ROCKLAND – A Camden attorney laid out her case Wednesday for seeking class-action status for her clients against a former funeral director accused of mishandling mortuary trust funds.

Andrew Pratt, former owner and director of Laite & Pratt Funeral Home in Camden and Gray & Pratt Funeral Home in Windsor, represented himself at a hearing Wednesday in Knox County Superior Court.

The hearing was on a motion to expand the lawsuit to class-action status, which means the case would be considered on behalf of a group of people, all of whom have the same grounds for legal action.

The judge indicated he will decide what to do within a week.

“It really is a case that is well-suited for a class action,” attorney Mary Platt Cooper said, telling the judge she represents at least 30 clients and possibly more than 60 people who allegedly were misrepresented by Pratt.

The original complaint was filed Nov. 8, 2002, in Superior Court on behalf of Lucile Shimkus, legal guardian of Suzanne Drinkwater of Hope, and Bertha Dickey of Camden, plus 19 others.

The state Attorney General’s Office is conducting a criminal investigation into the matter, Cooper said, and she has heard there may be 40 to 60 or more individuals involved.

At this time, however, she said the Attorney General’s Office will not disclose the identifications of other alleged victims. A call to the Attorney General’s Office on Wednesday was not immediately returned.

No criminal charges have been filed against Pratt.

On April 11, 2002, Pratt reached a consent agreement with the state Board of Funeral Service on numerous charges, according to the state’s Web site on licensing.

Among the allegations:

. Failing to pay an out-of-state funeral home for funeral services performed there, even though the licensee had received payment for the contracted services from the family of the deceased.

. Failing to pay another out-of-state funeral home for services performed there to enable the return of the deceased’s body to Maine, even though licensee had received payment for the contracted services from the wife of the deceased.

. Failing to provide timely death certificates to customers.

. Failing to update a headstone to include the date of death despite repeated requests from family members.

. Unauthorized withdrawal of mortuary trust funds, or inability to account for mortuary trust funds, contained in 19 mortuary trusts.

According to the consent agreement, Pratt neither admitted nor denied the charges, but agreed that his pending applications for license renewal would be denied, that he never again would be eligible for licensure at any level with the board, and that he is permanently foreclosed from owning, operating or being an employee of a funeral home in Maine.

Pratt also was issued six reprimands and was ordered to provide $82,970 in restitution for the deficient amounts in all but one of the mortuary trusts identified in the consent agreement, according to the site. Pratt further was ordered to pay $491.25 for administrative costs incurred in investigating the complaints.

In November 2002, Justice John Atwood approved the attachment of Pratt’s assets for $250,000, Cooper said outside the courtroom

Justice S. Kirk Studstrup, who presided at the hearing, questioned Cooper about the complexity of the case and the need to prove fraud in each instance.

Proof of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty will be made through the mortuary trust agreements, which call for the funds being placed in an interest-bearing account, she said.

“Those funds are nowhere to be found,” Cooper said.

“The [mortuary trust fund] agreement is pretty clear,” she said. “The monetary amount [in each case] is not big.”

Pratt, who sat quietly through Cooper’s arguments for the class-action case, had nothing to say when the judge sought his comments.

In the end, Studstrup said he tends to agree with Cooper, considering the number of individuals involved and the economics. He then took the matter under advisement.