Saturday, August 23, 2003 Braio's lawyer tries to withdraw Two lawsuits against Worcester diocese Gary V. Murray TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF WORCESTER- Lawyer Daniel J. Shea is seeking to withdraw as counsel for a Shrewsbury man in a pair of lawsuits against officials in the Catholic Diocese of Worcester. In motions filed Aug. 14 in Worcester Superior Court, Mr. Shea said he had been discharged as the lawyer for Sime J. Braio and asked the court to allow his withdrawal as Mr. Braio's legal counsel in the two pending cases. No action had been taken on the motions to withdraw as of yesterday. Mr. Braio, 53, alleges in one of the suits, which names the Catholic Diocese of Worcester and Auxiliary Bishop George E. Rueger as defendants, that he was sexually abused as a teenager by Bishop Rueger. Bishop Rueger has denied the allegations. Mr. Braio has also filed a defamation suit against Monsignor Thomas J. Sullivan, diocesan chancellor and liaison to the office of Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte, alleging that Monsignor Sullivan disseminated misinformation within the diocese that Mr. Braio had HIV. Mr. Braio had alleged that Assistant District Attorney James J. Reagon told Monsignor Sullivan that Mr. Braio was HIV positive. Monsignor Sullivan said in pretrial testimony that Mr. Reagon provided him with that information. Mr. Reagon denied making the statement. On July 16, Mr. Braio voluntarily dismissed his claim against Mr. Reagon, dropping him from the slander suit. Mr. Braio sought an HIV test, which came back negative, and made the result public. Mr. Shea's request to withdraw as Mr. Braio's lawyer follows the court's denial of motions he filed asking that all activity in the two lawsuits be postponed indefinitely, apparently because of Mr. Shea's concerns that his client was either incompetent or suffering from some deficiency of mental capacity. The motions were filed under a section of the state's rules of professional conduct for lawyers dealing with their obligations under such circumstances. Mr. Shea said in the motions that "matters of a confidential nature" had arisen, prompting him to request the continuances. In his opposition to the motions, diocesan lawyer James G. Reardon Jr. said Mr. Shea had offered no proof that Mr. Braio was incompetent or suffering from any sort of mental disability. Mr. Reardon made reference to a July 19 Telegram & Gazette story in which Mr. Shea said Mr. Braio removed Mr. Reagon as a defendant in the defamation suit without his knowledge. Mr. Reardon described the situation as "an apparent public disagreement between Mr. Braio and Attorney Shea over the prosecution of the case against Mr. Reagon. "This `coincidence' raises the question of whether Mr. Braio's alleged infirmity is nothing more than his disagreement with Attorney Shea over litigation strategy and proper lawsuits," Mr. Reardon wrote.