Attorney Seth T. Carey Reinstatement Recommendation

STATE OF MAINE Grievance Commission No. CRT 25-462 (Maine Supreme Judicial Court) In re: Petition for Reinstatement of Seth T. Carey ) ) ) ) REPORT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO M. Bar R. 29(g) Pending before the Grievance Commission Hearing Panel (the “GC Panel”) is the Petition for Reinstatement of Seth T. Carey, referred to it by the Clerk of the Board of Overseers of the Bar (“Clerk”) for hearing pursuant to M. Bar R. 29(g). The hearing took place on February 5, 6 and 17, 2026. Based on the evidence and arguments presented at hearing and after due deliberation, the GC Panel issues this report of its findings and recommendations pursuant to M. Bar. R. 29(g). I. Underlying Suspensions Mr. Carey is currently suspended from the practice of law in Maine pursuant to three different Court Orders: 1. 2016 (Brennan, J.) (two-year suspension, with the suspension initially suspended; 2. 2018 (Warren, J.) (three-year suspension), and; 3. 2021 (Warren, J.) (eight-month concurrent suspension). These Orders are described in great detail in the April 22, 2022, Report As noted in FN 8 of Panel E’s 2022 Report, “Petitioner was previously suspended from the practice of law in Maine pursuant to two separate Orders, the first dated February 12, 2009, in No. BAR 08-04, for a period of six months, and the second dated October 6, 2009, in No. BAR 08-10, which imposed a concurrent suspension of 60 days. The ethical violations for which Petitioner was suspended at that time included lack of competence based on complaints by two judicial officers, lack of honesty and integrity in dealing with the court and opposing parties and counsel as well as the Board, and lack of professional demeanor and temperament including during proceedings before the Grievance Commission and the Court. The Court described Petitioner’s testimony in those prior disciplinary proceedings as evasive, combative, and accusatory, noting Petitioner acknowledged no misconduct or deficiency on his part. Order, No. BAR 08-04, at 5 (Feb. 12, 2009). His intemperate and abusive behavior included describing Assistant Bar Counsel as ‘the most unethical lawyer I have ever met’ and he accused a sitting judge and another Maine lawyer of ‘a conspiracy, or at least complicity.’ Id. The conditions of suspension imposed upon him in No. BAR 08-10 included that “Mr. Carey’s future contacts with the Board of Overseers staff [excluding only Bar Counsel, the Executive Director, and the CLE Coordinator] shall only be through his attorney, indicating abusive behavior toward Board staff from which the Court felt compelled to protect them as well. Petitioner was reinstated

of Findings and Recommendations by Grievance Commission Panel E (“Panel E’s 2022 Report”), and Justice Murray’s September 22, 2022, Order denying Petitioner’s Petition for Reinstatement (“Justice Murray’s 2022 Order”). Portions of Panel E’s 2022 Report and Justice Murray’s 2022 Order are reproduced below for convenience. Per Panel E’s 2022 Report: “By Order dated November 21, 2016, in No. BAR 16-15, the Court suspended Petitioner from practicing law in Maine for two years, with all of that suspension being suspended, subject to his compliance with 28 separate conditions as set forth therein. The Court found violations of M.R. Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 3.3(a)(3), 3.3(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d). The basis for those findings included complaints by four judicial officers about Petitioner’s lack of core competence, and the failure to follow court rules, procedures, and directives. There was also a finding that Petitioner violated rules regarding use of his IOLTA account, using client trust funds to make payments for both personal and professional expenses. This Order was preceded by a public hearing before a Grievance Commission Panel, GCF No. 14-529, regarding which the Panel Chair commented on Petitioner’s “insulting and ineffective ad hominem attacks on witnesses that persisted despite repeated rulings from the chair that they had no relevance to the issues presented, and “a steady flow of bizarre pleadings and pre-trial motions that betrayed a profound disregard of Due Process and applicable procedures under the Maine Bar Rule. Report of Findings and Order of Panel C of the Grievance Commission, GCF No. 14-529, at 11 (Jan. 29, 2016).” p. 8-9. Justice Murray’s Order further describes: “In 2018, Justice Warren issued three orders. In April of 2018, Justice Warren granted the Board’s petition for an immediate interim suspension based on a finding that Mr. Carey had engaged in unlawful sexual touching/contact and domestic assault. In his September 21, 2018, Order, Justice Warren made factual findings that Mr. Carey violated the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct and court orders. Justice Warren found, by a preponderance of the evidence standard, that Mr. Carey engaged in conduct with T.B. that would constitute ‘criminal or unlawful conduct that would qualify as unlawful sexual touching and domestic assault’; that Mr. Carey engaged in conduct in derogation of the Court’s interim suspension order; that Mr. Carey engaged in the conduct of attempting to tamper with a witness; and that Mr. Carey had violated conditions of the 2016 disciplinary order. Justice Warren accepted Dr. Behrem’s report and testimony that Mr. Carey demonstrated ‘a personality disorder marked by tendency toward grandiosity, suspiciousness, belief that persons who criticize him are engaged in vendetta or conspiracy against him, argumentativeness, holding grudges, difficulty expressing anger to practice by Order dated August 12, 2010, however as described . . . it was not long before he was the subject of disciplinary charges again.”

in a socially appropriate manner, and a tendency to blame others for any setbacks.’ Justice Warren found that Mr. Carey’s personality issues may ‘partially explain but do not excuse’ the violations committed by Mr. Carey. Justice Warren also noted that Mr. Carey’s personality disorder helped explain a “number of intemperate, vituperative and inappropriate filings” made by Mr. Carey while representing himself. The Court also found that Mr. Carey had ‘features of ADHD’ and that he had failed to comply with the 2016 disciplinary order that he follow Dr. Behrem’s treatment recommendations in that regard. On December 20, 2018, Justice Warren suspended Mr. Carey from the Maine Bar for a period of three years. The December 20, 2018, Order imposed sanctions for violations of M.R. Prof. Conduct 3.4(b), 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), 3.4(f), 8.4(b) (criminal or unlawful conduct reflecting adversely on trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer), and 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). In determining the appropriate discipline to impose, Justice Warren noted as an aggravating factor a pattern of misconduct by Mr. Carey, including what the ‘court has found to be intemperate, vituperative, and inappropriate filings in this case and the filing of a baseless lawsuit against Jurists, witnesses, and other participants in the proceeding in BAR-16-15 that led to the November 21, 2016 order – an order to which Carey had agreed.’ Justice Warren also noted Mr. Carey’s refusal to accept responsibility for his misconduct until August of 2018, when Mr. Carey acknowledged he needed help for a personality disorder. Among other things, Justice Warren ordered that Mr. Carey ‘obtain and diligently follow all appropriate treatment recommended for the personality disorder diagnosed by Dr. Behrem, including but not limited to individual and group psychotherapy,’ and that he be successful in treating his personality disorder before he could be reinstated. Justice Warren further ordered that ‘[t]o address issues with distraction and lack of attention to detail, [Mr. Carey] shall consult a licensed psychiatrist and comply with any recommended medications.” Justice Warren also ordered that the issue of Mr. Carey’s competence be addressed at any reinstatement proceeding.” Justice Murray Order, p. 2. Though the court ordered a three-year suspension, Justice Warren noted that “disbarment” was entirely reasonable under the circumstances. Justice Warren Order, December 20, 2018, p. 13 (“Justice Warren’s 2018 Order”). Justice Warren noted that “if there were additional bar violations beyond those found in the September 12, 2018, order or if there were to be any future bar violations, the court would be strongly inclined to conclude that disbarment is required. Id. at p. 14. Justice Warren also noted that “there is no guarantee that even if Carey makes diligent efforts to address his personality disorder, he will be successful in doing so.” Id.

Per Panel E’s 2022 Report: “Petitioner appealed from the judgment entered by . . . Justice [Warren] in No. BAR 18-4, which was affirmed by the Law Court in a per curiam opinion on August 15, 2019. Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Seth T. Carey, 2019 ME 136. Notably, in response to the Board’s motion to dismiss this appeal due to the Petitioner’s violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and orders issued by the Court, the Court found as follows: In this case, where his professional license and livelihood are on the line, Carey has demonstrated an unwillingness to comply both with the rules governing appellate procedure and with an order issued by us “the court of last resort” governing the procedure in this appeal. In other types of cases, we might well grant a motion to dismiss an appeal that has been prosecuted as poorly and irresponsibly as this one. In this case, however, we are acutely mindful of the critical mission of ensuring that the public is served by members of a bar who are held to the core ethical standards that define and are integral to the legal profession. As we discuss below, the shortcomings in Carey’s presentation on this appeal will make it impossible for us to reach many of his contentions in a meaningful way. Nonetheless, to promote the fundamental objective of promoting public confidence in the justice system, we exercise our discretion by reaching the merits of his challenges to the extent the record allows us to do so and shining a light on Carey’s professional misconduct, rather than dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds. The violations noted by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court included, but were not limited to, a lack of core competence in violation of M.R. Prof. Conduct 1.1. They also implicated Petitioner’s honesty and integrity, because after being ordered to file a replacement brief that corrects the citations to the appendix but that makes no other changes, Petitioner filed a replacement brief, large portions of which had been substantively rewritten in violation of our order. Petitioner compounded that behavior by offering false characterizations in an effort to excuse it. As the Court noted: The reality is that Carey patently violated an order of this Court. By Order dated February 23, 2021, in No. BAR 20-14, the Court approved the sanction of suspension determined by the Grievance Commission for eight months to run concurrently with the suspension previously imposed upon Petitioner in BAR 16-15 and BAR 18- 04. In this Grievance Commission Order, in Nos. GCF 19-101 and 17-239, pursuant to findings agreed upon by the parties, the Panel found that Petitioner violated M.R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(a), 1.15(f), 3.1(a) and (b), 3.4(c), and 8.4(d). Among the conduct described as the basis for these violations

was the following statement made by Petitioner to opposing counsel: I am going to make you a one-time offer to get your friend and colleague out of hot water along with these crooked cops and town manager. It’s going to cost your and the town of Fairfield’s insurance however. But that [is] what insurance is for right? $50,000 and my client and I release all claims against all your clients (ERB and his Law Firm). This is a one-time offer and if it’s not accepted then I will unleash a much harsher beatdown in court in this case and against the firm and (ERB) personally. I’m not even getting started and it’s been frankly embarrassing for him so far. Better to save face; [you are] not at my level in this game. Panel E’s 2022 Report. p. 9-10 (internal quotations and citations omitted). On August 18, 2021, Mr. Carey filed a Reinstatement Questionnaire and the Law Court accepted it without a Petition for Reinstatement. “After a series of difficulties” (which are fully described in Panel E’s 2022 Report on pages 1-6), a hearing on Mr. Carey’s Petition for Reinstatement was held on March 22, 23, and 24, 2022. Justice Murray’s 2022 Order, p. 3. On April 26, 2022, Panel E issued its Report of Findings and Recommendations recommending that Mr. Carey’s Petition for Reinstatement be denied. Panel E made this recommendation on the basis of findings including but not limited to the following: ● Mr. Carey did not establish that he satisfied “any of the applicable reinstatement criteria, save Rule 29(e)(8) regarding payment of fees.” Panel E’s 2022 Report, p. 11. ● “Petitioner continues to engage in the same sort of conduct that led to his suspension pursuant to the pending as well as prior Court Orders, and he has not adequately addressed the conditions for reinstatement imposed by the Court in No. BAR 18-4.” Id. For example: o “The record is replete with evidence that Petitioner continues to engage in behavior unbecoming of an attorney admitted to practice law in Maine, including sarcastic, demeaning, and even libelous comments in communications directed at the Court clerk and Board staff . . . and numerous frivolous and vexatious filings containing unfounded and disparaging accusations hurled at opponents usually in an effort to deflect from his own failures . . . .” Id. p. 11-12.

• Mr. Carey evaded the requirements that he “submit any proposed complaint that he wishes to file on his own behalf to the court in which the action has been or will be filed before effecting service of the complaint” so that the court could “screen the complaint to determine that it is not frivolous or vexatious . . . .” Id. at p. 12. o Mr. Carey continues to publicly castigate and demean the victim of the sexual assaults the Court has already found he committed (and for which he has now been criminally charged . . . and to justify as “settlement negotiations” what the Court determined was tampering with a witness by offering her money and a car in exchange for changing her sworn testimony.” Id. at p. 13. o “Although Petitioner pays lip service to recognizing he ‘has made a lot of mistakes’ and claims in conclusory fashion now to be a ‘better version’ of himself, closer examination of his filings and testimony reveals that he admits nothing as to recognizing the wrongful and serious behavior that led to his suspension, and the importance of avoiding similar behavior in the future.” Id. at p. 13. o Neither of Mr. Carey’s treating providers established that he does not have a personality disorder or that other diagnosed mental disabilities for which they are treating Petitioners have been removed. Id. at p. 15 -16. Likewise, Justice Murray denied Mr. Carey’s Petition for Reinstatement after a de novo hearing citing extensive examples supporting the conclusion that Mr. Carey has not effectively treated his underlying mental health challenges and that these challenges “very significantly negatively impact his competence” to practice law. Justice Murray’s 2022 Order, p. 18. II. Procedural History Relevant to Mr. Carey’s Pending Petition For Reinstatement Per Maine Bar Rule 29(c), a Petition for Reinstatement “shall be filed with the Executive Clerk of the court and also with Bar Counsel accompanied by a filing fee made payable to the Board of Overseers of the Bar and a complete Board Reinstatement Questionnaire.” The
  following is a brief summary of events leading up to the hearing in the instant matter on February 5, 6, and 17, 2026: ● Though Mr. Carey has worked through this reinstatement process before, in April 2025, Mr. Carey mailed only a Reinstatement Questionnaire to the offices of the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar (“Board of Overseers”), which the Board of Overseers received on April 11, 2025. This does not comply with Maine Bar Rule 29(c). This was the same mistake Mr. Carey made in August 2021 when initiating his prior Petition for Reinstatement. ● Mr. Carey began contacting the Board of Overseers in August 2025, requesting an update on the status of his Petition for Reinstatement and hearing. ● The Clerk of the Board of Overseers (“Clerk”) communicated to Mr. Carey on August 26, 2025, that he needed to follow Maine Bar Rule 29(c) to initiate a Petition for Reinstatement. Board Exhibit (“Board Ex.”) 2. Mr. Carey claimed that he was “never informed” his “reinstatement package” would not be complete until he paid the filing fee and asked why he was not informed of any deficiencies in his request to begin the reinstatement process. Id. Mr. Carey asked the Clerk if the Board of Overseers’ position was that it was not “in compliance with Rule 29(f).” Id. ● In October 2025, Mr. Carey, still not understanding his obligations under Rule 29(c), asked the Clerk to mail his “reinstatement application” to the “Law Court” and send him a copy of the Reinstatement Questionnaire he sent to the Board of Overseers in April 2025. Id. Mr. Carey himself then mailed a Petition for Reinstatement to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which the Court received on October 23, 2025. Mr. Carey did not, however, additionally deliver a copy of this Petition for Reinstatement filing to the Board of Overseers. The Board of Overseers only obtained the Petition for Reinstatement from the Executive Clerk of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court upon request. Mr. Carey also asked the Clerk if she could send his Reinstatement Questionnaire or “at least the last page”, which contained the notarization, to the “Law Court.” Board Ex. 2. At hearing Mr. Carey did not understand that it is not permissible to affix a notarized page associated with one filing to a separate filing. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 91-93.

• On October 24, 2025, Mr. Carey asked the Clerk when he “will have a decision on [his] reinstatement”, despite the fact that he participated in the same process with the Board of Overseers between August 2021 and March 2022 prior to the time Panel E issued its 2022 Report concerning his Petition. Id. ● On October 27, 2025, as a reminder to Mr. Carey of his obligation under Rule 29(c), the Clerk asked Mr. Carey to send a “complete copy of [his] Law Court filing” to the Board of Overseers. Petitioner responded, “Better yet; why don’t you forward your copy to the Court and I?” Id. ● On October 28, 2025, Mr. Carey asked the Clerk if he will “have the Board’s position per Rule 29 this week? They had two months. It’s been eight.” Id. ● Mr. Carey paid filing fees associated with his Petition for Reinstatement to the Board of Overseers on November 5, 2025. ● Though Mr. Carey had not yet satisfied the requirements of M. Bar. R. 29(c), on November 13, 2025, Bar Counsel notified the Court that the Board of Overseers objected to Mr. Carey’s Petition for Reinstatement. Id. ● On December 5, 2025, Mr. Carey communicated to the Clerk that the Board of Overseers was “already in violation of the Bar Rules regarding the time period allowed for the hearing,” asking that the Clerk “please schedule the grievance panel hearing soon.” Id. The Clerk let Mr. Carey know that the “clerk . . . [has] no role with this” and that her “understanding is that Bar Counsel has submitted with the Court.” Id. To this, Mr. Carey responded by writing “I would be surprised if that were true. You are the clerk they [sic] sets up grievance panel hearings. Not bar counsel. The BC only objected to my automatic reinstatement. Now it’s your responsibility To [sic] set up the hearing.” Id. Mr. Carey testified at hearing both that he “[couldn’t] recall” if and “he [didn’t] think” he read Maine Bar Rule 29 before he filed his Reinstatement Questionnaire. Id. at p. 84-86. Regardless, Mr. Carey admitted that the process by which he filed the Reinstatement Questionnaire, then the Petition for Reinstatement, then paid the filing fee did not comply with Maine Bar Rule 29(c). Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 86; Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 134. Mr. Carey also, without producing any evidence to support such an allegation, questioned the integrity and truthfulness of Board staff and its receipt of his notarized Petition for Reinstatement in connection with his 2021-2022 Petition for Reinstatement. Justice Murray 2022 Order, p. 11; Panel E’s 2022 Report, p. 3-4.

• On December 9, 2025, Mr. Carey emailed the Clerk the following message: “the Court said there will be a grievance hearing. Should I inform the court that you do not want to schedule the hearing and ask the Court to order you to do so?” Id. ● On December 11, 2025, Mr. Carey emailed the Clerk of the Board as follows: “Please send the reason the board gave for not being automatically reinstated thank you [sic].” Id. ● On December 23, 2025, Mr. Carey filed a Motion to Recuse Panel Member John Aromando, Esq. (Motion for Recusal). While the Motion for Recusal ultimately was moot given Attorney Aromando’s unavailability to participate in the rescheduled hearing on February 5 and 6, 2026 (as more fully described below), and Attorney Aromando was replaced with another panel member, the arguments Mr. Carey offered in support of his Motion to Recuse are relevant to the criteria set forth in Maine Bar Rule 29(e) and will be more fully described below. ● On December 30, 2025, Mr. Carey filed a Motion for an In-Person Hearing. Mr. Carey argued that hearings conducted via remote video technology violate due process requirements or are fundamentally unfair in the context of attorney reinstatement proceedings. In support of his motion, Mr. Carey cited a number of cases but did not include accurate case citations or represent the holdings of cited cases accurately in places. The GC Panel denied Mr. Carey’s Motion. Mr. Carey’s work as reflected in this motion is also relevant to the criteria set forth in M. Bar. R. 29(e) and will be more fully described below. ● On January 5, 2026, Deputy Bar Counsel filed a Motion to Extend Exhibit Deadline on account of Mr. Carey failing to produce all of his treatment records. The deadline to designate exhibits was January 8, 2026. These circumstances are also relevant to While Mr. Carey is aware of why automatic reinstatement is inappropriate and not an available remedy, again in the instant matter, he asks for it. A lawyer suspended for more than six months may be reinstated only upon order of the Court, after a hearing and report by a Grievance Commission Panel to the Court. M. Bar. Rule 29 (a), (g), and (h). Mr. Carey also asked for the remedy of automatic reinstatement in connection with his last Petition for Reinstatement and was educated at that time that there is no procedure for automatic reinstatement. Panel E’s 2022 Report, FN3 and p. 6. So too, as Justice Murray noted, “his request for automatic reinstatement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of lawyer disciplinary proceedings, which is to protect the public and the courts.” Justice Murray’s 2022 Order, p. 17; Board Ex. 71. Mr. Carey has been on notice since December 20, 2018, pursuant to the Order of Suspension issued by Justice Warren that “during his suspension” Petitioner “shall authorize the release of his treatment records, including all
  the criteria set forth in M. Bar. R. 29(e) and will be more fully described below. Given Mr. Carey’s avoidable delay in producing treatment records, the GC Panel reset the hearing from January 28 and 29 to February 5 and 6, 2026. ● On or about January 22, 2026, Mr. Carey made another request for an in-person hearing by contacting the Administrative Office of the Courts in Augusta. In this case, Mr. Carey asked for a disability-related accommodation in the form of an in-person hearing. Mr. Carey’s disability-related rationale did not appear in his prior Motion for In-Person Hearing, nor did he direct his disability-related accommodation request to the GC Panel. At a pre-hearing conference on January 28, 2026, the GC Panel treated this request as if it was filed with the GC Panel and asked for information in support of his request. Mr. Carey’s counsel withdrew the request without offering a reason for the same. ● On January 23, 2026, Attorney Theodore Berry, Esq. entered a limited entry of appearance on behalf of Mr. Carey. ● Between January 23 and February 3, 2026, Attorney Berry filed the following motions, all of which were denied: Motion for Protective Order; Motion for Enlargement of Time to Designate Witnesses at Hearing; Motion to Set Conditions of Mr. Carey’s Reinstatement; and Motion for Seth T. Carey As Applied and Facial Challenges of Constitutional, Latin Maxim, Rule Construction and Statutory Provisions. ● At the hearing on February 5, 6, and 17, 2026, the Panel heard testimony from seven witnesses and received into evidence five exhibits from Petitioner and 79 exhibits from Deputy Bar Counsel. counselling records, to Bar Counsel . . . .”. p. 15. Further, though Mr. Carey disclosed in his April 2025, Reinstatement Questionnaire that he has “been in weekly counseling therapy, one-on-one counseling with a licensed therapist” and that he has “been in weekly group therapy and one on one for a year and a half” he did not produce these treatment records timely. Petition for Reinstatement, answer to question 4 (“Wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct”); answer to question 15 (“Provide a concise and informative statement of facts concerning the issues and factors set forth in Maine Bar Rule 29(e) which you believe justify and support your reinstatement to the bar of the state of Maine”). Notably, Mr. Carey also had challenges complying with exhibit deadlines in the de novo hearing Justice Murray conducted in 2022 in connection with Petitioner’s last Petition for Reinstatement. Justice Murray’s 2022 Order,, FN 13. At the conclusion of the hearing on February 6, the GC Panel set another day for the hearing to finish witness testimony and hear closing arguments from the parties.

• On February 12, 2026, Attorney Berry filed a Motion to Withdraw. The GC Panel permitted Mr. Berry’s withdrawal from representation after he finished his re-direct of a witness on the last day of hearing, February 17, 2026. Thereafter, Mr. Carey represented himself. III. Criteria for Reinstatement Maine Bar Rule 29(b) establishes that “a petition for reinstatement must be under oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury and shall specify with particularity the manner in which the petitioner meets each of the criteria specified in Rule 29(e) or, if not, why there is good and sufficient reason for reinstatement. Mr. Carey bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has met the criteria set forth in Rule 29(e). M. Bar R. 29(g). For evidence to be clear and convincing, it must place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of [Petitioner’s] factual contentions are highly probable. Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health, 481 A.2d 139, 153 (Me. 1984) (quoting Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984)). Under Maine Bar Rule 29(e), a petitioner who has been suspended for a period of time in excess of six months may be reinstated only if the petitioner meets each of the following criteria: (1) the petitioner has fully complied with the terms and conditions of all prior disciplinary orders issued in Maine or in any other jurisdiction except to the extent they are abated under Rule 30, unless such suspension, disbarment, or discipline is solely the result of reciprocal action resulting from disciplinary action taken by Maine authorities. (2) the petitioner has not engaged or attempted to engage in the unauthorized practice of law during the period of suspension or disbarment. (3) if the petitioner was suffering under a physical or mental disability or infirmity at the time of suspension or disbarment, including alcohol or other drug abuse, the disability or infirmity has been removed. Where alcohol or other drug abuse was a causative factor in the petitioner’s misconduct, the petitioner shall not be reinstated unless: (A) the petitioner has pursued appropriate rehabilitative treatment; (B) the petitioner has abstained from the use of alcohol or other drugs for at least one year; and
  (C) the petitioner is likely to continue to abstain from alcohol or other drugs (4) the petitioner recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the misconduct for which the petitioner was suspended or disbarred. (5) the petitioner has not engaged in any other professional misconduct since suspension or disbarment. (6) notwithstanding the conduct for which the petitioner was disciplined, the petitioner has the requisite honesty and integrity to practice law. (7) the petitioner has met the CLE requirements of Rule 5 for each year the attorney has been suspended or disbarred, but need not complete more than 24 hours of approved credit hours for that entire period of absence from practice, provided that (i) no more than one half of the credit hours are earned through self study; (ii) at least two credit hours are primarily concerned with the issues of ethics or professionalism; and (iii) at least two credit hours are primarily concerned with issues of recognition and avoidance of harassment and discriminatory communication or conduct related to the practice of law; and (8) In addition to all of the requirements in this provision, the attorney shall comply with Rule 4(a) and (b), and remit to the Board an arrearage registration payment equal to the total registration fee that the attorney would have been obligated to pay the Board under Rule 4(a) and (b) had the attorney remained actively registered to practice in Maine. IV. Analysis Mr. Carey bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he has met the criteria set forth in Rule 29(e), or if not, that there is “good and sufficient reason by the petitioner should nevertheless be reinstated.” M. Bar R. 29 (g); See also In re Prolman, 2022 ME 25, ¶ 15, 273 A.3d 352. For the reasons to follow, the GC Panel finds that Mr. Carey has not met the requirements of Rule 29(e) and there is otherwise no “good and sufficient” reason he should be There are a number of examples described herein that are relevant to more than one criteria set forth in Maine Bar Rule 29(e), with extensive overlap within criteria 3 (mental disability) and criteria 1 (compliance with prior court orders).

reinstated. This finding is based on the following: Criterion 1: Compliance with Prior Disciplinary Orders Justice Warren’s December 20, 2018, Order set forth a number of criteria Mr. Carey needs to satisfy in order to be reinstated. Warren’s 2018 Order, p. 15-17. Some of Justice Warren’s conditions overlap with Maine Bar Rule 29(e). For purposes of criterion 1, however, the GC Panel focuses on the following of Justice Warren’s conditions issued to Mr. Carey. Assessment of all other criteria for reinstatement will track Maine Bar Rule 29(e). ● Mr. Carey shall obtain and diligently follow all appropriate treatment recommended for the personality disorder diagnosed by Dr. Behrem, including but not limited to individual or group psychotherapy. This criterion is discussed below at “Criterion 3 -- Mental Disability.” Mr. Carey does not satisfy this criterion. ● He shall authorize the release of his treatment records, including all counseling records, to Bar Counsel who may, if appropriate, submit any pertinent records to the court under seal. The hearing in connection with Mr. Carey’s instant Petition for Reinstatement was originally scheduled for January 29 and 30, 2026, but was rescheduled due to Mr. Carey’s failure to comply with a January 8, 2026, deadline to exchange witness lists, exhibits and corresponding exhibit lists. Mr. Carey did not produce all treatment records by January 8, 2026, in time for the scheduled hearing notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Carey has been on notice since at least 2018 that “during his suspension” Petitioner “shall authorize the release of his treatment records, including all counselling records, to Bar Counsel . . . .” Justice Warren’s 2018 Order, p. 15. During the hearing, Mr. Carey argued that he authorized the release of his treatment records as soon as Deputy Bar Counsel asked for them and therefore authorized release of his treatment records during the course of his suspension. Mr. Carey argued he therefore complied with Justice Warren’s 2018 Order. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 57–60. While Mr. Carey

may meet the explicit letter of Justice Warren’s 2018 Order, he did not meet the spirit of it. Otherwise, Mr. Carey seemingly did not understand that information included in his treatment records is essential to supporting his Petition for Reinstatement and his ability to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he meets all criteria in Maine Bar Rule 29(e). That he did not assure these records were produced to Deputy Bar Counsel at least as soon as April 2025 when he first filed his Reinstatement Questionnaire with the Board of Overseers and supplemented ongoing is troubling. Thereafter, he had eight full months to assure delivery of his treatment records to Deputy Bar Counsel. Because Mr. Carey did not meet the deadline to produce these records, the hearing was rescheduled. These events also reflect upon Mr. Carey’s competence to practice law, as described below, and are consistent with challenges Mr. Carey had meeting tribunal and court-imposed deadlines during his last Petition for Restatement as described in Panel E’s 2022 Report and Justice Murray’s 2022 Order. ● He shall not practice law. This criterion is discussed below at criterion 2 -- unauthorized practice of law since suspension was imposed. Mr. Carey does not meet this criterion. ● He shall not violate any of the provisions of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct or this order. This criterion is discussed below at criterion 5 – other professional misconduct. Mr. ● He shall not engage in any criminal or unlawful conduct. This criterion is discussed below at criterion 5 – other professional misconduct. Mr.

• He shall report to Bar Counsel any matters in which he is the subject of any civil protection orders, any criminal complaints or criminal charges, or any civil cases in which he is named as a defendant. This criterion is discussed below at criterion 5 – other professional misconduct. Mr. ● He shall report to Bar Counsel any civil proceedings (including court and docket number) which he initiates, either presented by counsel or representing himself. Mr. Carey’s Reinstatement Questionnaire lists 32 different litigation matters since 2022 where he was either Plaintiff or Defendant. Much of the required information is missing. Mr. Carey acknowledged at hearing that his Reinstatement Questionnaire did not report all civil proceedings either at the time they were initiated and/or they are not listed in his Reinstatement Questionnaire. He did not supplement his Reinstatement Questionnaire prior to hearing. For example: • Mr. Carey did not disclose litigation he initiated in the United States District Court for the District of Maine on July 14, 2025, captioned as Seth T. Carey v. Town of Rumford. Board Ex. 49. • Mr. Carey did not disclose litigation he initiated in the United States District Court for the District of Maine on July 22, 2025, captioned as Seth T. Carey v. Maine State Police, Rumford Police Department, Michael Chavez, Daniel Garbarini, and Robert Granger. Board Ex. 52, 53; Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 49. • Mr. Carey did not disclose litigation he initiated in the United States District Court for the District of Maine on July 22, 2025, captioned as Seth T. Carey v. Sunday River Skiway and Darren Tripp. Board Ex. 56, 57. • Mr. Carey did not disclose litigation he initiated in the United States District Court for the District of Maine on September 25, 2025, captioned as Seth T. Carey v. Brandt Corey Steiner. Board Ex. 61. • Mr. Carey did not disclose litigation he initiated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on September 25, 2025, captioned as Seth T. Carey v. Brandt Corey Steiner. Board Ex. 60, Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 80-81.
• Attorney Lynn Ward testified that Mr. Carey filed two forcible entry and detainer (“FED”) matters concerning a person named “Veda Maker,” which were dismissed because Mr. Carey failed to follow the screening process Justice Warren ordered, see below. Mr. Carey did not disclose these matters on his Reinstatement Questionnaire. This criterion is discussed below at criterion 5 – other professional misconduct, and also relevant to Mr. Carey’s competence to practice law, discussed below. Mr. Carey does not meet this criterion. ● Any petition for reinstatement shall be based on a showing that Mr. Carey has not only sought appropriate treatment for his personality disorder but has also been successful in treating that disorder. This criterion is discussed below at “Criterion 3 -- Mental Disability.” Mr. Carey does not meet this criterion. ● Mr. Carey shall submit any proposed complaint that he wishes to file on his own behalf to the court in which the action will be filed before effecting service of the complaint. There are ten matters which involve a person named “Veda Maker,” relevant to Mr. Carey’s work to evict her from a property. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 106. Two of the ten FED matters did not move forward because Mr. Carey did not follow the screening process described in Justice Warren’s December 20, 2018, Order, and affirmed in orders issued by Justice McKeon in May 2022 and Justice Archer in October 2023. Id. at p. 107; Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 156-157; Board Ex. 26, 31 (FN 5). Notably, Mr. Carey characterized the requirement that any litigation he wishes to initiate be screened by the judge before filing as “questionable.” Board Ex. 27. Mr. Carey does not meet this criterion. This description is also relevant to Mr. Carey’s competence to practice law, as described below.
• The issue of competence should be addressed on any petition for reinstatement. Mr. Carey does not meet this criterion. This conclusion is based upon the following: • Mr. Carey filed a Motion to Appear in Person prior to hearing. At this time Mr. Carey was representing himself. In denying his motion, the GC Panel reminded Mr. Carey of his obligation to include accurate case citations and fairly characterize the holdings of cases he cites in his written materials to the tribunal. During the hearing, Deputy Bar Counsel asked Mr. Carey how he prepared and researched arguments in support of this motion. Mr. Carey acknowledged that he used generative AI, specifically ChatGPT, to write this motion and did not check the case citations it generated. Mr. Carey admitted that he misstated case law, explaining that he was “in a hurry,” was not “careful”, and “did not vet those citations before [putting] them in the pleading to a tribunal.” Hearing Transcript, February 5, 2026, p. 96-98; Board Ex. 70. This GC panel notes that courts have issued sanctions to attorneys who engage in similar conduct. See, e.g., Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 1:22-cv-01461 (S.D.N.Y), Opinion and Order on Sanctions (the court noted that the plaintiff’s attorneys abandoned their responsibility to assure “accuracy of their filings” when they submitted “non-existent judicial opinions . . . .”, p. 1); Lacey et al. v. State Farm General Insurance Co., 2:24-cv-05205 FMO- MAA (C.D. Cal.), Order of Special Master Imposing Non-Monetary Sanctions and Awarding Costs, p. 7, ¶ 17 (noting “no reasonably competent attorney should out- source research and writing to [artificial intelligence] – particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material.”). • On December 23, 2025, Mr. Carey filed a Motion to Disqualify panel member John Aromando, Esq. Attorney Aromando served as panel chair of the GC Panel While Mr. Carey is not functioning as an attorney, he has functioned as a “litigant” since the period of his initial suspension began. Mr. Carey’s conduct as a litigant is therefore appropriately considered in this proceeding. In re Jonas, 2017 ME 115 ¶ 38, 164 A.3d 120. Deputy Bar Counsel pointed out in the Opposition to Mr. Carey’s Motion for In-Person Hearing her inability to find cases to which Mr. Carey cited and incorrect citations. In his Reply, Mr. Carey responded not by correcting his work, but by asserting that “the strength of his arguments do ‘not rise or fall on Bluebook precision.’” Reply, Motion to Appear in Person, p. 4. that heard Mr. Carey’s last Petition for Reinstatement in March 2022. In support of his Motion to Disqualify, Mr. Carey offered arguments he made in his last Petition for Reinstatement, which Justice Murray found “concerning,” noting that these very arguments reflected on Mr. Carey’s “lack of competence, lack of attention to detail, and lack of focus,” and were “similar in nature to the filings Justice Warren found to be ‘intemperate, vituperative and inappropriate’ in the 2018 disciplinary case.” Justice Murray’s 2022 Order, p. 8, 11. Specifically, Mr. Carey continued to deflect accountability for not complying with Maine Bar Rule 29(a) and (b) in his last Petition for Reinstatement, writing that “Chair Aromando unilaterally ordered Petitioner to have his reinstatement application re-notarized, without any request from the Board of Overseers,” continuing to challenge Attorney Aromando’s authority to enter this order. Motion to Disqualify, ¶ 4 (emphasis in original). Mr. Carey also continues to characterize his own deficiency as "facially innocuous,” finding fault with Attorney Aromando’s appropriate decision to cancel the then-scheduled reinstatement hearing when Mr. Carey failed to deliver his notarized Reinstatement Questionnaire to the Board Clerk by the re-set deadline. Further, Mr. Carey continued to challenge Board staff’s representations that they did not receive Mr. Carey’s re-sent notarized document. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6. (“the document was allegedly not received”) (emphasis in original). Remarkably, Mr. Carey argues that it was this set of circumstances that “materially contributed to the denial of reinstatement . . . .” Id. at ¶ 9. Moreover, Exhibit A to Mr. Carey’s Motion to Disqualify is a document entitled “Objection to Report of Grievance Commission Panel E,” which he filed in connection with his prior request for reinstatement in 2022. Justice Murray offered the following characterization of Mr. Carey’s “Objection to Report of Grievance Commission Panel E”: On April 27, 2022, Mr. Carey filed an Objection to Report of Grievance Panel E that was 218 paragraphs in length. This filing was light on recitations of the evidence from which Mr. Carey could argue that the Panel should have found that he met his burden of proof. However, Mr. Carey made a significant number of statements in which he: (i) either mischaracterized J. Warren’s findings or argued that Justice Warren’ [sic] findings were not true

and (ii) offered excuses or rationalizations for his (Mr. Carey’s) actions.” (internal quotations and footnotes omitted). Id. at p. 11, 12. Exhibits D and E to Mr. Carey’s Motion to Disqualify are also problematic insofar as they relate matters already decided in Mr. Carey’s prior Petition for Reinstatement. Finally, Exhibit F to Mr. Carey’s Motion to Disqualify is entitled “Affidavit of Seth T. Carey.” Notably, this affidavit is not notarized despite Mr. Carey’s reeducation in connection with his last Petition for Reinstatement concerning the importance of and how to appropriately notarize documents. That Mr. Carey introduced these arguments and documents into his current Petition for Reinstatement is highly concerning, especially given Judge Murray’s prior assessment of their appropriateness and the quality of his work product. The fact that he made these arguments in the instant proceeding also reflect on criterion 3 – mental disability. • In this instant Petition for Reinstatement, Mr. Carey again had difficulty following Maine Bar Rule 29 even though he participated in this process in 2021-2022 and had many of the same issues then. Board Ex. 1 and 2. These difficulties are reflected above in the section entitled “Procedural History Relevant to Mr. Carey’s Pending Petition For Reinstatement.” • The Reinstatement Questionnaire Mr. Carey filed with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and the Board of Overseers is riddled with omissions and issues. Non-exhaustive examples are as follows: Mr. Carey’s attorney argued that if “Seth Carey had had polished Big Law lawyers helping him with his reinstatement application, there would have been no errors in the petition, and certainly no Rule 23 questions. Is Seth Carey not entitled to the same privileges as those who work at Big Law firms?” Reply on “Motion for Seth T. Carey As Applied and Facial Challenges of Constitutional, Latin Maxim, Rule Construction and Statutory Provisions”, p. 3. Mr. Carey’s attorney minimizes the seriousness of the deficiencies in Mr. Carey’s Reinstatement Questionnaire. Nevertheless, Mr. Carey admitted at hearing that the Reinstatement Questionnaire is a “very serious filing with a tribunal” and that errors in this document can call into question his competence to practice law. Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 135-136.

• With respect to question 8, Mr. Carey did not list several matters he has initiated since he filed his last Petition for Reinstatement, for example: Seth T. Carey v. Town of Rumford, Board Ex. 49; Seth T. Carey v. Maine State Police, Rumford Police Department, Michael Chavez, Daniel Garbarini, and Robert Granger, Board Ex. 52, 53; Seth T. Carey v. Sunday River Skiway and Darren Tripp, Board Ex. 56, 57; Seth T. Carey v. Brandt Corey Steiner, Board Ex. 60, 61; two FED matters relating to Veda Maker. o With respect to question 8 concerning “Veda Maker,” Mr. Carey did not disclose the dispositions of any of them. Additionally, he did not review these matters to refresh his recollection about them prior to the hearing on his Petition for Reinstatement; therefore, he was unable to answer Deputy Bar Counsel’s questions with any granularity. Hearing Transcript, February 5; p. 106, lines 14 – 19. o With respect to matters Mr. Carey did identify in question 8, he did not disclose dates, general nature, final disposition (with copies), dates of filing of complaints, title of courts, names and addresses of attorneys, names of judges, and names and addresses of all witnesses involved in each action. o In response to question 8, Mr. Carey included the following narrative: “WATCH OUT FOR HER SHE IS DANGEROUS BE CAREFUL.” This refers to a sitting justice of the Maine Superior Court. When Deputy Bar Counsel asked Mr. Carey about this statement at hearing, he testified he did not know this was in his Reinstatement Questionnaire. Mr. Carey explained that another lawyer who reviewed his Reinstatement Questionnaire before he filed it must have inserted that comment. He first characterized it as a “scrivener’s error,” and indicated that the first day of hearing was the first time he had seen that language. Hearing Transcript February 5, p. 126; Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 134. He admitted this is “unprofessional” and “not appropriate.” Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 134-135. This set of circumstances is disturbing.
• In response to question 9 of the Reinstatement Questionnaire, Mr. Carey did not disclose that he had been ordered to pay a judgment to Attorney David Austin for $7,500. Likewise, Mr. Carey has been ordered to pay separate sanctions to opposing counsel in the amount of $17,500, as well as attorneys’ fees to Pine Tree Legal Association. Mr. Carey has similarly not paid these debts. Board Ex. 42, p. 14-15; Ex. 48. o On December 1, 2023, the District Court granted Veda Maker a Protection from Harassment Order against Mr. Carey. Board Ex. 33. Mr. Carey did not clearly disclose that this order had been entered against him on his reinstatement questionnaire. • As noted above, Attorney Lynn Ward testified that Mr. Carey filed two FED matters concerning Veda Maker. These were dismissed because Mr. Carey failed to follow the screening process Justice Warren ordered and which was affirmed by Justices McKeon and Archer. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 103-104. • Deputy Bar Counsel called two witnesses to offer opinions about Mr. Carey’s competence to practice law. A brief excerpt of each’s testimony at hearing is as follows. o Attorney Lynn Ward: ▪ In addition to two matters concerning an FED action with Veda Maker being dismissed because Mr. Carey did not screen them with the court prior to service, Attorney Ward noted that she has never seen “this many FEDs filed for one tenancy in the eight years [she has] been at Pine Tree Legal.” Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 157. Mr. Carey failed to prevail on any of the 10 matters which offers information about his competence, both in assessing the merits of a case and in the technical practice of law. Id. at p. 158-159. There is some confusion in the record about exactly how many matters were initiated where Mr. Carey and Ms. Maker were either plaintiff or defendant. Some witnesses testify that there were 10. Other witnesses describe that there were 10 FEDs, plus an additional two that did not move forward because Mr. Carey did not first present them to the court for review prior to filing. There was also litigation between the parties relating to Ms. Maker’s filing a protection from harassment action against Mr. Carey, which the court granted. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 106, 107; Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 156, 157, 158; Board Ex. 33.
• Mr. Carey’s litigation errors were varied. “It just kind of seemed there was an additional mistake at issue every time,” including not filing the appropriate document, a case filed before the notice to quit had expired, and inability to get relevant evidence into the hearing record. Id. at p. 159. ▪ Mr. Carey did not appear to have “a grasp of the rules or that he was prepared to prove his case.” He was not able to “step back, make factual analyses, look at the elements, and . . . determine how to proceed.” Id. at p. 163. ▪ Mr. Carey had a hard time “listening” to Justice Archer’s rulings on objections and accepting it. Id. at p. 173. o Attorney David Austin: ▪ Attorney Austin appeared at the hearing to oppose Mr. Carey’s reinstatement. Attorney Austin has known Mr. Carey for more than thirty years. Id. at p. 204. Attorney Austin testified, in addition to Mr. Carey having not paid attorneys fees the Court ordered Mr. Carey to pay (see above), that Mr. Carey “misuses” the legal process. Id. at p. 202. Attorney Austin specifically drew the GC Panel’s attention to Mr. Carey’s litigation against the Maine State Police and other defendants. Board Ex. 53. Attorney Austin testified that the complaint Mr. Carey drafted against the Maine State Police and other defendants is “embarrassing,” “you don’t file documents like that,” Mr. Carey is a “menace to the general public,” and that Mr. Carey has “used litigation to hurt people.” Id. at p. 203, 218. Again, here, Mr. Carey’s attorney minimizes Mr. Carey’s conduct. Attorney Berry characterized Attorney Austin’s concerns as “old grudges” and attempts to shift blame onto Attorney Austin by sermonizing that “holding resentment for decades is not healthy for any member of the Maine bar.” Reply, Motion for Seth T. Carey As Applied and Facial Challenges of Constitutional, Latin Maxim, Rule Construction and Statutory Provisions, p. 4. Minimizing Mr. Carey’s failure to date to take responsibility for his conduct does not serve Mr. Carey in his efforts to be reinstated to practice law. While Mr. Carey called his own witness, Mr. Christian Venable, to testify in support of his reinstatement, the testimony Mr. Venable gave did not assuage the GC Panel’s significant concerns about Mr. Carey’s competence to practice law. Although Mr. Venable testified that Mr. Carey provided him with excellent legal services in the 2016 timeframe, noting that Mr. Carey was caring, attentive to details, motivated and maintained strong communication, Mr. Venable’s experience with Mr. Carey was roughly 10 years ago. Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 24 - 29. Mr. Venable did not demonstrate that he has sufficient knowledge of Mr. Carey’s current functioning upon which to offer an opinion about his competence to practice law at the current time or his general integrity and character. • Mr. Carey has initiated pro se litigation in many cases since Justice Murray denied his last Petition for Reinstatement. The following examples support a finding that Mr. Carey is not competent to practice law: o Again, as noted above, there are ten FED matters involving a person named Veda Maker. Two of the ten FED matters did not move forward because Mr. Carey did not follow the screening process. In the remaining eight FED matters, Mr. Carey did not prevail because, at turns, he did not follow court rules, was unable to accomplish entering certain evidence into the hearing record, failed to present certain witnesses at hearing, failed to comply with 14 MRS 6001(7), failed to produce the correct notice to quit, presented defective notice(s) to quit, prematurely filed the FED action, or did not complete service. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 108-110. Mr. Carey, however, testified at hearing that he had experience litigating FED matters and was familiar with housing law. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 99. o Veda Maker v. Seth Carey and William Foster, RUMDC-CV-23-061. Mr. Carey filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order against Ms. Maker. The Court denied Mr. Carey’s Motion because he did not comply with

Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a). Board Ex. 32. Mr. Carey admitted at hearing that he “forgot that a TRO requires an affidavit. . .”, that he knows “quite a bit about a lot of things, but not everything,” but ultimately Mr. Carey would not concede that it was a “mistake.” Id. at p. 115 (“I’m not saying that’s a mistake, but it’s a correctible mistake would be my response to that.”). o In Alan Albanasi et al. v. Veda Maker, OXFSC-CV-2024-44, Mr. Carey was a plaintiff and authored the complaint and related filings. Justice Archer noted his pleading “spirals, utilizing inflammatory and unprofessional language.” Board Ex. 42, p. 5. Justice Archer’s language is reminiscent of the language both Justices Warren and Murray use in describing Mr. Carey’s written work product, this time commenting on work product Mr. Carey filed with the court in October 2024, just months before he sent his Reinstatement Questionnaire to the Board of Overseers. Here too, Mr. Carey demonstrates that his skills relating to drafting, legal research, organizing information, presentation of argument, and ability to meet basic pleading criteria are seriously deficient. Like additional examples included above and below, Mr. Carey’s complaint was dismissed in its entirety for failure to state claims. Specifically, with respect to one count in the complaint Mr. Carey drafted, Justice Archer notes that it “bombs miserably in its attempt to state a claim of fraud, let alone even come close to alleging the circumstances of fraud with particularity.” Board Ex. 42, p. 10. Notably, Justice Archer also ordered Mr. Carey to pay PTLA’s legal fees. Id. at p. 14-15. o Seth T. Carey v. Town of Rumford, 2:25-cv-00356-SDN. Mr. Carey did not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) insofar as he did not submit any affidavits, his complaint was not verified, and he did not certify any efforts to notify the town. The court, therefore, denied his Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order. Board Ex. 50. Mr. Carey also failed to provide the court with a copy of a restrictive covenant or the deed containing the relevant covenant or to demonstrate that even if such

restrictive covenant exists, that his family would be the successor in interest of the property. Board Ex. 51. o Seth T. Carey v. Maine State Police et al, 2:25-cv-00385-SDN. Board Ex. 53, 54. Mr. Carey’s work product is highly concerning. After he writes that T.B’s allegations were “fabricated, falsified, nonsensical and ridiculous” and that she is the “real criminal” and a “fake” and “false victim” (more fully described below) he then turns his focus to the Defendants. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 44, 278. Mr. Carey characterized defendants’ actions as a “dog and pony show put on by the MSP” in “an appalling display by perhaps the most widely-known corrupt agency in the state.” Board Ex. 53, ¶ 13. Mr. Carey then describes individual defendants, in turn, as “creepy,” a “corrupt skulk,” “intentionally dishonest,” that one was a “college dropout” and that one “is somewhat more bright than his counterpart, yet more sinister and dangerous to the innocent citizens of Maine who could be locked up at the whim of this power-hungry peculiar fellow.” Id. at ¶ 36, 37, 43, 272. Mr. Carey claims that he “knows the immorality and disrespect for law” one defendant has “at his core.” Id. at ¶ 270. Remarkably, Mr. Carey spends time discussing his bodily processes while incarcerated. Id. at ¶ 47-48. It goes on in this vein for 39 pages. Instead of assuring his Complaint was drafted to meet standards set forth in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), Mr. Carey makes inappropriate, inflammatory and irrelevant allegations, demonstrating again that he lacks litigation competencies, i.e. careful drafting, commitment to alleging facts, sound research, professional temperament, etc. In response to this Complaint, Magistrate Wolf issued a recommended decision dismissing the action for failure to state a claim. Even construing his pro se Complaint liberally, Magistrate Wolf found that it could not survive dismissal because Mr. Carey did “not identify any specific conduct by the individual defendants, let alone any conduct that would

violate a federal right. Instead, he offers only conclusory statements . . . These threadbare recitals of legal propositions are insufficient to state a claim for relief.” Board Ex. 54, p. 4-5. Among other things, Magistrate Wolf further concluded that because state agencies are not persons under section 1983 and under the Eleventh Amendment state agencies cannot be sued by citizens in federal court his claims must be dismissed. It is worth noting that Mr. Carey committed similar errors in prior litigation he filed captioned as Seth T. Carey v. Town of Rumford and Rumford Fire Department and Seth Thomas Carey v. Secretary of State et al. Board Ex. 26, 28. In each case, Mr. Carey was unable to draft a Complaint that survived a motion to dismiss. In both actions, which predate Mr. Carey’s litigation against the Maine State Police, et al., Justices Lipez and McKeon’s Orders should have helped Mr. Carey navigate some of the issues Magistrate Wolf identifies in her recommended decision. In response to Magistrate Wolf’s recommended decision, On November 19, 2025, Mr. Carey filed an objection alleging that the “magistrate chose to ‘cherry-pick’ a hand full of counts that would fit her narrative,” ignored “great detail and substance, 25 pages of facts and 211 paragraphs and 39 total pages of well-plead counts,” and that Magistrate Wolf made “careless” statements. Mr. Carey’s objection is sarcastic, argumentative, does not acknowledge any deficiencies in his work product, and makes no effort to actually address the relevant law, not citing to even one precedent in support of his arguments. Board Ex. 55. o On November 3, 2025, Magistrate Wolf entered a recommended decision dismissing litigation Mr. Carey initiated, captioned as Seth T. Carey v. Sunday River Skiway and Darren Tripp. Board Ex. 58. Here too, Magistrate Wolf noted that Mr. Carey’s complaint lacks “sufficient cogent detail to state claims . . . .” On November 12, 2025, Mr. Carey then filed

an “Objection to Magistrate’s Recommendation” re-alleging facts he already alleged, again citing no case law, and arguing that Magistrate Wolf “remarkably” did not “read or consider” his memorandum of law. Board Ex. 59. o On December 12, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Mr. Carey’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees in Seth T. Carey v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, et al., because he failed to complete the application. Board Ex. 68. Mr. Carey committed the same error in Seth T. Carey v. Brandt Corey Steiner, which resulted in the litigation also being dismissed. Board Ex. 63. So too as Justice Archer and Magistrate Wolf described in separate litigation (see above), the complaint Mr. Carey drafted in Seth T. Carey v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, et al. “spirals”, and includes “unprofessional” language. It is also repetitive, unfocused, and “conclusory.” Board Ex. 67. • Like Mr. Carey’s participation in the de novo hearing in August 2022 before Justice Murray, Mr. Carey’s presentation at hearing in February 2026 was at times logical and linear and at other times disjointed, repetitive, unfocused, and meandering. Notably, on at least one occasion when Mr. Carey did present as focused, he admitted upon questioning by Deputy Bar Counsel that he was testifying using notes. When the GC Panel instructed him to cease using a written aide, he again became unfocused and meandering. Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 39 - 40. • When Mr. Carey appealed Justice Murray’s 2022 Order, he failed to follow the rules of appellate procedure. Board Ex. 15. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court nonetheless decided to “shine a light on Mr. Carey’s conduct and arguments, rather than dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds.” Id. (internal citations omitted). • As described in Justice Murray’s 2022 Order, Ms. Snow administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (“MMPI”) for Mr. Carey in August of 2022. Those results were finalized the morning of the August 2022 hearing. Mr. Carey attempted to enter the results into the record, but Justice Murray disallowed it because Bar Counsel had not seen it, and it would have been “patently unfair” for the information to be “sprung on bar counsel in the middle of the witness’

testimony.” Justice Murray’s 2022 Order, p. 8. On the morning of the second day of hearing in the instant matter, a similar series of events took place. The evening before the second day of hearing, Mr. Carey’s attorney sent Deputy Bar Counsel a document which appeared to contain raw data purporting to be the 2022 MMPI test conducted by Ms. Snow. Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 14-15. Mr. Carey’s attorney moved for its admission, which the GC Panel denied for the same reasons Justice Murray did not allow it to be entered into the record at the August 2022 hearing. Id. at p. 16. Mr. Carey had more than three years to prepare for the hearing in the instant matter and again was unable to enter Ms. Snow’s MMPI into the record. • Mr. Carey made little effort to apply the evidence admitted at hearing to the criteria set forth in Rule 29(e), as reflected in his Proposed Findings and Recommendations. As Magistrate Wolf has noted in response to Mr. Carey’s prior litigation, here too Mr. Carey’s arguments are “threadbare,” “conclusive,” and do not identify sufficient evidence to support his conclusions. Justice Murray also notes the following when describing Mr. Carey’s Objection to Panel E’s 2022 Report: “his filing was light on recitations of the evidence from which Mr. Carey could argue that the Panel should have found that he met his burden of proof.” Justice Murray’s 2022 Order, p. 12. Here, Mr. Carey’s recitation of the evidence in his Proposed Findings and Recommendations was “light” at best and he misstated evidence entered into the record during hearing on February 5, 6, 17, 2026 and in describing his evidentiary burden. Mr. Carey continues to provide evidence to the GC Panel by way of his work product in the instant proceeding that he does not presently possess many competencies required in order to competently practice law. For example, Mr. Carey claims that “Dr. Amarendran testified that Petitioner is capable of practicing law with appropriate structure and oversight.” Petitioner’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations, p. 2. Dr. Amarendran did not so-testify. Mr. Carey also states that “Dr. Besemer similarly testified regarding Petitioner's psychological stability and capacity for structured practice.” Id. Dr. Besemer did not so-testify. Mr. Carey asserts that “[n]o expert testified that Petitioner is presently incapable of practicing law under conditions.” Id. Here, Mr. Carey misunderstands that the burden is on him to prove he meets Maine Bar Rule 29(e) by clear and convincing evidence. Separately, Mr. Carey misstates Maine Bar Rule 29(e). Rule 29(e) includes no criteria relating to “moral qualification” or whether readmission will be “detrimental to the integrity of the bar.” Id. p. 4-5.

It should have been clear to Mr. Carey before, during, and at the close of hearing that he did not meet Rule 29(e) criteria even by a preponderance standard, let alone by the clear and convincing standard that applies here. Even though Mr. Carey acknowledged in his Proposed Findings and Recommendations in the instant matter that Rule 29(e) is “exacting,” he remains firm in his belief that he meets all criteria and should be reinstated or that there is good and sufficient reason for reinstatement. M. Bar. R. 29(g). Mr. Carey’s conclusion in this regard is also relevant to criterion 3, discussed fully below. Criterion 3: Mental Disability In his 2018 Order, Justice Warren found that the Petitioner had a mental disability, as set forth in Dr. Behrem’s 2017 report and in his testimony: “Carey has a personality disorder marked by a tendency toward grandiosity, suspiciousness bordering at times on paranoia, belief that persons who oppose or criticize him are engaged in a vendetta or conspiracy against him, argumentativeness, holding grudges, difficulty expressing anger in a socially appropriate manner, and a tendency to blame others for any setbacks.” Justice Warren 2018 Order, p. 11. Justice Warren ordered that Petitioner engage in successful treatment for a personality disorder and that he address his issues with distraction and lack of attention to detail, among other things. Id. at 14, 16. At hearing, Mr. Carey called three witnesses to opine on his current mental health and any diagnosed mental health conditions: Ashley Besemer, Psy.D.; Vijay Amerendran, MD; and Cassandra Snow-Azevedo, LCPC. Each’s testimony is summarized as follows: Ashley Besemer, Psy.D: Dr. Besemer has a doctorate in psychology and is licensed in Maine. She practices in the field of neuropsychology. Dr. Besemer performs at least 200 neuropsychology evaluations per year. These evaluations assess cognition and mental health. Personality is something she assesses for many of the patients with whom she works. Vijay Amarendran, MD referred Mr. Carey to Dr. Besemer for a neuropsychological re-evaluation due to concerns with executive functioning and impulsivity, with previous diagnoses Many of the examples set forth in this section are also relevant to Criterion 1 - compliance with prior orders, and specifically, Mr. Carey’s competence to practice law.

of ADHD and learning disabilities. Dr. Besemer first met Mr. Carey on May 29, 2024. She administered a neuropsychological evaluation to Mr. Carey on May 29, June 11, and July 18, 2024. The evaluation assessed cognition and mental health and “personality broadly.” Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 153. Dr. Besemer made the following evaluation findings and recommendations: ● She diagnosed Mr. Carey with ADHD, combined presentation, moderate. Petitioner’s Exhibit A, p. 15. ● Mr. Carey had two significant personality characteristics: histrionic and turbulent. Id. at p. 14. ● “Being at the center of attention and soliciting interpersonal attention are important drives for Mr. Carey. Though he may appear to be stable and confident, it is quite possible that he has insecurities and concerns about being alone or abandoned. To assuage these fears and motivations, Mr. Carey may exhibit dramatic, attention-seeking behaviors. . . .” Id. ● The evaluation is “not consistent with a personality disorder.” Id. at p. 15. Alternatively, there is “no evidence of a personality disorder.” Hearing Transcript, February 5, page 179. ● Mr. Carey is an appropriate candidate for psychopharmacological intervention, with target symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Id. ● Continued individual psychotherapy. Id. ● Use the following strategies; reduce interruptions, list-making, note-taking, ritualized routines for task completion, dedicated times daily to complete work, practice self-regulation strategies. Id. ● Seek-out self-help materials about ADHD. Id. In making these findings and recommendations, Dr. Besemer relied on the results of this testing (to include Mr. Carey’s subjective reporting, and testing by Mr. Carey’s mother and a friend), Dr. Behrem’s 2017 evaluation, a 2020 psychiatric evaluation performed by Dr. Amarendran, and “several legal records” Mr. Carey gave to her. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 156 - 157. In making her findings and recommendations, Dr. Besemer testified as follows: ● Mr. Carey believed he had ADHD, but not a personality disorder. Id. at p. 167.

• She could not identify specifically what legal records she reviewed in connection with the evaluation. Id. at 156, 169. ● She did not speak to Dr. Amarendran or Ms. Snow as part of her evaluation. Id. at p. 167. ● While she reviewed a psychiatric evaluation from 2020 conducted by Dr. Amarendran, it appears she did not review any treatment notes created by Dr. Amarendran or Ms. Snow. Id at. 167-168. ● She could not recall reviewing Justice Warren’s 2018 Order or Justice Murray’s 2022 Order as part of the evaluation. Id. at p. 170. ● She did not recall reading any order mandating that Mr. Carey obtain treatment for a personality disorder. Id. at 174. ● She did not recall if Mr. Carey gave her the MMPI administered by Ms. Snow in 2022. Id. at p. 174. ● She was not aware that Mr. Carey’s interactions with and treatment of T.B. was more expansive than what is described in her report on pages 2 - 4. Id. at p. 175. ● She administered the PAI test and the Connors Continuous Performance Test 3 rd edition. Id. at p. 176. ● She did not administer a MMPI-2 or Trail Making Test. By contrast, Dr. Behrem administered each, along with the Personality Assessment Inventory (“PAI”) and the Connors Continuous Performance Test 3rd edition in drawing the conclusion in 2017 that Mr. Carey had a personality disorder. Id. at 176-177. ● She has no information about any of Mr. Carey’s conduct after July 18, 2024. Id. at p. 189. If there is additional information relevant to the question of personality disorder after July 18, 2024, she would need to assess it in a reevaluation. Id. at p. 204. ● Her assessment is akin to a “snapshot.” Id. at p. 204. Based upon the testimony elicited at hearing from Dr. Besemer, the GC Panel has significant concerns about the strength of Dr. Besemer’s conclusion that Mr. Carey did not have a personality disorder at the time she evaluated Mr. Carey. Dr. Besemer was unable to demonstrate at hearing exactly what collateral information relevant to Mr. Carey’s difficulties with the courts, legal system and Board of Overseers she relied upon when rendering her opinion and whether these materials were comprehensive. Dr. Besemer did not speak to Dr. Amarendran or Ms. Snow as part of the evaluation, nor does it appear that she reviewed any of their treatment notes. Dr. Besemer could not identify each and every “legal document” she relied upon when making her findings (she did not enumerate them in the report itself or at hearing), which means that the evaluation results are reasonably called into question. Though the burden is on Mr. Carey in this proceeding, he failed to cure this deficiency in anticipation of or at hearing, which reflects on Mr. Carey’s understanding of what he needs to prove, how to prepare a treating provider to give testimony, and the importance of assuring that each and every piece of information Dr. Besemer relied upon when rendering her opinion were clear to her, to Deputy Bar Counsel, to Mr. Carey and to the GC Panel. While Mr. Carey’s attorney attempted to admit evidence into the record the morning of the second day of hearing to show what legal information Dr. Besemer relied on when rendering her opinion, this information was not admitted because it was untimely and Deputy Bar Counsel did not have an opportunity to review it prior to hearing. Dr. Besemer administered only two of the four tests Dr. Behrem administered. Id. at 176-177. There was no information elicited by Mr. Carey’s counsel at hearing that this misalignment does not impact the accuracy or reliability of Dr. Besemer’s findings. It very well may be immaterial, but Mr. Carey did not establish that on the record. Again, Mr. Carey must meet a “clear and convincing” standard in this matter. Dr. Besemer has no knowledge of events taking place between the summer of 2024 and the present time that may be relevant to the assessment of whether Mr. Carey does – or does not—have a personality disorder. In her own words, her July 2024 assessment was a “snapshot” in time and she cannot say whether Mr. Carey’s highly concerning interactions with the court and the community as well as new criminal conduct since July 2024 may change her findings (see e.g., Board Exhibits 23, 36, 37, 44, 45, 46, 47 53, 72, 73, 74). The challenge Mr. Carey is having by virtue of continuing to engage in a pattern of concerning behaviors after a neuropsychological assessment is conducted is that evaluation As described above, Mr. Carey had similar challenges admitting testing information at the de novo trial before Justice Murray in 2022. There, Mr. Carey attempted to admit the results of a MMPI administered by Ms. Snow which she had complied on the morning of the hearing. The court denied the admission of the MMPI reasoning it would have been “patently unfair for this information to be sprung on bar counsel in the middle of the witness’ testimony.” September 22, 2022 Order, p. 7-8.

results are overtaken by and become less persuasive given Mr. Carey’s additional challenging behaviors. The fact remains that in 2018 Justice Warren found that Mr. Carey had a personality disorder. Mr. Carey has not produced sufficient evidence to show that he no longer suffers from a personality disorder or that it is effectively being treated through active therapy to meet a clear and convincing standard. Contrary to Dr. Besemer’s assessment, the evidence before the GC Panel “supports the conclusion that Dr. Behrem’s diagnosis hit the nail on the head.” Justice Warren’s 2018 Order, p. 11. Vijay Amarendran, MD Dr. Amarendran is Mr. Carey’s treating psychiatrist. He diagnoses and treats patients with conditions affecting mood, attention, impulse control, and emotional regulation. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 207. Dr. Amarendran began treating Mr. Carey in April 2020 and he continues to do so. Id. Mr. Carey’s presenting complaint was “I need help with focus,” though Justice Murray notes that this is only part of what Justice Warren ordered for treatment. Justice Murray’s 2022 Order, p. 6, FN 5. At hearing, Dr. Amarendran testified as follows: ● He has diagnosed Mr. Carey with ADHD. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 209. He prescribes bupropion and Wellbutrin to help Mr. Carey manage his attention and impulsivity. Id. at 209-210. ● Mr. Carey's treatment for ADHD has been effective and that improvement has been sustained. Id. at 213. ● Mr. Carey is resilient, optimistic and his ability to cope with stress has improved over time. Id. at 211, 216. ● Mr. Carey currently has minimal difficulty with focus, and his impulsivity is better. Id. at 214-15. In sessions Mr. Carey demonstrates emotional regulation and insight into his reactions and behaviors. Id. Time, treatment and medication have changed how Mr. Carey responds to stress. Id. at 216. ● He considered a diagnosis of personality disorder in his work with Mr. Carey. He is cautious about a diagnosis of personality disorder because under stress people can behave like they might have a personality disorder. Under stress people will often regress to very primitive defense mechanisms. Id. at 212.

• A personality disorder is a “lifelong pattern of maladaptive behavior which causes problems with interpersonal functioning and interpersonal interactions, causes problems with cognition, like how we view the world and how we perceive the world, causes programs with functioning in work relationships, etc. . . . it doesn’t change much over the course of the time.” Some patients with personality disorders do show some ability to change behaviors over time because they learn from mistakes or they do therapy and that helps them change some of their behaviors. In general, it is “considered a chronic problem and takes years to treat.” Id. at 244-45. ● He has not treated Mr. Carey for a personality disorder. Id. at 229. ● Mr. Carey has questioned a prior diagnosis of personality disorder. Id. at 229. ● Longitudinal observation is important when assessing personality pathology. Id. at 214. Notwithstanding the above information, Dr. Amarendran also testified as follows: ● Each treatment note reflects that Mr. Carey’s ADHD is unstable, though Dr. Amarendra testified his notes should have said “unstable, but improving.” Id. at p. 226, 245. ● Since starting treatment Mr. Carey has missed seven appointments. Id. at 225. Because of this pattern, at the September 2023 visit, Dr. Amarendran and Mr. Carey discussed discharging Mr. Carey from Dr. Amarendran’s care. Id. at 225. Dr. Amarendran told Mr. Carey that he could access care going forward only on a same day basis, i.e. he would have to call and see if there was same-day availability. Id. at. 225. ● He did not see Mr. Carey from December 2024 until December 2025. Id. at 226. Mr. Carey’s ADHD was unstable during this time. Id. ● He relies on Mr. Carey’s self-report of functioning, which is subjective. Id. at 229. He does not perform any independent investigation into Mr. Carey’s functioning. Id. at 228. He has not talked to Mr. Carey’s mother since 2023. He may have spoken to Ms. Snow since 2023. Id. at 229. ● He agreed that if the information he is receiving from Mr. Carey is inaccurate, his diagnoses might be inaccurate. Id. at 229.
• He agreed that repeated examples of conduct like the following could be evidence of a personality disorder, among other diagnoses: o An individual in a court pleading made a statement that the Board of Overseers was continuing to “torment” them. Id. at 230. o An individual accused the “Board of Overseers of decades’ long defamation squarely based on false pretenses.” Id. o An individual referred to victims of conduct as “troubled sociopaths.” Id. at 230-232. Dr. Amarendran is supportive of Mr. Carey and articulated many of Mr. Carey’s positive skills. This said, his testimony reflects that he, like Dr. Besemer, relies on Mr. Carey’s self-report, but not additional information of the kind reflected in Deputy Bar Counsel’s hearing exhibits. Dr. Amarendran testified that he is not treating Mr. Carey for a personality disorder, not that Mr. Carey does not have a personality disorder. His treatment records also reflect that Mr. Carey’s ADHD has been unstable since 2023 and that for a period of roughly a year—from December 2024 until December 2025—Mr. Carey did not access psychiatric care. These facts, along with the descriptions of Mr. Carey’s conduct described herein, demonstrate that Mr. Carey has not engaged in successful treatment for a personality disorder as ordered by Justice Warren and affirmed by Justice Murray. Cassandra Snow-Azevedo (Ms. Snow), LCPC Ms. Snow is a licensed clinical professional counselor. A summary of Ms. Snow’s testimony is as follows: ● She is treating Mr. Carey for ADHD. Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 61. ● She has not treated Mr. Carey for personality disorder other than in her initial sessions in 2022. Id. at 79. ● Over many years, Ms. Snow has worked with Mr. Carey to help him better manage his struggles with authority and impulsivity, decision-making, improved relationships, decreasing conflict in relationships, how to address his “hyper focus” Justice Murray notes the same in the September 22, 2022 Order: “Dr. Amarendran testified that he had not diagnosed Mr. Carey with a personality disorder; however, he did not opine that Mr. Carey does not have a personality disorder.” p. 6. on certain matters, and to better control his ADHD to include helping him think before reacting. Id. at p. 51-52, 62-63. ● During sessions, she has observed significant improvement in Mr. Carey’s functioning. Id. at p. 54, 80. ● He rarely misses appointments with her. Id. at p. 75. ● She was not aware that Mr. Carey did not see Dr. Amarendran from December 2024 until December 2025. Id. at 78. ● Her perception of Mr. Carey’s interactions and symptoms are based upon his self- report because she is not with him outside of their sessions. Id. at p. 80, 84-85. ● She agreed that demonstrating skills in weekly sessions does not necessarily mean that Mr. Carey is using those skills outside of sessions. Id. at 81. ● She agreed that if the information she is receiving from Mr. Carey is unreliable, then her assessments might be impacted. Id. at 85. ● Patient self-report is not unreliable as a clinical tool. Even if perceptions are incorrect, a therapist can work with a patient on an incorrect perception to help it be more rooted in reality. Hearing Transcript, February 17, p. 39. ● She agreed that Mr. Carey has displayed behaviors more recently that are consistent with the behaviors he was engaged in when they first began treatment many years ago (see above). Ms. Snow agreed that the following examples demonstrate Mr. Carey’s “blaming,” his “inability to . . . recognize what . . . objective facts are,” his “lack of accountability,” framing himself as a “victim,” “little insight,” and his belief that there is a "conspiracy" against him and that people in positions of power are “bullying” him. Id. at p. 22-29. o Referring to T.B. as a sociopath or a fake victim and even after he pleaded guilty to assault for his conduct with T.B. o Sending communications to authority figures that they have engaged in fraud or malicious prosecution. o His contention that he is being targeted by authority figures because he is questioning the establishment. o Engaging in criminal conduct, i.e. “knowingly accosting, insulting, taunting, and challenging an individual with offensive, derisive, or

annoying words or by gestures of other physical conduct. . .” Ms. Snow noted that this is a “significant” example of Mr. Carey not accessing skills he has learned in therapy. o His interactions with others on the River Valley Thieves Report Facebook page (see below). o Mr. Carey’s narrative in Board Exhibit 24 shows lack of accountability, blaming, and issues with authority. o Mr. Carey’s narrative in Board Exhibits 43, 44 and 53 show little insight into why he was suspended from practice. Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 86 – 94; Hearing Transcript, February 17, p. 16-17, 21-32. Ms. Snow is very supportive of Mr. Carey, and it is clear they have a strong therapeutic bond. While the GC Panel credits Ms. Snow’s testimony that she has observed Mr. Carey in session make progress over time, that progress is not linear, and she believes that Mr. Carey has been forthcoming about events and setbacks, her testimony—weighed against the information described herein—does not support a finding that Mr. Carey is being effectively treated for underlying mental health condition(s). Regardless of Ms. Snow’s testimony that Mr. Carey has improved functioning in a number of ways, as Justice Murray noted in the 2022 Order, “clearly, Mr. Carey continues to display personality disorder traits outside his therapeutic relationship with Ms. Snow.” p. 8. Ms. Snow agreed that the examples noted above reflect Mr. Carey’s inability to recognize what objective facts are. Moreover, because the MMPI she administered in 2022 was not entered into this hearing record just as it was not entered into the last hearing record, she was unable to opine whether, in fact, Mr. Carey had a personality disorder at that time. Further, Ms. Snow is not treating Mr. Carey for a personality disorder. Each provider acknowledged that they rely on Mr. Carey’s subjective report when assessing whether treatment is effective, acknowledging the limitations of the same. None of the three providers could describe comprehensively exactly what they reviewed relevant to his dealing with the legal system when rendering their opinions. None of these providers is treating Mr. Carey for a personality disorder. As described above, Dr. Besemer’s testing results are undermined and reasonably called into question because of deficiencies in the process and data she used to conduct testing. Importantly, Dr. Amarendran specifically noted that longitudinal observation is important when assessing personality pathology and that personality disorders can

take years to treat assuming the individual invests time in treatment. He also confirmed that Mr. Carey’s ADHD has been unstable (though perhaps improving) throughout his treatment of Mr. Carey. Further, and troubling, Mr. Carey did not see Dr. Amarendran from December 2024 through December 2025, even though Mr. Carey filed his Reinstatement Questionnaire with the Board of Overseers in April 2025 and therefore should have understood that a GC Panel would soon be assessing his progress in and efficacy of treatment. Justice Warren ordered Mr. Carey to obtain successful treatment for a personality disorder and Justice Murray affirmed the order. To this day, the evidence shows that Mr. Carey has never received treatment for a personality disorder, except for perhaps in a few sessions with Ms. Snow when they first established care many years ago. Mr. Carey himself admitted at hearing that he has not received treatment for a personality disorder. Both Dr. Amarendran and Ms. Snow assert that they are treating him for ADHD only. He continues to demonstrate personality disorder traits outside his therapeutic relationship with his providers. The fact remains that his behaviors, as described herein, are highly concerning and do not support a recommendation to reinstate Mr. Carey at this time. At hearing Mr. Carey testified that he no longer “disputes” past findings, he now acknowledges that his prior conduct is “unacceptable,” reflects “poor judgment,” and that he “recognizes his past failures.” Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 30-35. He further testified that he “accepts responsibility” for his actions, and that prior examples of his conduct which have led to both his suspension and the suspension remaining in place are “no longer how he operates.” Id. at p. 31, 34. Mr. Carey testified that he no longer responds “reflexively,” and he has learned to “pause, consult, and process before acting.” Id. at p. 31. When asked how he arrived at this insight, Mr. Carey noted that he has worked with Ms. Snow and Dr. Amarendran on these skills and that he now has his attorney, Theodore Berry, to help him “conduct himself appropriately and to work as Mr. Carey’s “advocate.” Id. at p. 33, 41-42. Mr. Carey testified at hearing that he has remained in “continuous” treatment with Ms. Snow and Dr. Amarendran. This is not true. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 31. Mr. Carey testified that he has known Attorney Berry for a matter of only months. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 41-42.

The reality is very different. Mr. Carey’s conduct, as reflected throughout Deputy Bar Counsel’s exhibits and described by witness testimony at hearing, paints a very difficult picture, as follows: • Mr. Carey admitted at hearing that he is the administrator of a Facebook page entitled “River Valley Thieves Report’s Post” and that he posts content to that page under the username “River Valley Thieves Report.” Board Ex. 72, 73, and 74. These posts date from December 3, 2025 – December 14, 2025, just weeks before the hearing on his Petition for Reinstatement was scheduled to begin. Mr. Carey’s communication on this page, borrowing Justice Warren's language in his 2018 Order, among other things, is “intemperate” and “vituperative.” For example, Mr. Carey named three individuals who apparently rent a property he either owns or for which he provides property management services, in turn referring to each or all as the “laziest fake ‘contractor’ in the area”, as having “no work ethic,” “trashy slobs,” that they get “free heat from the taxpayers,” “dirtbag criminals,” “thieves,” encourages them to “go back to the trailer park where [they] belong,” “deadbeat[s],” “liars,” “nut jobs,” “numb nuts,” “selfish,” “sociopath,” “inbred,” that they are “white trash” and have made “white trash threats,” “drunken coward,” “predator,” alleges that one of the three targets of his ire was “fired from [name of business omitted] for stealing from her elderly client” and that a separate target “s[^*%] bullet holes in the window.” Mr. Carey continued this conduct even after one person reminded him that a “lawyer would know better than to post this kinda slander on people!” In response to another person who raised a concern about Mr. Carey’s posts constituting “defamation”, Mr. Carey replied, “hey numb numb. Truth trumps defamation fyi” and in response to yet another person he responded with “zip it num nutz.” He further notes that he is building “a rather large file” so that he can send one of the targets to “prison for quite a while” and notes that he is working on a “defamation lawsuit” against another target. Moreover, Mr. Carey posts that “the legal system is a joke.” In response to one colloquy about a potential physical altercation between Mr. Carey and one of the targets, Mr. Carey notes that the target would “have been badly hurt” if an altercation between the target and Mr. Carey had taken place. Mr. Carey’s bullying and taunting occupies

24 pages over three of Deputy Bar Counsel’s exhibits. In response, Mr. Carey testified at hearing that he took these posts down from the Facebook page after Deputy Bar Counsel identified them in her exhibit list, apparently only then realizing that this conduct would be evaluated by the GC Panel in its work to decide if he met reinstatement criteria listed in Maine Bar Rule 29(e). Mr. Carey characterized this situation as a “private matter”, seemingly to suggest that it bore no relevance to the practice of law. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 46. Mr. Carey admitted that he displayed “poor judgment,” and claimed that this is no longer “how he operates.” Id. at p. 34, 43. Mr. Carey ignored the fact that he engaged in this conduct just a few weeks before the hearing. When Deputy Bar Counsel pressed him on these realities, Mr. Carey noted that he now has “Attorney Berry to help him conduct himself appropriately,” while at the same time admitted that he had known Attorney Berry only for a matter of weeks. Id. at p. 41-42. • On July 22, 2025, after Mr. Carey filed his Reinstatement Questionnaire in the instant matter, Mr. Carey filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maine in which he names the Maine State Police, Rumford Police Department, Michael Chavez, and Daniel Garbarini, and Robert Granger as defendants. This complaint is comprised of 331 paragraphs and 39 pages of unfocused, repetitive, vituperative, hostile, and intemperate narrative and allegations. Board Ex. 53. Notably, Mr. Carey continues to accept no responsibility for the conduct that resulted in more than one jurist finding that Mr. Carey engaged in unwanted sexual contact with T.B., a former romantic partner, and for his own decision to plead guilty in July 2023 to a charge of assault in connection with T.B. Just a few excerpted paragraphs reveal Mr. Carey’s ongoing orientation toward T.B. Specifically, he: Mr. Carey admitted at hearing that his work is “not the tone expected of an officer of the court” and that it is “not acceptable.” Mr. Carey acknowledged that the “mocking or derisive language” he used in this complaint may undermine the GC Panel’s confidence in his ability to practice law. Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 135- 36.

• Characterizes T.B’s filing a Protection from Abuse Order against him as the “destruction and career crucifixion of the Plaintiff Seth T. Carey, a professional attorney of over a decade. . . .” Board Ex. #53, ¶ 71. o Notes that the “state superior court” “amazingly” affirmed the district court’s decision. Id. at ¶ 72. o Argues that his adjudicated criminal guilt is based on “no evidence, only the utter self-serving testimony of Plaintiff’s “ex-girlfriend.” Id. at ¶ 74. o Alleged that T.B. had a criminal record, “violently beat her ex-husband while he was driving then having her first child in the back of a police cruiser, that all four children have been taken away, she has had “fake suicides,” that she is a “fake victim” with a “penchant for dishonesty [sic] mental instability,” that she is a “sociopathic accuser,” that she is “an unemployed, lazy person allegedly with an additional to pain pills, allegedly a prostitute. . . .”, and that her allegations were “total lies.” Id. at ¶¶ 75, 85, 95, 131. He alleges that T.B.’s allegations are “preposterous.” Id. at p. 11. o Asserts that he is “currently appealing” the entry of the PFA by the district court judge on account of the court lacking “insight and competence.” Id. at ¶¶ 106, 109. Mr. Carey makes similar inflammatory statements about T.B. as reflected in Board Exhibits 43, 44, 55, 60, 64, for example. Mr. Carey makes these inflammatory statements notwithstanding Justice Warren’s finding in 2018 that Mr. Carey engaged in conduct with T.B. that would constitute “criminal or unlawful conduct that would qualify as unlawful sexual touching and domestic assault . . . .” and that he plead guilty to criminal conduct vis-a-vis T.B. in July 2023. Justice Warren’s 2018 Order, ¶¶ 11-12, 19-23. Mr. Carey is still unable to move “beyond his disagreement with court findings with respect to T.B,” which again reflects on his “lack of competence, a continuing mental disability, and perhaps on a failure to recognize the wrongfulness and seriousness of his misconduct . . . .” Justice Murray’s 2922 Order, p. 17. Mr. Carey also uses hostile and abusive language to characterize certain defendants, as more specifically described above in Criterion 1, above. Though Mr. Carey claimed at hearing that he “accepts the findings and the court’s conclusions” that led to his suspension and that he was not “here to relitigate them,” this is not the narrative of a person who “accepts responsibility.” Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 30. To the contrary, Mr. Carey’s own words in a number of fora (court filings, email, social media) offer substantial evidence that he has not learned how to effectively control his “impulsive,” “adversarial” responses and that he continues to engage in “bullying and abusive” behavior. Panel E’s 2022 Report, p. 13. Moreover, this narrative is included in litigation Mr. Carey initiated while his Reinstatement Questionnaire in connection with the instant matter was pending with the Board of Overseers. It is also reflected in Mr. Carey’s Reinstatement Questionnaire itself, where he describes T.B.’s allegations as “false alleged crimes” in his answer to question 10. In spite of Mr. Carey’s assertion during direct examination at hearing that he was “not here to relitigate” prior findings, this narrative demonstrates that Mr. Carey still is very much interested in disputing the factual findings Justice Warren made in 2018, which were reaffirmed by Justice Murray in 2022, conduct for which Mr. Carey plead guilty in July 2023 as described further herein. Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 30. • By way of a letter dated December 5, 2024, Mr. Carey communicated to the Board of Overseers that he was initiating a claim against it under the Maine Tort Claims Act for “willful, intentional, wanton, egregious, and negligent actions” in connection with denying his Petition for Reinstatement in 2022. Board Ex. 44. Mr. Carey assigns the Board of Overseers blame for “damage to his professional legal career, reputation in the community . . . including the value of fifteen years income as attorney and district attorney, and the value of damage to his reputation. . . .” Board Ex. 44, p. 1. Again, here, just months before Mr. Carey filed his Reinstatement Questionnaire with the Board (April 2025), Mr. Carey asserts that he was suspended from the practice of law “primarily on the false allegation that

Carey abused a live-in partner in 2017” and notes that his suspension was based on a “reckless indictment of Claimant’s psychological fitness . . . .” Id. at ¶¶ 7, 12. So too, this is not the narrative of a person who “accepts responsibility.” • Similarly, after Justice Murray issued the 2022 Order denying Mr. Carey’s Petition for Reinstatement, Mr. Carey continued to not “take responsibility” for his conduct which led to his suspension from practice. For example: o On October 3, 2022, Mr. Carey filed a notice of appeal in connection with the order denying his Petition for Reinstatement, which included a request for paper transcript and audio recording at the state’s expense. Board Ex. 14. In his notice of appeal, Mr. Carey stated that he is “indigent due to the State of Maine taking away my business and career for obviously untrue allegations.” Id. o By way of a letter dated March 6, 2022 (this letter is misdated–the correct date is March 6, 2023), Mr. Carey communicated to Deputy Bar Counsel that allegations included in a brief filed with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in connection with his appeal were “false and defamatory”, and that Deputy Bar Counsel was “dishonest,” “unethical,” and had “defraud[ed] the court. Board Ex. 16. Mr. Carey again calls T.B’s allegations a “false accusation by a former romantic partner.” o Mr. Carey then sent a letter to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, dated March 20, 2023, in which he characterizes Deputy Bar Counsel’s allegations as “preposterous,” “reckless,” and as a “fraud on the court.” Board Ex. 17, 18. o After the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Justice Murray’s Order, Mr. Carey filed a June 28, 2023, Motion for Relief from Judgement and New Trial. Board Ex. 21. Again here Mr. Carey describes T.B.’s allegations as “false,” “obvious fraud,” and “fabrication.” He represents that criminal charges associated with his conduct toward T.B. were “dropped by the prosecution” and that he was “vindicated.” Remarkably, and contradicted by the actual facts of the matter, just a few days later on July 6, 2023, Mr. Carey pleaded guilty to assaulting T.B.

• On November 22, 2024, Mr. Carey also purported to initiate an appeal of Justice Murray’s 2022 Order by sending to the Board of Overseers a pleading captioned for a Massachusetts court. Here again he rehashes all of the arguments he made before GC Panel E, Justice Murray, and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in connection with his prior Petition for Reinstatement. Board Ex. 23. o Also on November 22, 2024, Mr. Carey filed with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court a document titled, “Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment Rule 60(b), Alter, Amend, Declaratory Judgment, TRO & Injunctive Relief.” Board Ex. 24. Yet again he notes that he was suspended from practice "primarily" on T.B.’s “false allegations,” and that the Board of Overseers has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and has defamed him. Id. at ¶¶ 3, 7, 46. Mr. Carey suggests that Justice Warren’s 2018 Order rests on a “reckless indictment of Petitioner’s psychological fitness”, and that Dr. Behrem is a “subpar examiner.” Id. at ¶¶ 12, 21. He maintains that the “ineptitude of the BBO . . . has been the primary reason that Petitioner has been suspended for almost seven years from the practice of law.” Id. at ¶ 31, 91. He alleges that the “BBO’s continued torment” has not allowed him to establish a consistent career. Id. at ¶ 45. Here too Mr. Carey continues to dispute findings with respect to his conduct toward T.B and to malign T.B. personally. He expresses surprise that even though he “explained in great detail” what happened with T.B. and why he would be “exonerated,” Justice Murray was “unwilling to readmit” him in 2022. Id. at ¶ 81. Just as Justice Archer described in separate litigation (see above), this document “spirals, utilizing inflammatory and unprofessional language.” • In addition to Mr. Carey’s lack of competence in pursuing FED matters against Ms. Maker, his conduct toward her as an individual is deeply concerning. In the context of Mr. Carey’s substantial litigation against Veda Maker (described above in detail), his behavior toward Ms. Maker is egregious and serious. Attorney Lynn Ward, who represented Ms. Maker, testified that Mr. Carey’s interactions with Ms.
  Maker “vacillated.” Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 164. “Sometimes he would be very understanding . . . ., but more often he would use really aggressive language, calling [Ms. Maker] a deadbeat.” Id. He “referred to [Ms. Maker’s] mental health in a derogatory manner on many occasions, including in court filings.” Id. Ms. Ward also testified that Mr. Carey was aware of a nickname that had been given to Ms. Maker as a child as a way for others to bully her. Mr. Carey knew this nickname “really upset” Ms. Maker. Id. Ms. Ward noted that throughout the litigation with Ms. Maker, Mr. Carey would use that nickname in emails and in person. Id. at p. 164-165. Mr. Carey also published “really derogatory” information about Ms. Maker on public forums, which caused her “ a lot of distress and embarrassment . . .” Id. at p. 165. Mr. Carey next focused his attention on Pine Tree Legal Assistance (“PTLA”). He alleges in a pleading—with no evidence supporting the same--that PTLA “are deliberate aiders and abettors of fraud upon the court and the Plaintiff” and that “Pine Tree perpetuate the obvious fraud . . . for diabolical reasons, such as power, which they seem to have none in their lives outside their job.” Board Ex. 36, ¶ 14; see also Board Ex. 35. He characterizes PTLA’s defense in the Albanasi matter as “shameful” and “disgusting.” Board Ex. 36, ¶ 26. Here too, just as Justice Archer described in separate litigation (see above), this pleading “spirals, utilizing inflammatory and unprofessional language.” Additionally, Mr. Carey’s interpersonal conduct with Attorney Ward was hostile and threatening. Specifically, Ms. Ward testified as follows: o Mr. Carey remarked in court one day something to the effect of “great, now there’s another person that I can report to the bar for aiding in this fraud. . . .” Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 169. Attorney Ward interpreted this as a threat against her license to obtain an advantage in litigation.

• Mr. Carey called Attorney Ward “despicable” and has asked “how [she] can live with [herself]”, and other things that have been “extremely derogatory.” Hearing Id. at p. 181. • As described below in criteria 5, since 2023, Mr. Carey has pleaded guilty to two counts of disorderly conduct (both on October 30, 2025), assault (July 2023) and had a protection from harassment order entered against on account of his conduct toward Veda Maker. This is evidence that Mr. Carey’s significant challenges in exercising judgment, managing impulsivity, and curbing aggression very much remain to this day. Furthermore, his behavior, which has manifested in criminal conduct, is evidence that his mental health challenges are not currently well-managed. • The communications Mr. Carey had with the Board Clerk between April 2025 and October 2025 are argumentative and sarcastic. Mr. Carey’s communication ignored the fact that any “delay” was wholly attributable to his failure to follow the process for reinstatement that is clearly outlined in the Maine Bar Rules. It is consistent with Mr. Carey’s long-standing pattern of lashing out when he feels he has been wronged and placing blame on others. Criterion 2: Unauthorized Practice of Law Since Suspension Was Imposed Mr. Carey does not meet this criterion. It is Mr. Carey’s burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that he has not been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Mr. Carey drafted and filed a complaint naming himself and four additional people as plaintiffs, with Ms. Maker as defendant, captioned as Alan Albanasi et al. v. Veda Maker, et al, OXFSC-CV-24-44, Board Ex. 35. One of the plaintiffs, Ms. Samantha Smart, wrote a letter to the court asking to withdraw as a plaintiff. She wrote that “Seth Carey is representing my family and myself against Veda Maker. . . . Mr. Carey is not licensed to represent others in legal matters, and he has been doing so on behalf of my family and myself. Mr. Carey misrepresented the purposes of the Mr. Carey alleges that he was charged with disorderly conduct “for asking a person that owed him money whether he was going to pay him,” insinuating that this charge is attributable to harassment and discrimination by law enforcement, not tied to his own conduct. Board Ex. 53, ¶ 59.
  lawsuit and has been directly responsible for my inability to retain legal counsel from Pine Tree Legal. . . .” Board Ex. 40. When the court held a hearing on Ms. Smart’s motion to withdraw as a party to the Albanasi action, Mr. Carey did not appear (nor did Ms. Smart) to address her concerning allegations. At hearing in the instant matter, Mr. Carey responded by saying only that Ms. Smart wrote that to the court because she was “trying to stay without paying her rent. . . .” Hearing Transcript, February 5, p. 123-124. Carey has been on notice of this allegation since 2024. Though he should have understood this would be relevant at the hearing in the instant matter, he introduced no evidence to rebut Ms. Smart’s allegation other than his testimony denying the allegation and asserting that she made this allegation so that she could “stay without paying her rent.” The burden is on him to prove compliance with this criterion by clear and convincing evidence. Mr. Carey did not meet his burden. The GC Panel does not have “an abiding conviction that the truth of [Mr. Carey’s] factual contentions are highly probable”, especially considering considerable issues with his credibility. Taylor, 481 A.2d at 153. Even if the GC Panel made no findings about this criterion or determined that Mr. Carey satisfied it, it would not alter the outcome, which is a recommendation to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court not to reinstate Mr. Carey. Criterion 4: Recognition of Wrongfulness and Seriousness of the Conduct Which Led to Suspension Rule 29(e)(4) requires a lawyer petitioning for reinstatement demonstrate both “that he or she (1) sincerely believes that the prior misconduct, as ultimately determined by the tribunal that imposed the discipline, was wrong and serious, and (2) is capable of identifying similar conduct as wrongful in the future if he or she were to engage in the active practice of law.” In re Prolman, 2022 ME 25, ¶ 18 (quoting Bailey v. Bd. of Bar Examiners, 2014 ME 58, ¶ 19). Mr. Mr. Carey testified throughout the hearing that he understands the wrongfulness and seriousness of his conduct. He admitted that his actions have harmed “anyone that has been on the other side of a lawsuit or dispute,” anyone he has “argued with or said anything negative about on social media,” the public at large, and the legal system. Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 138-139. The reality, however, is that between 2022 and the hearing in the instant matter Mr. Carey devoted a fair bit of his time continuing to rehash, relitigate, defend, minimize, distract

from, blame those he perceives have wronged him, and explain away his conduct as reflected above and in Board Exhibits 24, 35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 53, 55, and 60. Notably, some of the behaviors that led to Mr. Carey’s current suspension to practice law persisted right up until the hearing in the instant matter. While Mr. Carey’s words seemingly communicate that he understands the wrongfulness of his conduct, his actions communicate a very different state of mind. Both Mr. Carey and his attorney spent a fair bit of time in pre-hearing motion practice and at hearing talking about principles of restorative justice. Though Mr. Carey may have a desire to address harm he has caused by applying principles of restorative justice, at hearing, he admitted that he was not “familiar with the term” and that he only began to learn about this concept when he first met his attorney, shortly before hearing. Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 142. The evidence admitted at hearing shows that he has done very little to address the actual harm he has caused. For example, he has not paid Attorney David Austin, Bernstein Shur, or Preti Flaherty attorneys fees he has been ordered to pay, he continues to describe T.B. and the Maine State Police and other entities and people in derogatory terms, and he has made no efforts to repair harms he visited upon PTLA. Moreover, in response to question 14 of the Reinstatement Questionnaire, which asks for information about any actions Mr. Carey has taken in the form of restitution or other appropriate relief to individuals injured by his misconduct, Mr. Carey answered, “None.” At hearing, Mr. Carey offered only one example of making efforts to correct harm, testifying that he facilitated Ms. Maker’s move from the apartment by obtaining a recreational vehicle for her, helping her move, and helping her with “solar.” Id. at p. 145-47. While this is helpful if his representations are true, Mr. Carey has many years of harm to address with many parties. It is not clear what he is waiting for to do just that. Beginning that process now could very well be helpful to him in a subsequent reinstatement proceeding. Based upon the evidence admitted at hearing the GC Panel has no confidence that Mr. Carey presently has the skills to identify similar conduct as wrongful in the future and to cease engaging in conduct of the kind that led to his current suspension to practice law. While Mr. Carey’s words communicate that his prior conduct was wrong and serious, his actions do not communicate the same. The GC Panel finds that he continues to pose a danger to the public.

Criterion 5: Other Professional Misconduct Mr. Carey does not meet this criterion. In March 2025, Mr. Carey was arrested and charged with two counts of disorderly conduct in violation of 14-A MRS § 501-A1B (Class E). He pleaded guilty to the same on October 30, 2025. Board Ex. 45 - 47. Not only does this constitute a violation of Maine Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 (a) and (b), Mr. Carey did not send the Board a certified copy of the judgment as further required by Maine Bar Rule 23(a). While Mr. Carey “believes” that he sent information to the Board in connection with Board Exs. 45 - 47, he produced no evidence proving the same. Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 131-134. Further, Mr. Carey did not disclose these charges or his guilty plea in response to question 10 of the Reinstatement Questionnaire. On July 6, 2023, Mr. Carey pleaded guilty to assault in connection with his conduct toward T.B. Not only does this constitute a violation of Maine Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 (a) and (b), Mr. Carey similarly did not send the Board a certified copy of the judgment as required by Maine Bar Rule 23(a). Further, Mr. Carey did not disclose his guilty plea in response to question 10 of the Reinstatement Questionnaire. A March 9, 2018 sanction order against Mr. Carey awards Attorney Austin attorneys’ fees in the amount of $7,500. An October 16, 2017, sanction order against Mr. Carey awards three separate law firms an additional $17,500 in fees. Mr. Carey has not paid these. Further, Mr. Carey has been ordered by a court to pay attorneys fees to PTLA. Board Ex. 42. He introduced no evidence to establish that he has complied with that order; therefore, Mr. Carey has violated Maine Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(c) and 8.4(a) and (d). Mr. Carey included fictitious case citations, incorrect case citations, and misstated the holdings of cases in his Motion to Appear in Person. He admitted that he used ChatGPT to research the motion and did not check the case citations before he filed the motion with the tribunal. This constitutes violations of Maine Rule of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 3.3 and 8.4(a) and (d). Concerning violations of Maine Bar Rule 23(a), Mr. Carey admitted at hearing that if he did not send a certified copy of the judgment to the Board of Overseers within 30 days of entry of the judgment, he violated Maine Bar Rule 23(a). Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 132-134. Mr. Carey produced no information at hearing that he, if fact, satisfied Maine Bar Rule 23(a). He testified only that he “thought” he did, while also deferring to the hearing record. Id. at p. 133.

Mr. Carey did not comply with a scheduling order of this GC Panel concerning the deadline by which hearing exhibits were to be exchanged. Per Maine Bar Rule 13(e)(7)(A), this constitutes a violation of Maine Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(a) and (d). Finally, Mr. Carey has not complied with Justice Warren’s 2018 Order, which constitutes a violation of Maine Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(c) and 8.4(a) and (d). Criterion 6: Honesty and Integrity to Practice Law Given the GC Panel’s findings with respect to other criteria, the GC Panel makes no specific findings with respect to whether Mr. Carey met his burden. Criterion 7: CLE Requirements Mr. Carey does not meet this criterion by way of the exhibits he designated by the deadline for exchange of exhibits. Maine Bar Rule 29(e)(7) requires a petitioner to meet the CLE requirements of Rule 5 for each year the attorney has been suspended or disbarred. The version of Exhibit E that Mr. Carey designated timely reflects the following information: ● In 2023 Mr. Carey earned 8 total credits in connection with a tax symposium, all of which were general in nature. ● In 2024, Mr. Carey earned 7 total credits in connection with a tax symposium, all of which were general in nature. ● In 2025, Mr. Carey earned 11 general credits, 2 ethics credits, and 3 harassment and discrimination credits. Mr. Carey’s Exhibit E does not prove compliance with the Maine Bar Rule 29(e)(7). These documents are not a compliance report from the Board of Overseers CLE department. During the evening between the first and second days of hearing, Mr. Carey’s attorney sent Deputy Bar Counsel an updated Exhibit E, which includes a CLE compliance report. Because the compliance report had not been produced by the deadline to exchange exhibits, and Deputy Bar Counsel did not have a fair opportunity to review it as this was one of many records Mr. Carey’s attorney sent to Deputy Bar Counsel that evening, the GC Panel did not admit it into evidence. Hearing Transcript, February 6, p. 11-12. These circumstances also reflect on Mr. Carey’s focus,

attention to detail, ability to plan in advance to meet evidentiary criteria, and his competence to practice law in connection with criterion 1, above. Criterion 8: Arrearage Registration Payment Mr. Carey meets this criterion. V. Conclusion As Justice Murray noted in her 2022 Order, it is unclear how Mr. Carey “jumps” from the evidence admitted at hearing to a conclusion that “he has demonstrated his competence,” or to “the conclusion that his mental disability has been resolved.” p. 18. The same is true here. Mr. Carey claimed throughout the hearing that he has “changed,” has learned how to “pause,” he does not respond “reflexively,” that he has learned “words and actions” rooted in frustration are “unacceptable,” that he no longer “escalates,” that his conduct must “reflect restraint,” that he now “consults instead of reacts.” It is unclear upon what facts he bases these conclusions. Though he repeatedly communicated that he “accepts responsibility” for his past conduct and “recognizes his past failures,” Mr. Carey’s words appear more likely than not to be “lip service,” hollow, and unaligned with his conduct as GC Panel E noted in its 2022 Report. p. 13. The reality is that between September 2022 and early 2026, Mr. Carey continues to engage in much of the same behavior that led to his present and past suspensions, including bullying and abusive behaviors toward those whom he perceives as adversaries, ongoing and repeated missteps engaging with the legal system, making errors and filing pleadings that no reasonably competent attorney would make or file, and still having obtained no treatment for a personality disorder. While the GC Panel accepts Ms. Snow’s testimony that progress is not linear, to the extent Mr. Carey has made progress between 2022 and now, it is not sufficient to support reinstatement. As Dr. Amarendran communicated to Mr. Carey in 2024, Mr. Carey may want to “change[] his strategy in his struggle to get reinstated to the bar.” Mr. Carey may wish to Mr. Carey’s attorney made contradictory statements concerning Mr. Carey’s orientation toward taking responsibility for his conduct, for example, arguing that the Rule 29(e) process is an “adversarial forum of issuing traumatic blame for hours (or days) that vocally disparages the petitioner and the petitioner’s elderly mother and disabled father . . . .”, shifting blame and responsibility from Mr. Carey and to others. p. 4. Exhibit #75, Treatment Notes dated 5/1/2024 and 9/12/2024.

consider the following suggestions as he considers a future Petition for Reinstatement. These suggestions are illustrative, not exhaustive: ● Have a neuropsychological re-evaluation performed; ● Produce comprehensive documentation to the provider conducting the neuropsychological evaluation concerning his legal, community, and interpersonal involvements and have the provider itemize those materials in the report itself, being prepared to testify about whether and how those records and information may have influenced the ultimate conclusions; ● Cease engaging in hostile, abusive, vituperative and inappropriate behaviors; ● Begin building a clear a record of pro-social, responsible, community-minded conduct which reflects effective mental health treatment; ● To the extent he wishes to pursue litigation as a plaintiff, assure that his work product (verbally and in writing) is factual, focused, professional, well-researched, and complies with applicable rules of civil procedure and evidence, court rules, and screening requirements; ● Itemize each criteria set out in Rule 29(e) and begin organizing information and evidence to admit into the record during his next petition for reinstatement; ● Itemize the requirements set out in each of the three orders of disciplinary suspension currently in place and begin organizing information and evidence to admit into the record during his next petition for reinstatement; ● Continue to access regular, ongoing care with Dr. Amarendran and Ms. Snow or suitable replacement providers, assuring that his ADHD is well-controlled and psychotherapy is yielding the intended results, namely that he is regularly able to effectively manage and mitigate struggles with authority, impulsivity, and not responding with anger and hostility when he perceives he has been wronged, improve decision-making, improve relationships, decrease conflict in relationships, address his “hyper focus” on certain matters, demonstrate insight, and practice restraint, among other skills he is learning and practicing with Ms. Snow. ● Access ongoing and effective treatment for a personality disorder, per Justice Warren’s 2018 Order, affirmed by Justice Murray, which was affirmed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

• Follow precisely the process laid out in Maine Bar Rules 29(b) and (c) in any future Petition for Reinstatement he files. ● Engage in a course of CLE study identifying courses that are closely tailored to the issues identified herein. ● Work with his providers and experts in the community to determine what may be appropriate in terms of addressing the harm he has caused to, as he noted at hearing, “anyone that has been on the other side of a lawsuit or dispute,” anyone he has “argued with or said any anything negative about on social media,” the public at large, and the legal system, being sure that his plan to address harm does not cause additional harm, then work in good faith to implement that plan. Such a plan, must include, for example, information about how he will satisfy all orders entered against him for the payment of attorneys’ fees, how he will interact with tenants of properties he owns or manages in the event disputes arise, how he will assure that his work in litigation is free of abusive and intemperate language, and how he will address his prior conduct toward attorneys at PTLA, the Board of Overseers, and judges to whom he has directed hostile remarks and conduct, etc. ● Review and understand each Order suspending him from practice, Justice Murray’s 2022 Order denying reinstatement, and the instant Findings and Recommendations, being prepared to address each factor that interfered with his ability to be reinstated in the next process to decide a Petition for Reinstatement. If the Maine Supreme Judicial Court accepts the GC Panel’s recommendation and determines that Mr. Carey should not be reinstated, then Mr. Carey can begin planning now for his next Petition for Reinstatement if he chooses. Mr. Carey has a clear playbook from proceedings over the past many years. He has written guidance to help him be successful next time, so long as he makes meaningful, tangible progress along many goals. The GC Panel agrees with Mr. Carey that having more lawyers to support the legal needs of people living in more rural parts of the state is critically important. While this is true, a necessary precondition of being able to practice law in every part of the state is competence, truthfulness, and integrity. Anything less does a profound disservice to the people of Maine. This GC Panel finds that Mr. Carey has not met the criteria set forth in Maine Bar Rule 29(e) and there is no “good and sufficient” reason to reinstate him to practice. Accordingly, the Commission’s recommendation to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court is to deny Seth T. Carey’s reinstatement to practice law. /s/ Megan A. Sanders Date: March 16, 2026 _______________________ Megan A. Sanders, Esq. Grievance Panel Chair /s/ Ross Hickey ________________________ Ross Hickey, Esq. Grievance Panel Member /s/ Richard Dana ________________________ Richard Dana, CPA Grievance Panel Member