Lori Handrahan is requesting an investigation into opposing counsel Michael Waxman's behavior in her child custody case for several reasons: [1] His personal involvement and apparent vendetta against her; [2] His threats to use improper influence and the "substantial resources" of his family against her; [3] His constant improper legal actions intended to harass and maliciously injure her and her daughter. [4] His systematic harassment and intimidation of her caregivers to render her unable to work. She provides examples of threatening emails from Waxman and describes incidents where he harassed caregivers in front of her daughter, leaving the child traumatized.

1. May 18, 2009
Board of Overseers of the Bar
97 Winthrop Street
August Maine
Dear Overseers Board;
I am requesting an investigation into Michael Waxman’s behavior as opposing counsel in my
case including:
• His personal involvement in the case and a clear attitude of a personal vendetta against
me, for reasons unknown to me.
• His threat to use improper influence; to use "the very substantial resources of my family”
against me.
• His constant action of improper legal action with the intent to harass and maliciously
injure both me and my daughter.
• His systematic harassment and intimidation of all my care-givers in a clear effort to
render it impossible for me to maintain employment because I am left with no childcare.
On 29 April 2009 Mr. Waxman writes (please see attached email) in an email to my lawyer, Mr.
Ken Altshuler:
"I want you and Lori to understand that I have every intention of staying in this
case as long as it takes. Further, I have no compunction investing not only my
time, but my resources, and the very substantial resources of my family, if
necessary.
But also rest assured that THIS time, I am confident the judge will grant me my
attorney fees when he hears about how horrendous Lori and you have made this
situation, how you have worked in tandem to deny a loving father his parental
rights. I have never felt so strongly about a case in my life.
This is personal for me at this point. You see, I care about Mila. For me, this is
not a game."
Mr. Waxman sent this email three days after my former husband threatened not to return Mila,
our two year old daughter, after a visit. At which point Mr. Waxman then returned with my
former husband and Mila and, in front of Mila, harassed and intimidate my caregivers, leaving
Mila traumatized and in tears. This is a direct violation of the court order which prohibits any
type of confrontation in front of Mila.
1

2. On 13 May 2009 Mr. Waxman after a series of emails, to my daycare provider’s lawyer finally
threatened involving Health and Human Services and suggesting “a battle for another day.”
Frankly, I am not even clear that a licensed child care can
choose to behave this way pursuant to the rules set forth by the
Department of Health and Human Services.? I think that it is a
requirement that each parent have the right to visit at any time,
but that may be a battle for another day.
As a direct result of this email from Mr. Waxman to Little Earth’s lawyer I was given eight
weeks notice, as in the Little Earth contract that either party can give notice at any point for any
reason, requesting Mila to leave Little Earth daycare.
Little Earth’s lawyer had previously communicated to Mr. Waxman that because Little Earth is a
small, private, home-based daycare there is a policy of not engaging in high conflict divorces.
As my former husband had been under a Protection from Abuse order with supervised visits only
for Mila for the past eight months, and was under this arrangement when I enrolled Mila in Little
Earth, Little Earth’s lawyer informed Mr. Waxman of Little Earth’s policy that they would
maintain contact with the parent who had originally formed the relationship.
On 15 May 2009 Mr. Waxman, with my daughter and her father, went, unannounced, to Little
Earth daycare and attempted to force entry of Mila and her father to the daycare. At this point
Stephanie Wright of Little Earth requested that I release her from our contract requiring eight
weeks notice and terminate childcare for my daughter effective 15 May 2009. I have agreed to
this.
According to Maine Professional Ethics Commission Guidelines, Mr. Waxman is in violation of
implying Improper Influence and Financial Assistance and Improper Legal Action where his
action serves to merely harass and maliciously injure both me and my daughter. It is my
understanding that when someone claims something is “personal” and their client is “a friend”
they are no longer professional engaged, as Mr. Waxman is clearly not. A known and stated
conflict of interest means a professional must recuse him or herself.
I am copying the President of the Maine Bar, Virginia Davis who is aware of the situation.
Sincerely,
Lori Handrahan, Ph.D.
S. Portland Maine
207-221-7706
Cc: Ken Altshuler
Virginia Davis
2