James W. Gallagher
Gallagher, Villeneuve, DeGeer PLLC
181 Main St, Damariscotta, Maine
Learn more about this attorney's behavior, business practices, inaccurate statements, and ill-advised recommendations that thrust two families against each other in an ongoing 4+ year legal battle.
Read His 1st Deposition
Click to download your own copy of Jim Gallagher's sworn deposition testimony. Note how frequently objects were thrown around - trying to block Gallagher's actions.
Read His 2nd Deposition
Click to download the second sworn testimony by Jim Gallagher. Also notice the frequency of objections. If he didn't do anything wrong, why not let him talk?
Details About Meeting with Jim
A first hand recollection by the attendee of this meeting, see what was discussed with Leol Corson, and how Jim Gallagher's advice thrust multiple families into chaos.
Download Jim's Own Affidavit
Click to download a copy of Gallagher's own affidavit submitted to the courts, where he tries to cover up the actions that he himself advocated as Leol's best option.
Who's idea was this to pursue an Improvident Transfer lawsuit?
The very first time either party ever heard mention of this legal term, was from the very man who was an advocate for Leol Corson to sell his home to the Becks: Jim Gallagher of Gallagher, Villeneuve and DeGeer.
The image below illustrates just one example of Jim Gallagher in a a legal threat towards the Becks with an "improvident transfer claim." Yet when pressed during his deposition, stated that he didn't feel this purchase met the criteria for an Improvident Transfer.
The evidence and testimony in trial shows that Gallagher planted this thought with Leol, despite knowing the transaction did not qualify to be an Improvident Transfer. Later Gallagher also admitted to Leol's "single mindedness" and "stubbornness" - once Leol gets an idea in his head he cannot be changed.
<-- Click images for a larger view.
See his threat above, then his own contradiction below.
We've also included these audio snippets to the left from Jim Gallagher's testimony during our three day trial.
It all began with a visit to Jim Gallagher's office
On November 8th, 2016 we attended a joint meeting with Leol Corson, his son Matthew, and Jacob Beck in the offices of Gallagher, Villeneuve and DeGeer in Damariscotta, Maine. In this meeting, Gallagher stopped us at the door and asked Leol his express permission to have others enter his private conversation. He then suggested that our purchase of Leol's home was perhaps the best if not only way to safeguard him further from the damaging actions of his own sons.
Conveniently forgetful?
In Jim Gallagher's deposition, he initially acknowledged meeting with Leol and his family members, including one of Leol's son.
Yet on the day of trial, both Leol and Jim Gallagher conveniently could not recall this meeting having occurred.
Gallagher was in fact involved from the very beginning.
According to Jim Gallagher's affidavit (see the downloadable PDF) he stated that he was not involved in the negotiation, drafting or execution relating to our purchase of Leol Corson's home.
“I provided no counsel or assistance to any of the parties to the November 16, 2016 Purchase and Sale Agreement in the negotiation, drafting or execution of that Agreement.” - Page 1, Paragraph 6 of Affidavit.
“I did not provide independent representation to Leol Corson in relation to the transfers of real and personal property at issue in this matter.” Page 2 Paragraph 9 of Affidavit.
However, take a look at the email below where he was clearly involved in negotiations leading to our purchase - a whopping 39 days before he personally assisted with the closing.
In fact, it was Jim Gallagher's email that encouraged us to act quickly with this purchase, stating, "Time is on our side, but Leol can't wait too long".
<-- Click to view this image larger.
Note the date on this email was 2 days prior to our Purchase and Sale agreement, and 39 days prior to closing on the home in Gallagher's office.
Extraordinarily Destructive Legal Counsel
Denis Culley referred to Jim Gallagher's role as "extraordinarily destructive" to Leol Corson. Culley also criticized past work that Gallagher did for Leol, including his estate planning, family disputes, and noting his failure to discharge an old lien against the house.
“...amateur estate planning gone wrong…” Page 3 of Mediation Statement
Instead of pursuing a malpractice lawsuit against Jim Gallagher, Leol instead choose to sue the Becks for trying to help him stay in his own home.
Hear Denis Culley's thoughts on Gallagher's many mistakes with Leol Corson's situation.
What is this Living Arrangement Agreement?
This was a document created by attorney Jim Gallagher, which effectively gave Leol Corson the guaranteed right to remain in his home, without ever paying his mortgage, property taxes, or home owner's insurance ever again. When Leol decided to sue the Becks for the Improvident Transfer, this document was central to our case and provided the transparency around the purchase, and specifically called out the benefit to Leol Corson that the Beck's were offering.
“Plaintiff had every opportunity to reap the full benefits of the Living Arrangement Agreement, saving him $1,162 per month in mortgage payments, and relieving him from the burdens of real estate taxes and homeowners insurance.” Page 13 Paragraph 6 of our Opposition to Summary Judgement.
“Plaintiff voluntarily decided to vacate the Bristol property, thereby foregoing the full benefit of the Living Arrangement Agreement." Page 13 Paragraph 8 of our Opposition to Summary Judgement.
During our closing arguments, Denis Culley, Leol's free attorney called this document "barely above a tenancy at will" - which is the right to occupy a home. It's ironic how a document created by Leol's own attorney, at the request of Leol Corson, became a central piece of evidence against his lies.
Click to view a larger image. -->
See Gallagher's email showing that he drafted this agreement after his visit at Leol's home.
In the same email he mentions, "You two are doing a really wonderful thing here."
During trial Leol's attorney would often disregard any value in this agreement, stating that it was an un-enforceable document because it was not "recorded". Yet listen to these two audio clips from Gallagher, one stating that it was un-recordable and then another confession after he realized that he (himself) acknowledged this document thereby making this document a recordable instrument.
If Leol had decided to stay in his home, the value of not having to pay a mortgage payment (thus putting money directly back into his pocket) would exceed over $40,000 or more depending on how long he stayed in his own home.
Damage Control - Dual Representation
In addition to being "Extraordinarily destructive" to his client of 40 years, according to the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct, Gallagher was potentially in violation of several key issues:
-
A conflict of interest, having represented Leol for decades but then claiming to represent us without the Becks signing an engagement agreement to his office which would be required for his claimed "representation".
-
He claims to have represented both parties, yet did not have either party sign a dual representation letter. When asked in the courtroom, he stated he simply couldn't find it.
If he was representing "all parties" he did nothing to warn the Becks about the cautions of an Improvident Transfer of Title. Neither (from what we can tell) did he caution Leol about proceeding with this sale and the damage it could cause his own client.
As an attorney at law (purportedly representing everyone) he failed in his duty to provide such warning to either party, and also failed to stop the transaction from proceeding. In fact, Gallagher's usual practices about dual representation did not occur (see the image below) and as you'll see Gallagher could not provide any evidence that he was representing all parties.
Instead, it was clear from all witnesses that Jim Gallagher (despite his own affidavit saying that he represented all parties) was in fact Leol Corson's attorney. Here are audio clips from his sworn testimony, as well as others who testified to the same single representation.
And finally, the Court's final decision accurately summed up everything above at the end of our journey:
"Mr. Corson contends Mr. Gallagher did not act as his ”independent counsel." The record includes evidence in support—primarily Mr. Gallagher’s direct denial of having done so. Attorney Gallagher testified instead that he had represented all parties in the real estate transaction and, afterwards, had tried to assist all of them in working out the complications that arose. No party signed a representation letter related to the transaction, and Mr. Gallagher never spelled out in writing what he was doing and for whom.
Other evidence in the record, however, would support the opposite finding. Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Corson had enjoyed a long professional relationship, while the Becks had never hired Mr. Gallagher for any professional service. Mr. Gallagher was involved in negotiations before the purchase and sale agreement was signed and, in a series ofcommunications, appeared unambiguously to be acting on Mr. Corson’s behalf. Once the closing was complete and the relations between the parties had fractured, Mr. Gallagher acted once again as Mr. Corson’s advocate. All of this suggests, in the absence of a dual representation letter, that Mr. Gallagher was acting as Mr. Corson’s lawyer.
Based on all the foregoing, and viewing the record as a whole, the court concludes that Mr. Gallagher was not acting as ”independent counsel” for Mr. Corson in this transaction, as that term is used in the statute, but his undefined participation in the transaction supports the conclusion that the transaction itself was fair. Even though the court believes he tried to advise all parties, testimony at trial from all interested parties and written contemporaneous communications make it clear Mr. Gallagher was looking out for Mr. Corson’s interests and would have spoken up had he felt the need. Further, although the purchase and sale agreement imposed a legal obligation on Mr. Corson to follow through with the sale, it did not itself conclude the transaction. Had Mr. Gallagher concluded the overall agreement was detrimental to Mr. Corson, Plaintiff would have had recourse before legal title to his property was transferred to the Becks.
Before Mr. Corson’s obligation to delivery legal title to the property became due, Mr. Gallagher could have sought a modification to the terms of the real estate transaction, which in fact Mr. Gallagher did: he negotiated the addition of the Living Arrangement Agreement as part of the consideration for this real estate transaction."