceremony. School administrators then informed these particular students that they would not be graduating in the ceremony event with their fellow classmates due to their unruly behavior on Prom night. With these students’ parents collectively retaining Milliard, he managed to file, I assume, an Injunction against Dracut High School unless these allegedly drunk students were allowed to participate in that graduation ceremony. So rather than, in essence, canceling the whole graduation event, Dracut school officials compromised their stance and allowed the supposedly inebriated students to graduate with their classmates.
Unfortunately, our “trusty” media outlets never reported if the Dracut teens in question were ever whacked with any fines or court charges initiated by being apprehended by the Lincoln N.H., Police Department such as Drinking Alcohol in Public, Under-Aged Possession and Consumption of Alcohol, or even Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol. If there were any fines or court costs associated with this incident from Lincoln NH’s perspective, I would assume the kids’ parents wound up paying the full amount obligated because I seriously doubt Milliard “won” the case for them when he couldn’t even win a similar type situation for his own self.
Sometime after June 2016, the Dracut Water Supply District conducted one of its famous “nationwide searches” and wound up hiring Milliard as its part-time Attorney. According to the latest Annual DWSD Report (2016), this seriously misguided Dracut government entity paid Milliard an outrageous $8580. For what??? Was Milliard the ‘lowest bidder’ compared with all the other interested applicants? Was “winning”, or “success”, or how about “reputation” play any factor whatsoever into the hiring of the DWSD attorney? Apparently not. In many corrupt government hires, the old cliche is: ‘It’s not WHAT you know, it’s all WHO you know.’ I would just modify that slightly for the DWSD and make its motto: ‘It’s not so much WHAT you know or WHO you know, but rather WHO YOU B— that really matters.’ If I’m wrong on this one, then WHY exactly was Milliard hired as the DWSD’s attorney, and who were the other lawyers passed over in this hiring process?
Aside from actually “winning”, it’s all irrelevant
So while the fictitious character of Atty. Frank Galvin scored his biggest legal accomplishment by successfully suing the Catholic church for Medical Malpractice and winning a multi-million dollar award for his client in the movie, The Verdict, the highlight of Atty. Milliard’s 21 year career was probably being elected President to the Greater Lowell Bar Association, as well as enabling a number of allegedly drunk teenagers the opportunity to graduate in the same ceremony alongside their classmates. Which accomplishment do you think sounds more impressive?
Don’t get me wrong, as I mentioned in an earlier posting on this same blog regarding Milliard’s success (or lack thereof) rate in high profile cases, I’m sure even the “great” American lawyers like Alan Dershowitz and F. Lee Bailey have lost their fair share of lawsuits – you can’t win ‘em all, as the old cliché goes. On the flip-side of that, I’m sure these same great attorneys win a heck of a lot more than they lose, otherwise they never would’ve established the “successful” reputations they’ve got.
It seems like a couple times a year, we hear about individuals involved in high-profile court cases who supposedly got away with murder. O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, Louise Woodward, and Claus von Bulow are all individuals, for example, who avoided life in prison or the Death Penalty because they had a great lawyer(s) to cast just enough “reasonable doubt” for the jurors to allow them to go free. I don’t believe Milliard has ever represented anything of this magnitude or intensity, yet he couldn’t even carry Alan Dershowitz’s jock strap when it comes to court case success rate.
Why people continue to retain Milliard in high profile court cases is totally beyond me. As it states in the Biblical book of 1 Corinthians: If a man (or woman) be ignorant, let him (or her) be ignorant.
Atty. Roland Milliard
(Attached article published in, Lowell (Mass.) Sun, 8-30-12, http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_21433405/mercier-guilty-gas-theft . Earlier on this blog, I mentioned about the high profile cases that my former attorney, Roland Milliard has lost for his clients in the past 10 years. Add yet another one to that collection. As the old cliche goes, you can’t win ‘em all, but Atty. Milliard can’t even manage to win just one.
Or, was Atty. Milliard “successful” in saving Ron Mercier’s “dignity” by postponing and rescheduling the actual trial date for more than two-and-a-half years, thus running out his then-current elected term on the Dracut School Committee and not having to face any recall or impeachment proceedings initiated by a guilty verdict? Was this the “legal genius” of Atty. Milliard, or could any hack lawyer purposely postpone a court trial for a couple years on behalf of their client?
Furthermore, in a court case that featured about a dozen postponements — for whatever reason — in the past two-and-a-half years, Atty. Milliard still wasn’t able to subpoena the individual most responsible for terminating his client, Lowell City Manager Bernie Lynch???!!! “City Manager Bernie Lynch was also on the witness list, but he was away on vacation and did not receive the subpoena to testify” … Dude — Seriously??? At this point, why not just postpone and reschedule the trial another 3-4 months to make darn sure Lynch testifies on that witness stand?
Another rather fascinating aspect to this case was Keith Murphy’s decision to exercise his Fifth Amendment right to NOT testify in court on Mercier’s behalf. Initially, Murphy and Mercier were supposed to be tried in court simultaneously until Murphy and his attorney requested just last November to be tried separately. Murphy, who had earlier pleaded out a deal with the court on his particular case, worked as a Supervisor at the LRWU and was supposedly good friends with Mercier.
What about this “brilliant” legal strategy to publicly throw a couple of high-ranking LRWU officials “under the bus”, so to speak, in a vain attempt to divert attention away from Mercier? How does that dismiss, or even downplay, what Mercier had previously confessed to or done in his final months at the LRWU? As an elected public official to a neighboring community — which Mercier was long before he was employed at the LRWU — shouldn’t he have been serving as a “role model” (ESPECIALLY to the youngsters enrolled in the Dracut public school system) for all to follow, despite being the lowest-ranking employee at that organization? Mercier certainly had ample opportunity beforehand to bring his complaint against the LRWU management to either: the State Attorney General’s office, the Middlesex District Attorney’s office, or even the Lowell City Council but opted instead to become a part of the “out of control” ethical problem with that particular department rather than the solution.
Bottom Line: In “high profile” lawsuits over the past 10 years — three Dracut police officers separately suing the Town over its promotion system in that department, a Dracut resident who sued the Town after being arrested for holding a political sign on a public street corner, and now Ron Mercier — Atty. Milliard, who has been practicing law for over 21 years, has either lost each one of these cases on his client’s behalf or wound up getting the case thrown out of court. In Major League Baseball, that would be a .000 batting average. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy than Roland Milliard.)
Mercier guilty in gas theft
By Lisa Redmond
lredmond@lowellsun.com
LOWELL — After having criminal charges hanging over his head for two years, fired city Water Department worker Ronald Mercier showed the tension of those years in his clenched body as a jury announced his fate on Wednesday.
After a two-day trial, including four hours of deliberations, a Lowell District Court jury found the 32-year-old former Dracut School Committee member guilty of the theft of gas from the Lowell Regional Water Utility in 2010. But the jury found Mercier not guilty of the theft of a camcorder used to try to catch him and co-defendant, former LRWU foreman Keith Murphy, in the act.
Mercier was convicted of a misdemeanor charge of larceny under $250 ($75 worth of gas) and cleared of a second misdemeanor charge of larceny under $250 (the camcorder).
Judge Laurence Pierce sentenced Mercier, of Dracut, to one year’s limited probation and restitution of $75 for the gas. Defense attorney Roland Milliard requested the $50 per month probation fee be waived because Mercier hasn’t had steady employment since he was fired from the LRWU in May 2010.
Pierce agreed to waive the fee for only three months while Mercier pays the restitution.
Mercier had initially been charged with larceny over $250 for the camcorder theft, but Pierce reduced the charge to larceny under $250 because the prosecution couldn’t establish a value for the device.
“Obviously we are disappointed,” Milliard said of the verdict. “We felt we had ample grounds for a not-guilty verdict.”
Milliard said it is unlikely there will be an appeal.
Mercier said he was just relieved this sad chapter in his life is over and that the truth of what he called the pattern of misdeeds at the LRWU came out during the trial.
“I have to live with my decisions and the decision that came down on me. I accept that,” Mercier said.
But in his closing argument, prosecutor Clarence Brown told the jury that it was Mercier’s own words — his taped statement to police — that would convict him.
Mercier told police that on five or six occasions between April and March of 2010, he took 20 gallons of gas from the LRWU garage where he worked.
He told police he did it because, “I guess I thought I could get away with it.” Brown told the jury, “Just because everyone else is doing something, it doesn’t make it right.”
But Milliard described the LRWU as a place that was “out of control,” essentially airing the LRWU’s dirty laundry at the trial.
For example, in March, LRWU Executive Director Daniel Lahiff was fined $5,000 by the state Ethics Commission for hiring two of his employees to perform work at his home for a discounted rate, violating the state’s conflict-of-interest law.
At the trial, Lahiff testified he “borrowed” two LRWU generators during two separate storms with the intent on powering his Haverhill home to keep it from flooding.
Milliard also questioned LRWU foreman Geoff Whitman about his two-week suspension over having steroids at work.
The defense also questioned Whitman about the $1,000 he made by selling scrap metal, copper and brass. Milliard suggested Whitman has access to city-owned scrap metal.
Whitman, a 13-year city employee, has never been charged in either incident. Although Lahiff was fined by the Ethics Commission he was never charged with a crime.
In the steroid incident, Milliard suggested the suspension created “bad blood” between Whitman and Murphy, Mercier’s co-defendant who pleaded out and received probation. Murphy was on the defense witness list but claimed a Fifth Amendment right not to testify…
…City Manager Bernie Lynch was also on the witness list, but he was away on vacation and did not receive the subpoena to testify…
…In his closing argument, Milliard described this as a case where “big flies passed through the spider web of law and little flies sit in that chair (the defendant’s chair).”
Atty. Roland Milliard
One important fundamental thing anyone should expect from an attorney – especially when you’re paying in the neighborhood of about $300 per hour – is “confidentiality”, a.k.a. Attorney-Client Privilege. Fair or unfair, right or wrong, it’s a necessary facet of the American legal system that lawyers – a.k.a. “Officers of the Court” – are bound and REQUIRED to follow and respect. Attorneys who choose to do otherwise, deserve to be publicly “called out” and identified.
Atty. Roland Milliard of Dracut (Mass.) blatantly violated this sacred trust earlier this year when he willingly represented a client who was suing me, a FORMER client of Milliard’s.
Atty. Milliard rationalized his actions by citing Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct regarding a certain section on former clients. Milliard stated this explanation in his letter to me:
“…As you are well aware, I represented you almost thirteen years ago. There is no conflict representing…against you as it is not the same, or substantially the same matter. Any confidential information you revealed to me is a matter of public record…”
So using Atty. Milliard’s aforementioned logic, what would stop former “Dream Team” attorneys F. Lee Bailey or Alan Dershowitz, for example, from writing a book in the next couple of months about what exactly O.J. Simpson privately divulged to them about the murders of former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her alleged lover Ronald Goldman in the mid-90s and then giving it the title, “O.J. REALLY DID IT!!!“? After all, “writing a book” and “fatally stabbing two people to death” are NOT the same — or even substantially the same — thing…right?
In reference to the matter that Milliard represented me, it definitely was NOT a Civil or Criminal case heard before either a Judge or Jury (thank God for small miracles). Among other things, I openly divulged my Social Security Number back then, along with at least a half dozen different confidential discussions under the guise of, “Free Initial Consultation” with Atty. Milliard. Personally, I don’t believe any of that stuff falls under the parameters of, “public record”.
Incidentally, just for the record here, I paid Atty. Milliard’s bill at that time, in full, in a timely fashion. Secondly, I didn’t exactly have to “twist Milliard’s arm” or “hold a gun to the guy’s head” in order for him to willingly agree to consult with me or even represent me. In the Lowell Massachusetts’ Yellow Pages, there are AT LEAST several dozen (or maybe even a couple hundred — I never really counted every single one of them) telephone listings under the heading, “Lawyers”. If Milliard honestly didn’t want anything to do with me at that time, I gladly would’ve walked away and taken my business elsewhere since there are literally more available local attorneys than Carter has Little Pills. Unfortunately for me, you can’t “un-ring the proverbial bell AFTER it’s already been rung” — Milliard DID represent me in a legal matter, I DID openly divulge that and about a half dozen other confidential personal issues to him on a number of different occasions. It’s just plain stupid — not to mention a blatant lie — to PRETEND and MAKE-BELIEVE that an attorney-client relationship between Milliard and myself never existed in the first place.
Aside from the part about “the same or substantially the same matter”, here’s what else the Mass. Rules of Professional Conduct states:
“RULE 1.6 CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal confidential information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation…
Former Client
[22] The duty of confidentiality continues after the client-lawyer relationship has terminated…
RULE 1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: GENERAL RULE
(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents after consultation.”
Well, not only did this lawsuit “adversely affect” me, I NEVER consented or gave Milliard my permission to be sued. Ironically, in our last face-to-face encounter back in ’99, Milliard immediately interrupted me on my initial statement and said, “Excuse me, before you say another word here, let me just say, I can’t represent you in this case – I’d be in ‘CONFLICT OF INTEREST’ if I do that.” Wow, can you say, “hypocrite”? How about, “backstabbing attorney”? I guess the word, “loyalty” is obviously missing in Milliard’s vocabulary.
Getting back to either “Dream Team” attorney Dershowitz or Bailey possibly writing a book about what O.J. Simpson had divulged to them in private consultations — assuming California has a similar Rules of Professional Conduct as Massachusetts does — why the heck should Simpson be “required” to pay either the court or another lawyer even one cent to resolve this blatant violation of Attorney-Client trust? Sure sounds to me like the Bar Overseers of that particular State, whether it’s a public or private entity, ought to automatically push to disbar any lawyer who chooses to engage in that sort of behavior.
Also, if Roland Milliard blatantly broke the ethical rules regarding Attorneys even once, wouldn’t you assume he previously committed similar type violations in his 20-plus year career? If former clients were messed over by Atty. Milliard in the past, how bold do you suppose they’d be to try to bring this lawyer to justice? I tend to believe this is NOT an isolated incident.
For example, here’s a minute-long video, Milliard made for YouTube on father’s rights in child custody cases:
Personally, I think for the most part, fathers usually come out on the short-end of the stick when it comes to child custody cases among heterosexual couples. Unless the woman is an obvious unfit parent or simply doesn’t want legal custody of her child, the court will rule in the ex-wife’s favor at least 9-times-out-of-10. If asked to see all his child custody cases, which he represented the heterosexual father, I seriously doubt Milliard’s “success rate” is any better than it is in “high profile” cases (see a couple paragraphs down). I feel Milliard is preying here on vulnerable recently-divorced men desperately hoping to get legal custody of their kids.
Furthermore, notice at the end of this video, Milliard offers viewers, “Free Consultation” stated on the top of the screen. Since this particular video was supposedly made in January 2007, that would put Milliard at about the 16-year mark of his tenure as a lawyer. Why do you suppose he still needs to do that? I think the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct needs to insert another chapter regarding attorneys who offer, “Free Initial Consultations”. At the rate most lawyers charge for their services, a free initial consultation sounds like a fantastic deal — but these “meetings” would ONLY be physically documented if one chooses to retain that attorney for their particular legal concern. More often than not, as in my relationship with Milliard, a free initial consultation doesn’t negate discussing confidential and sensitive personal matters with the presumption that it’s all protected under Attorney-Client privilege.
At the very least, I think attorneys who choose to offer, “Free Initial Consultations” ought to be required to provide that individual with a document, giving a gist of what was discussed on a given date, along with the actual length of the “consultation” and any documents given to the attorney for review. As officers of the court, I don’t believe this is an unreasonable request to require of an attorney. Ditto for any incidental (or irrelevant) conversation exchanges, for example, since Milliard was active in high profile cases and local issues, we definitely discussed subject matter which was indirectly associated with this “new” client who was suing me — what assurances do I have that Milliard wasn’t secretly taking notes of our conversation to pass onto my adversary as well as “spring” on me in a court trial?
Can you imagine that Atty. Milliard was actually elected, just fairly recently, President of the Greater Lowell Bar Association? What a tremendous ethical “role model” for all lawyers in the local area to follow — now please excuse me while I go outside and puke.
And what do you suppose Atty. Milliard’s success rate is on “high profile” cases?
According to a website called, howlmag.com, Milliard became associated with a gay rights activist and social worker from Lowell MA named Troix Bettencourt via a gay-themed talk show on a now-defunct Boston radio station:
[…But Troix ended up in an unlikely support system. He met politicians and lawyers, influential men and women who were gay.
Troix went public with his story, appearing on national TV talk shows, talking to the press in print and on the radio.
In 1993, he was a key speaker at the historical march for gay and lesbian rights in Washington D.C., where at age 18, he championed the issues in front of an estimated one million people.
One night, when Troix was telling his story on WFNX radio’s One in Ten program, a Dracut lawyer named Roland Milliard was listening and called in.“He started talking about state law and how what was happening to me, to people I knew, was illegal,” Troix said.
Roland ended up representing Troix in a lawsuit against the state of Massachusetts. They won.
On Dec. 10, 1993, Massachusetts made history when the Gay and Lesbian Student Rights Law was signed by Gov. William Weld. Massachusetts became the only state in the country to have full support for LGBT students through its governor…]
Although the origins of the attorney-client relationship between Milliard and Bettencourt were a wee bit unorthodox here to say the least, it apparently paid big dividends for both parties. I emphasis the word, “apparently” here because it’s not exactly clear from the aforementioned excerpt what, “they won” from the state of Massachusetts. Was it $100 million, or more like just $1? Who knows? If I were writing this piece for howlmag.com and I were trying to make Bettencourt and Milliard “look good” to my readership, I would’ve definitely mentioned the dollar amount if it were an exorbitant court award. But since the specifics of the actual court award wasn’t that clear in this article, I tend to think it was a wee bit on the low side.
From Milliard’s perspective, a court “victory” against the state of Massachusetts probably helped establish him as a successful high profile litigator early in his law practice a couple decades ago. But with age and experience, Milliard had gotten worse rather than better when it came to winning high profile court cases – perhaps he would’ve been much better served to simply focus his practice on gay discrimination clients.
According to local newspaper reports, in the past 10 years or so, Milliard has represented about three (3) different Dracut police officers who each sued the town over their respective department’s promotion system, and a Dracut resident who sued the town after he was arrested for holding a political sign at a public intersection and claimed his First Amendment rights were blatantly violated. Each one of these cases was either thrown out of court or wound up in a loss for Milliard’s client.
In his most recent “high profile” venture, Milliard is representing a now-former Dracut School Committee member who was terminated from his job at the Lowell Water Department for allegedly stealing gasoline from that facility on both his car and his boat. I assume, one of the Prosecution’s main eyewitnesses in this case is a video surveillance camera. Atty. Milliard did manage to postpone and reschedule this court hearing several times for more than two years and enable his client to have some “dignity” by leaving the School Committee when his elected term expired and not experience his “day in court” beforehand. But is that the work of legal “genius”, or could any hack lawyer postpone and reschedule a court hearing numerous times for a couple years?
Sometime after June 2016, the Dracut Water Supply District conducted one of its famous “nationwide searches” and wound up hiring Milliard as its part-time Attorney. According to the latest Annual DWSD Report (2016), this seriously misguided Dracut government entity paid Milliard an outrageous $8580. For what??? Was Milliard the ‘lowest bidder’ compared with all the other interested applicants? Was “winning”, or “success”, or how about “reputation” play any factor whatsoever into the hiring of the DWSD attorney? Apparently not. In many corrupt government hires, the old cliche is: ‘It’s not WHAT you know, it’s all WHO you know.’ I would just modify that slightly for the DWSD and make its motto: ‘It’s not so much WHAT you know or WHO you know, but rather WHO YOU B— that really matters.’ If I’m wrong on this one, then WHY exactly was Milliard hired as the DWSD’s attorney, and who were the other lawyers passed over in this hiring process?
So why in Blue Hell would ANYONE with at least a half a brain in their head pursue an unsuccessful, disorganized, blowhard attorney like Roland Milliard to represent their interests in a rather high-profile case? Two old political cliches and one passage from the Bible readily come to mind here: “No publicity is bad publicity” and “I really don’t care what you say about me, just as long as you spell my name right”. The Biblical scripture I’m thinking about here as to the “why” anybody would even remotely think of hiring Milliard when their reputation and bank accounts are publicly on the line, comes from the book of 1 Corinthians — “If a man (or woman) be ignorant, let him (or her) be ignorant”.
When I asked various individuals, what they look for when choosing a lawyer to represent them in either a Civil, Criminal, or Divorce case, the two characteristics that always come up are: They definitely want someone who’s both a Pit Bull, as well as an s.o.b., in the courtroom. Now don’t get me wrong, in those types of legal situations, I’d much rather have an attorney who’s super aggressive as opposed to super passive. HOWEVER, how the heck does “Aggressiveness” in a would-be lawyer supersede “SUCCESSFUL RESULTS” or “WINNING” on the client’s behalf? What the heck good is having an “assertive” attorney who yells, screams, and constantly talks over the opposing lawyer all during your court trial and then, more often than not, winds getting an “unsuccessful verdict” or having the client’s case, “thrown out of court”? Yeah, sure, Roland Milliard may come off like Pit Bull, as well as an s.o.b. (then again, couldn’t you say the exact same thing about the VAST MAJORITY of lawyers?) , but he also has a piss-poor reputation of losing a heck of a lot more court cases than he wins.
Bottom Line: Would YOU want to confide your personal and confidential legal concerns to an attorney like Roland Milliard – knowing he could (AND DEFINITELY WOULD) circumvent Attorney-Client privilege, play petty “semantics” with the Mass. State law pertaining to attorneys, and then represent an adversarial individual who may sue YOU years from now? To be violated by a former attorney in this fashion is like a cross between Rape and Plagiarism. It truly justifies all the slang terms associated with attorneys like scumbags and ambulance chasers. If I sound a wee bit “over the top” here, then why not watch that great courtroom drama flick, And Justice for All , and then ask yourself, why wasn’t there ever a sequel to that movie? The opening statements scene from Al Pacino’s character was classic and worthy of an Academy Award, but in real life, he violated Attorney-Client confidentiality and thus was all done as a lawyer.
Caveat emptor – Let the Buyer beware.
One Bad Decision Away From Homelessness 