Dennis man reinstated to practice law

By Ethan Genter Cape Cod Times 

Published Dec 27, 2020

A Dennis lawyer who had his license to practice suspended for his involvement in a scheme to wring as much money out of a dying client as possible was reinstated to the bar last month. 

Jamie Veara was barred from practicing law in 2018 after he, along with fellow attorney Gerald Nissenbaum, charged the estate of Kenneth Simon Sr. half a million dollars as the Harwich Port financial manager lay dying in a nursing home in 2005. 

Veara was appointed to be Simon’s guardian and racked up more than $500,000 in a mere 83 days at what the Board of Bar Overseers said were clearly excessive rates. The board said the fees were 33% higher than Veara’s normal fees, despite him having no experience in that area of the law.

The two also tried to get Simon’s marriage annulled despite Simon wishing to stay married to his second wife. They also hired a private investigator to the tune of $20,000 to try and get dirt on Anne Simon, his second wife who married the financial manager after she was released from prison for her connection to a Cape prostitution ring. 

The Supreme Judicial Court reinstated Veara in late November after a panel of the Board of Bar Overseers determined he had shown that his conduct in the Simon case was a deviation from his typical ethical practice and he has since shown that he understands what he did was wrong and has a sincere commitment to not engage in future misconduct. 

In the fallout from the incident, Veara, who served for years as town counsel to Brewster and Truro, lost his practice and since has gone on to become a vice president at the Davenport Companies. 

“(Veara) has matured during the intervening fourteen-plus years and he has reflected almost daily, including while driving by the building where he used to maintain his office, on how he came to lose his practice,” Paula Bagger, a member of the Board of Bar Overseers hearing panel, wrote in the majority opinion. 

The panel recommended Veara’s reinstatement, though Bagger did note that it would have been better if Veara did untangle his motivations and shortcomings that gave rise to this misconduct. But he has acknowledged wrongdoing and accepted responsibility for it, she wrote.

Veara was the one who petitioned to be reinstated but told court officials that he did not plan to resume practicing law. He did not respond to a request for comment, but a spokesman for the Davenport Companies, who Veara had done legal work for in the past, said that he would stay in his position there. 

In addition to understanding the wrongdoing, to be reinstated former attorneys need to prove that they have kept up their competency and understanding of law, and Veara has tried to say up-to-date on developments in the legal realm by reading Massachusetts Lawyers and some court decisions. 

Two dissenting panel opinions did not hold any punches on why they felt Veara shouldn't be allowed to practice law again.

Panel member David Krieger felt Veara hadn’t cleared any of the hurdles for reinstatement and was not persuaded that Veara acknowledged his wrongdoing in a manner that would convince the public he was trustworthy. He said Veara’s explanation for his misconduct never confronted his own self-interest in collecting fees simply because he knew the client could afford it.

Another panel member, Elizabeth Rodriguez-Ross, wrote for more than six pages on why Veara shouldn’t be reinstated, saying that the “majority puts great weight in (Veara’s) testimony acknowledging his wrongdoing, but I am unpersuaded that this was not mere opportunistic posturing.” 

Veara and Nissenbaum tried to collect about $524,000 in fees when a court found they should have only amounted to about $167,000. 

Veara did have to pay restitution, but Rodriguez-Ross noted that he only paid back money when ordered to do so, which doesn’t reflect well on his moral character. 

She felt the “most disturbing aspect” of Veara’s testimony was “his near total focus on what the suspension had done to him, his career, and his self-image," and a lack of concern for the effects his actions had on Simon and Simon's family. 

“The majority appears to be prepared to accept (Veara’s) reform based on these self-regarding considerations because they are satisfied that it will suffice to ensure ethical behavior, i.e., in accordance with the rules. I cannot agree,” she wrote. 

She also questioned charity efforts submitted by Veara, saying they were more the culture of the company he worked for or family activities that conveniently also had a charitable function, and questioned his legal learning after being disbarred. 

For his reinstatement, Veara will need to have a mentor who will monitor him for 18 months should he decide to resume practicing law.