CONCORD — The Supreme Court disbarred a Keene personal injury lawyer for trying to force a paralyzed woman and her family to agree to an $11 million insurance settlement so he could collect a $2 million fee.

The Professional Conduct Committee recommended attorney Timothy O'Meara be barred from practicing law for three years, but the Supreme Court — calling his actions 'egregious conduct' — ordered his disbarment.

“Disbarment is necessary to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the legal profession when, as in this case, an attorney not only selfishly allows his own personal interests to take precedence over his duty of loyalty to his clients, but also lies to a tribunal. No lesser sanction will suffice,” the justices said in the opinion issued Tuesday.

According to the order, Anita and James Conant of Hampton retained O'Meara after she was paralyzed in a traffic accident in Pennsylvania on May 25, 2005. Anita Conant, then 47 and the postmaster in New Castle, was stopped at a red light when her car was rear-ended by a Lyons and Hohl Paving truck. She suffered a severe spinal cord injury and is now a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic.

The Conants hired O'Meara. James Conant signed a one-page, contingent-fee agreement giving O'Meara 33.33 percent of the gross amount recovered. The Conants were responsible for all legal expenses.

On June 3, 2005, O'Meara learned the paving company had $11 million in insurance coverage.

He sued on behalf of the Conants on Nov. 3, 2005, in federal court in Philadelphia. On Dec. 1, 2005, the lawyer representing the insurance company told O'Meara the insurer would not contest liability.

A week later, O'Meara wrote the attorney saying the case was a policy limits case and if the $11 million was not paid, the Conant family had instructed him to go to trial. The Conants, according to the court ruling, never authorized O'Meara to settle the case for $11 million.

Pre-dated letter sent

Despite not having their approval, O'Meara discussed settlement with the insurance company lawyer the following month and told him the Conants would release the paving company and its employee from liability in exchange for the $11 million. That same day, O'Meara spoke to James Conant, who refused to authorize settlement.

On Jan. 24, 2006, O'Meara again discussed settlement with the opposing attorney and only then did he tell him the Conants would not settle for $11 million. The other lawyer believed they had an enforceable settlement agreement, and sent O'Meara a letter saying so.

O'Meara, according to the court, sent his own letter to the attorney that same day — but pre-dated it by four days — saying the Conants had withdrawn their settlement demand.

James Conant wanted O'Meara to explain how they could withdraw a settlement demand they never made and O'Meara told him the attorney had simply misconstrued their conversations.

At that point, O'Meara agreed to reduce his fee by $166,000.

An angry exchange

The next day, a certified life planner estimated it would cost more than $23 million for Anita Conant's lifetime care. A prior estimate, given in December, had set the amount at $15 million.

Two days before mediation, James Conant asked O'Meara what he thought his fee should be if the case settled for $11 million and O'Meara said he would be willing to reduce his $3.67 million potential fee by $500,000, angering Mr. Conant.

The exchange between O'Meara and the Conant family became heated and, at one point, Anita Conant mouthed to the lawyer: “Tell me why I should not fire you now?”

When asked what would happen if they fired him, O'Meara told them litigation “gets ugly” and he would sue them for his one-third contingency fee and “would win.”

Ultimately, the Conants agreed to modify the original contingent-fee agreement to say the fee was “to be negotiated.” But when O'Meara faxed James Conant the modified agreement, it said he was to be paid no less than $2 million if the final settlement was $11 million or less. James Conant refused to sign it.

Two days later, the day of the scheduled mediation, O'Meara met the family at the Philadelphia courthouse and threatened to quit unless they agreed to a $2 million fee. He gave James Conant a new document to sign which said attorney's fees and costs would be $2 million for all settlements up to $14.5 million, and then 20 percent for all amounts over it.

James Conant believed he had no choice but to sign the document because he feared if he did not, O'Meara would refuse to represent the family at the mediation, which took place as scheduled.

The final offer was $11 million from the insurance company and $500,000 from the paving company, which said it would file bankruptcy if it was any more than that.

$2 million fee

The Conants fired O'Meara on March 5, 2006 and the next day settled the lawsuit for $11.5 million.

They agreed to pay O'Meara $750,000 and put $1.25 million in escrow to arbitrate how that was to be divided.

Ultimately, the arbitrator awarded O'Meara $837,0000 of the $1.25 million and the Conants received the remaining $413,000. O'Meara was paid $1,587,000 for the case.

The court, in ordering O'Meara disbarred, said he allowed his interest in securing a $2 million fee to take precedence over his primary obligation to the Conants.

The court said the lawyer also lied during an arbitration hearing concerning his fee, maintaining the Conants had agreed to $2 million.

“O'Meara did more than just lie to the arbitration panel. He demanded to settle his client's case for $11 million without any authority to do so. Most significantly, he pressured his clients into agreeing to pay him a $2 million fee because, as the PCC found, he “did not want a significant fee to slip away,” the court said.

O'Meara was unavailable Tuesday for comment, according to a woman who answered his office telephone.

pgrossmith@unionleader.com