Robert I. Morgan (2007)

admitted to practice in 1988 At all times material to this proceeding, Mr.. Morgan operated I Mr. Morgan is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire Mr.. Morgan was the record supports the following findings oUact by clear and convincing evidence: Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration and review of the Stipulation, determined that The parties entered into a Stipulation of facts and rules violated On February 20,2007, the FACTUAL FINDINGS

Professional Conduct Committee makes factual findings and rulings as detailed below: histOiY, motions, lettels flom Virginia L Yarus, and letters written on behalfofMr Morgan, the Having reviewed the complete record, including the Notice of Charges, Answer, complaint deliberations. behalf of the Respondent Mr. Morgan was also present James R. Martin did not participate in the Counsel, appeared for the Attorney Discipline Office Shane R Stewart, Esquire, appeared on 1. Arnold were recused Alan J Cronheim was absent. Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Page; Richard H. Darling; Gretchen Rule Hamel and James R. Martin. Thomas P Connair and Ellen Vice Chair and Reporter; Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair; David N. Cole; Gerald A Daley; David N. above-referenced matter Members present were Margaret H. Nelson, Chair; Benette Pizzimenti, On January 16, 2007, the Professional Conduct Committee heard oral argument in the

Contingent on Compliance with Terms and Conditions of Six Monih Suspension, with Three Months Stayed for Two Years

Robert 1. Morgan advs. Virginia Lee Yarm # 0.5-102

Alan J Cronheim Holly B Fazzino, Admin Coordinator Thomas P Connan * non attorney member David N. Cole David N. Page' Ellen L. Amold James R. Martin Toni M. Gray,' Vice Chair 603-224-5828. Fax 228-9511 Gretchen Rule Hamel Benette PizziInenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshne 03301 Richard H Darling' Margaret H. Nelson, Chan 4 Park Street, Suite 304 GeJald A Daley'

dates to me.. I will make every effort to accommodate both of you. witness, perhaps you can coordinate with him and then suggest some you are quite busy as well. Since you ar·e Mr. Morgan's expert who represents Mrs. Yarus, has a restrictive schedule, and I'm sUle I don't mean to seem Ui"iduly persistent, but Attomey Morgan.,

at deposition, I expect the event to take at least three hoUls.. deposition, to save actual deposition time If! have to examine the file Lee Y arus' s file, including all of the treatment notes prior to the two-hoUl deposition I also need an opportunity to review Virginia dUling which you will be available to sit for a one-and one-halfto requesting that you advise me of dates in September or early October I am following up on my August 28, 2003 correspondence Morgan, Mr.. Bell wrote:

8 In a follow-up letter to Dr. Walker dated September 8, 2003, on which he copied Mr.. arrange for the scheduling of Dr.. Walker's discovery deposition. 7 As early as August 28,2003, Mr. Bell wrote to Dr.. Walker and Mr. Morgan in an attempt to meet basic diagnostic standards. Yarus (which was already in the record) should be given no weight by the judge, as it did not 6 Dr.. Walker would have testified that a highly negative psychological evaluation ofMs divorce hearing The fmal divorce hearing was scheduled for November 10, 2003 Walker, PhD., Ms Yarus' treating therapist, as an expert witness for pUlposes of the final 5 Prior to his withdrawal as cOUllsel for Ms.. Yarus, Mr Hoppock had identified Sharon 4.. At all relevant times, Mr and Mrs Yarus had two minor children, Molly and Ashley 3. Mr. Yarus was represented by John A Bell, Esq.., of Keene, New Hampshire.. Esq.., of Keene, New Hampshire. Prior to Mr.. Morgan's Appearance, Ms.. Yarus had been represented by Joseph S. Hoppock, was entitled, In the Matter of Virginia Lee Yarus and Jeffrey M. Yarus (docket #02-M-01S). Yarus in her divorce case then-pending in Cheshire County Superior COUlt. The divorce case 2. On or about August 19, 2003, Mr.. Morgan filed an Appearance on behalf of Virginia Lee practices out of Tarbell Professional Association, PA the partnership ofCiccotelli & Morgan, PLLC, was terminated. Mr. Morgan cUlrently his law office name in July 2005, to Ciccotelli & Morgan, PLLG. Effective July 31, 2006, his law office at 160 Broad Street, Claremont, New Hampshire 03743.. Mr Morgan changed p. 3 Page 3 of 15

the proffered expert and Attorney Morgan No responses of counsel sent a follow-up letter on September 8,2003, to both expert's file relating to the Petitioner's treatment Undersigned of his desire to set a date for deposition and review the the proffered expert, in writing, as well as opposing counsel, expert witness. Specifically, undersigned counsel has notified 2003, to arrange for the discovery deposition of Petitioner's 1. Undersigned counsel has been attempting since August 28,

of the Petitioner and Robert MOlgan, Esquire, entered an appearance on behalf 2 Petitioner's previous counsel was discharged in August, 2003,

hearing, now scheduled fOl November 10, 2001. expert witness for pUlposes of the parties' final divorce Sharon Walker, Ph D.. the Petitioner's treating therapist, as an 1 The Petitioner, thl'ough her previous counsel, identified

12. In the Motion to Exclude, Mr.. Bell wrote: (hereinafter refened to as"Motion to Exclude") 11. On September 17, 2003, Mr.. Bell filed a Motion to Exclude Dr Walker's testimony discovery request fOlward copies of Mr. Bell's letters to Ms.. Yarus or otherwise infOlm her of the pending 10. Neither Mr MOlgan nor Dr Walker responded to Mr.. Bell's letters. Nor did Mr Morgan

bothering both of you and stop wasting my time decided not to use Dr.. Walker, please so inform me in writing so I can stop accomplish discovery in a timely marmer with your situation in mind. If you have am mindful of your scheduling limitations, and I am making every effOlt to urmecessary litigation to exclude her testimony because of a lack of discovery I scheduling of a timely deposition of Dr.. Walker and the avoidance of encourage some dialogue between you and Dr.. Walker that will result in the designated by predecessor counsel as Petitioner's expert witness. I am hoping to I am enclosing a second copy of my letter to Dr. Sharon Walker, who was

9 In a letter to Mr. Morgan dated that same date, on which he copied Dr.. Walker, Mr Bell wrote:

Again, I ask your cooperation.

transcription and review, absent a special agreement between counsel deposition will have to take place by early October to allow time for Trial in this matter is scheduled for November 10, 2003, so the p. 4 Page 4 of 15 However, that duty was Counsel's responsibility.. objection or withdrawal was not addressed inadveltently day period for objection Unfoltunately, the matter off 01 mal 2 Ihe above noted arlangement was made dUling the ten (10)

dispatch to provide MI.. Bell with plenty of time to review it be submitted to Dr. Walkel who would execute it with October 2003 .. Counsel agreed together that the record would for her deposition at MI.. Bell's office at 10:00 a ffi. Fliday 10 However, Counsel did contact opposing counsel and arranged unsuccessfully [his answer machine was full for a blief time J the deposition of Sharon Walker, PhD. he called him initially 1 When Counsel received opposing counsel's request to arlange

MOIgan's pleading stated: a late objection to the Motion to Exclude. Entitled"Motion fO! Late EntJy of Objection," Mr IS In a pleading dated Octobel 5,2003, MI. Morgan requested that the COUlt pelmit him to file W1iting"wanted without objection" in the margin ofthat pleading. 14 By order dated Septembel 30,2003, the COUlt (Amold, J) granted the Motion to Exclude, MI Bell filed the Motion to Exclude 13 ML Morgan did not contact Dr.. Walker about the scheduling of her deposition until aftel

that the expelt's testimony be excluded 7 Under all ofthe circumstances, fundamental faimess requires

the scheduling of the deposition of his expelt 6.. Opposing counsel has expressed no interest in assisting with

honored" wasted time litigating the issue of whether the notice should be a notice of deposition is impmctical, and would likely lead to 5. Given that opposing counsel requires a special work schedule

alL set deposition, it is unlikely the deposition can be scheduled at opposing counsel have chosen to ignore requests to schedule a October 10, 2001. Given the fact that the proffered expelt and it is unlikely the deposition could be held much before 10, 2003 Given the schedules of the expelt and both counsel, 4.. This mattel is now scheduled fOl final hearing on Novembel

any kind have been received p. 5 Page 5 of 15

expert The file was not received. undersigned counsel would cancel the deposition with the that unless the file was received by noon on October 9, 2003, not been received. The fax also infotmed Petitioner's counsel Petitioner's counsel and again informed him that the file had IV. On Wednesday, October 8, 2003, undersigned counsel faxed

at the latest" would be fiunished "Tuesday, Wednesday, or noon Thursday 2003) Petitioner's counsel then called back, and said the file would have the treatment file by the end of the day (October 6, Petitioner's counsel represented that lL.lJ.dersign.ed counsel again reminded him that the file had not been turned over.. late objection to the Motion To Exclude, undersigned counsel when Petitioner's counsel called to announce the filing of his review in preparation fot the deposition On October 6,2003, 28,2003 to obtain a copy of Petitioner's treatment file to written to both the proffered expert and counsel since August 111. As Petitioner's counsel is well aware, undersigned counsel has

proved well-founded. Motion until the deposition actually took place. The caution Respondent's counsel had no intention of withdrawing the Petitioner's counsel to respond prior to that time were ignored in the first place was to file the motion. Effotts to get attention of Petitioner's counsel with respect to the deposition fact is, the only way undersigned counsel could get the the motion was not the result of oversight or inadvertence. The assertion of Petitioner's counsel, failing to agree to withdraw O ........ "' ..................... J.,U un .. O::> ......l.l ..... uuJ..lU V.l un ... U l-'V.:').ll.lV.l.l" \.....-UIIUa1,y LV UII;; 1',.,.c.onlt"",rl ;..., +1-."", e<ro"h""rlnl; ................ +'-4-1-.""..te ............,~+~.......... r..,._+.,....~. +..,. +1....~ withdrawing the Motion To Exclude in the conversation t.1-tat IL It is also accurate that counsel for the parties did not discuss

AM. the Petitioner's proffered expert on October 10, 2003, at 10:00 i. Counsel for the parties did agree to schedule the deposition of

October 14,2003 In his Replication, Mr Bell wrote: 16 Mr. Bell responded to that pleading in a"Replication to Petitioner's Late Objection" dated

assent to this motion or otherwise respond in due course 3. The underlying issue itself is moot and Counsel assumes that Mr.. Bell will p. 6 Page 6 of 15

allegations of professional misconduct against Mt, Morgan, 24, In a letter to the Attorney Discipline Office dated November 2, 2005, Ms, Yarus made independent, specific recollection to the contrary, withdJawai Mr MOIgan does not dispute Ms, Yarus' contention because he has no Exclude and the COUlt'S rruing thereon while reviewing her case file after Mr.. MOIgan's 23 Mr, MOIgan does not dispute Ms, Yarus' contention that she first learned ofthe Motion to 22 Thereafter, Ms" Y arus received her file from Mr MOIgan and reviewed it divorce matter s,' 2 I On November 24, 2004, Mt, MOIgan withdrew from representing Ms Yarus in her post­ 20 On or about April 30, 2004, the divorce case was settled by stipulation,

19" ML MOIgan did, however, have many conversations with Ms, Yarus about utilizing Dr COUlt'S rruing thereon Ms, Yams and otherwise failed to inform Ms, Yams about the Motion to Exclude and the 18, Mt" Morgan does not dispute that he failed to forward copies of the aforesaid pleadings to Dr" Walker in SUppOIt of her parenting abilities Late Entry of Objection," As a result, Ms" Yams was precluded from using the testimony of 17, In an Order dated October 24, 2003, the COUlt (Arnold, J.) denied Mr Morgan's"Motion fOI

exclude Petitioner's expert from testifying at triaL WHEREFORE, the Respondent prays that this COUlt affirm its Order to

expeit on this issue, Respondent's counsel has heard nothing from the proffered request to the proffered expert until the date of this Motion, why this file was not produced From the date of his fir st VI Petitioner's Counsel has offered no reason or explanation as to

but was not given the opportunity final preparation for the deposition until the eve of the event examination, Undersigned counsel was willing to postpone counsel has the oppOItunity to review the file and prepare the proffered expert is essentially meaningless unless examining counsel did not produce the file, The deposition of Petitioner's V, For whatever reason, the proffered expert and Petitioner's p. 7 Page 7 of 15 be a pleasure. as it was. That shouldn't be so; it still is.. Revisiting the matter will not tragic one and drained more than a fair shme of my emotional reserves time and my emotional reaction. The underlying case was and is a an easy mattel to put into the manana file given the demands on my have only glanced at it I've not read it in detail It has been, therefore, demands on my time.. The complaint disappoints me and angers me. I replied due to lack oftime would be inaccurate.. I have had very heavy I apologize for not responding to this matter. To say that I have not

w10te the following: 28 In a letter to the Complaint Screening Committee dated F ebIUmy 27, 2006, Mr Morgan Morgan's"failure to respond to a disciplinary authority" to Disciplinmy Counsel for prosecution of both the underlying complaint as well as Mr 27 On FebIUmy 9, 2006, the Complaint Screening Committee forwmded Ms.. Ymus' complaint (Emphasis in original)

A copy of my letter to you dated November 9, 2005 is enclosed

the file will become public. of Professional Conduct In the event a Notice of Chmges is issued, on the issue of your failure to cooperate See Rule 8J(b) of the Rules Counsel for the issuance of aN otice of Chmges for a public heming this Office will recommend that the matter be referred to Disciplinmy If you fail to immediately file your answer to the complaint

of this date.. Please give this matter your immediate attention. have your answer by December 19,2005 We have not received it as v. Trevethick on December 15,2005, you represented that we would was due on December 9, 2005 During a telephone call with Thomas filed by Virginia Lee Ymus We have not received your reply, which On November 9, 2005, you were mailed a copy of a complaint the following letter to Mr.. Morgan:

26. Having received no response from Mr.. Morgan, on December 21, 2005, Mr DeHmt wrote November 9 Letter included a copy of Ms.. Y mus' November 2, 2005, letter of complaint allegations. (M!. DeHmt's letter is hereinafter refeued to as the"November 9 Letter") The Attorney Discipline Office had docketed a complaint against him on the basis ofMs Ymus' Hampshire Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office, informed Mr Morgan that the 25.. In a letter dated November 9,2005, James L DeHmt, General Counsel to the New p. 8 Page 8 of 15

Professional Conduct 1.4(a)-(c); 8.1(b); and 8.4(a). 30 Mr MOIgan's conduct in this case laises questions undel New Hmnpshire Rules of

detelmined tiJat tiJe record SUppOltS the following IUles violations by clem and convincing evidence: The Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration and review of tiJe Stipulation, RULES VIOLATIONS

Novembel 2 letter of complaint tv1arch 26,2006, tvir, tv10rgan finally responded to tviI" DeHart's :t"JOVelllbeI 9 Lettel and tvfs YalUS' In a letter to tiJe Complaint Screening Committee dated FeblUmy 27, 2006, but actually W1itten on

have not forgotten the matteI, and that I do intend to respond"

above letter, Mr. Morgan intended to W1ite:"1offel the infOlmation only to indicate that I

29. The aforementioned letter contains a typographical ellO! In tiJe third line from tiJe end ofthe

Thank you, for your cOUltesy and attention.

matter ovel the ChIistmas weekend apologies to Mi Trevethick for my broken promise to address this respond It is not offered as a legal excuse.. I also wish to offer my indicate th,at I have not forgotten ~~e matteI, an.d that I do not intend to failure to reply in a timely manner.. I off",! the infi:ll1Tlation only to conduct of small fum practice m·e not unusual and do not justify a effective until sometime in late Mmch. Difficult peJiods in the emiy FeblUmy. I have mranged hel replacement but that will not be cancer My secretmy got mmried in Janumy and left my employ in remains in Dmtmouth-Hitchcock due to metasticized [sic] breast were lost in FeblUmy and Janumy; one will retwn in Aplil; one and remains on light duty until next week. OUI two (2) Imgest clients subsequently been hospitalized twice, undelgone intestinal surgely, has made an excellent recovelY However, Mr.. Ciccotelli has pmtner donated a kidney to his brother in emly Janumy. His brothel My time management capabilities have also been stretched a bit My p. 9 Page 9 of 15 Prof Conduct 8. .1 (b)..

39. ML Morgan's failure to respond to the November 9 Letter constitutes a violation ofNE R. Conduct 8.l(b). constitutes a failure to respond under N H Sup .. Ct R 37A(2)(a)(5)(C) and NH R Prof Screening Committee had forwarded to Disciplinary Counsel a"failure to cooperate" charge 38. Mr.. Morgan's failure to respond to the November 9 Letter until after the Complaint 37 The November 9 Letter was a lawful demand for infolmation from a disciplinary authority 37A(2)(a)(5)(C), Mr.. Morgan was required to respond within 30 days.. 36, The November 9 Letter info!med ML Morgal1 that, pursuant to N,H" Sup" Ct. R November 2, 2005, Letter of Complaint. informed Mr.. Morgan that it had docketed a complaint against him based upon Ms Yarus' 35 As described in detail above, in the November 9 Letter, the Attorney Discipline Office

34. ML Morgan's failures in this regard constitute a violation ofNH R Prof Conduct 1.4(a)-(c) permit the client to make informed decisions.. discovery issues and alternative courses of action, to the extent reasonably necessary to status of a matter.. It also represents a failure to explain the legal and practical aspects of the Motion to Exclude constitute a failure to keep a client reasonably informed regarding the deposition of her expert, the Motion to Exclude, and the Court's decision to grant the 31. Mr. Morgan's failures to communicate to Ms.. Yarus regarding pending requests for a case file.. Court Order after Mr. Morgan withdrew from representation of her and she reviewed her 32. Ms.. Yarus first learned of the Motion to Exclude, the pleadings related thereto, and the inform Ms Yarus of the grounds for the Court's ruling. the Court had issued an Order precluding Dr.. Walker's testimony.. Nor did Mr. Morgan been requesting the deposition of Dr.. Walker, that he had filed a Motion to Exclude, and that 31 As explained in more detail above, Mr.. Morgan did not inform Ms.. Yarus that Mr.. Bell had

following stipulated terms and conditions: suspension with tlnee months to be stayed fOI two yerus contingent on compliance with the Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a six month shown by Mr., MOIgan's law firm in agreeing to monitor and supervise Mr Morgan's practice stipulated by the pruties., The Committee ftuther took note of the level of interest and commitment and similru futme conduct would be prevented by the terms and conditions of the creative sanction confidence in the Bru would be maintained, the integrity of the legal profession would be preserved, sanction in this case The Committee also recognized that the public would be protected, public a pattem ofprimruily lack ofpractice management skills, and that suspension was an appropriate Professional Conduct Committee recognized that the violations of IUles by Mr Morgan were prut of series of terms and conditions designed to closely monitor Mr Morgan's practice oflaw. The month suspension and that three months of the six month suspension be stayed fOI two yerus under a The pruties, in their Stipulation, jointly proposed a sanction which would include a six SANCTION

seriousness of the violations, yet providing fOI remediation mentor, Shane Stewrut, could better serve both the public and Mr., Morgan by recognizing the Conversely, a stayed suspension with a tightly controlled system of monitoring by a committed Professional Conduct complaints, a straightfOIwrud suspension might be an appropriate sanction, actions resulted in no fraud, deceit, OI personal gain. Given Mr.. Morgan's s recUlring histOIY of considered, howeveI, are th.e mitigating factot'S of lvir Iviolgan' s remorse, and the fact that his two yeru suspension (suspended by the NH. Supreme COUlt), and seven (7) wrunings .. Also to be several complaints to the Attomey Discipline Office, resulting in a reprimands, a public censure, a An aggravating factor in this case is Mr MOIgan's Disciplinruy Record, which includes ANALYSIS

violation ofNE. R. Prof Conduct 84(a) Because of the violations of the above IUles, there is necessruily cleru and convincing evidence of a

Association to assume his responsibilities hereunder during his period of unavailability. reasons, Mr. Stewart shall designate in writing another consenting attorney with I rubell Professional 1 When Mr. Stewart is unavailable because of vacations, trial schedule 01 other professional 01 personal

Stewmt. provide representation in cases that have been screened and accepted by Mr not have authmity to make that determination. Mr MOigan, however, may will decide whether the firm will undertake representation. Mr MOigan will c, Ste\vmt, \vho provided in sub-pmagraph (1) below.! to repOit to Disciplinary Counsel regmding Mr. Morgan's compliance as compliance with the terms and conditions of this Stipulation and also agrees law firm) and a signatOlY to this agreement, agr·ees to monitor Mr. MOigan's b. Mr. Stewmt, an associate of Tmbell Professional Association (Mr Morgan's Rules of Professional Conduct. See infra at ~ 6.. monitming of his practice of law, as described herein, and comply with the a. Mr MOigan agrees to comply with the terms of this Stipulation, including the

for two years upon the following terms and conditions: of this Committee.. The remaining three months of the six month suspension shall be stayed the imposed suspension, Mr.. Morgan shall be reinstated automatically, without further action effective immediately, upon the date ohhis Order At the expiration of the three months of Committee's adoption of this Stipulation. Three months of the suspension shall be imposed, six month suspension stayed for two yems from the date of the Professional Conduct 4. Mr .. MOigan is suspended from the practice oflaw fm six months with tluee months of the

for the pUlpose of maintaining intemal consistency) (Paragraph numbers below, 4 - 10, coincide with the paragraph references in the pmties' stipulation p. 12 Page 12ofl5

Association maintains and utilize the lawyels nust accoUllt of I at bell Professional Morgan will, thereafter, close any lawyers nust accoUllt he cUlrentiy maintains the lawyers nust accoUllt at I atbell Professional Association. MI in a lawyers tlUSt accoUllt to I atIIi Keane, the office managel and person who J. Mr Morgan will immediately transfer any client funds cUlrently held by him procedUle is being followed.. confer with the secretaty/patalegal on a weekly basis to ensUle that this Morgan's secretaty will be infolmed of this policy and Mr.. Stewat! will filed by MI .. Morgan will be copied and provided to Mr.. Morgan's clients.. Mr. pleadings filed by opposing cOUllsel, all discovelY lequests, and all pleadings I With respect to Mr.. Morgan's cases, all orders received from the COUl!, all to the individual and/or to the COUl!. (whether informal cOIJespondence or fOlmal pleading) that Mr Morgan sends discuss the matter with Mr.. Morgan and will be copied on any response appropriate.. If he detelmines that a fiuther response is appropJiate, he will any fiuther response to the client or any follow-up cOlrespondence is h. After reviewing the correspondence each week, Mr Stewat! will detelmine if g. On a weekly basis, Mr Stewatt will review the mail logs. description of the contents of the conespondence include tt\e name of the client, the date of the conespondence, and a blief cases by client natlle with appropriate file references Ihe log ennies will will be logged in by the secretaty/paralegal responsible for Mr.. Morgan's f. All incoming client cOlrespondence to Mr Morgan (whether by mail 01 fax) report to and be supelvised by Mr.. Stewatt secretaty/patalegal with litigation experience.. Ihat secretaty/patalegal will e Diatying and docketing for all Mr.. Morgan's cases will be periiJlmed by a each ofMr Morgan's cases d. Mr.. Stewatt will meet with Mr. Morgan on a weekly basis to review/discuss p. 13 Page 13 of 15 establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr.. Morgan's reported conduct is proof that Disciplinary Counsel must meet is as follows: Disciplinary Counsel must month suspension based upon infolmation reported by Mr Stewart, the burden of

6 In any proceeding undel paragraph 5 of this Stipulation to impose the stayed tluee of the stayed suspension is warranted the burden of proof by a preponderance ofthe evidence to establish that imposition suspension The Committee's decision shall be final.. Disciplinary Counsel shall have Mr Morgan ten (10) minutes to address the issue of imposition of the stayed Unless waived, oral arguments will be conducted to allow Disciplinary Counsel and requesting imposition of the three month suspension should be granted or denied of a request for such hearing, the Committee shall detelmine whether the motion and fOI oral argument Following an evidentiary hearing (ifrequested), or the denial Committee.. The Committee shall IUle upon any request for an evidentiary hearing to request an evidentiary hearing thereon, and to request oral argument before the Morgan shall have the right to respond in WIiting to Disciplinary Counsel's motion, requesting that the Committee impose the stayed three month suspension. Mr.. material violation, she may file a motion with the Professional Conduct Committee event If Disciplinary Counsel concludes that, in hel opinion, the reported event is a provide Disciplinary Counsel with any additional infolmation regarding the reported investigation, if any, that she deems appropriate MI.. Morgan shall have the light to making that detelmination, Disciplinary Counsel may conduct such furthel opinion, the repolted event is a material violation of the tenl1S of this Stipulation. In Disciplinary Counsel shall review that report and shall detelmine whethel, in her 5.. If Mr. Stewart reports issues or concerns in accordance with paragraph 4(1),

stipulation. and/or communication with his clients in accordance with the telms ofthis whether there ar·e any issues or concerns regarding Mr.. Morgan's diligence 1. Mr.. Stewart will report to the Attorney Discipline Office on a monthly basis least $100,000 pel occunence and $300,000 in the aggregate. k. Mr. Morgan will maintain professional liability insurance in the amounts of at p. 14 Page 14 ofl5 immediately. Ihis Stipulation shall be renegotiated within 60 days of such event and or Mr .. Stewart should separate from the firm, Disciplinary Counsel shall be notified

10. If the law firm of I arbell Professional Association should dissolve, or if Mr. Morgan disposition of that complaint upon a complaint under paragraph 8 hereof must be initiated within 30 days of final period ofthe stay. Any request fOl imposition of the stayed suspension that is based on such complaints or motions are concluded after the expiration of the two year for seeking imposition of the stayed three month suspension even if the proceedings complaints or motions are filed during the two year period, they can provide a basis or motions pending pursuant to paragraphs 5 01 8 of this Stipulation. If such month suspension shall be permanently stayed provided that there are no complaints 9. At the conclusion of the two year period described in paragraph 4 hereof, the three Conduct Committee .. Mr.. MOIgan shall be entitled to an evidentiary hearing and review by the Professional three month suspension in this case .. If Disciplinary Counsel makes such a request, Disciplinary Counsel that the Professional Conduct Committee impose the stayed Conduct that may result from that complaint may provide a basis fOl a request by an expedited basis Any final adjudication of a violation of the Rules of Professional two year stay, that complaint will be processed by the Attomey Discipline Office on Stipulation by the Professional Conduct Committee and ar'e within the period of the period ofthe two year stay that arises out of events that post date adoption of this g If the Attorney Discipline Office receives a corIlplaint against !vir wlolgan during the case. complaint will not be a basis for imposition of the three month suspension in this finding of a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that may result from that Committee, that complaint will be processed in the ordinary course of business Any out of events that predate adoption of this Stipulation by the Professional Conduct 7. Ifthe Attomey Discipline Office receives a complaint against Mr Morgan that arises the NH. Rules of Professional Conduct either a material breach of the terms of this stipulation or constitutes a violation of p. 15 Page 15 of 15

File Shane R Stewmt, Esquire Landya B rvicCat-Cferr-y, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

This older shall take effect on Mmch 6, 2007

Conduct Rule 1.4(a)-(c); 8.1(b); and 8.4(a). yems contingent on compliance with the stipulated agreement above, for violating NH. R Prof 1. Morgan be suspended fOJ six months, and that three months of the suspension to be stayed for two For all of the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Cornrnittee hereby orders that Robert CONCLUSION

investigation and prosecution of this matter. The Committee also accepts Mr.. Morgan's stipulated assent to pay costs incuned in the

30 days to cure.. provisions of the Stipulation that are not acceptable and MI. MOJgan shall be given the new Stipulation is rejected by the Committee, the Committee shall specifY those shall thereafter be presented to the Professional Conduct Committee for its review. If p. 16 File

Sherri Kluesener, Supreme Court NH Bar Association Robert 1. Morgan, Esquire Howard B. Myers, Esquire Shane R. Stewart, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Esquire James L. DeHart, Esquire Margaret H. Nelson, Esquire Distribution:

Broderick, C.J., and Dalianis, Duggan, Galway and Hicks, JJ., concurred.

Hampshire bar is granted. Robert 1. Morgan's motion for reinstatement as a member of the New

order: Morgan, the court on November 6,2007, issued the following In Case No. LD-2007-0010, In the Matter of Robert L