Jeffrey A. Runge (2006)

Having considered the arguments presented, the Committee reached the decision detailed below.

Toni M. Gray. Thomas P. Connair was absent and did not participate in the discussion or vote. James R. Martin, and David N. Page. Recused from the matter were Margaret H. Nelson and as Chair, David N. Cole, Eleanor Wm. Dahar, Gerald A. Daley, Gretchen Rule Hamel, Reporter, its meeting on June 20,2006. Committee members present included: Alan J. Cronheim, serving The Committee granted the Motion to Reconsider on May 17, 2006, and heard oral argument at

of a Reprimand. rejecting the Hearing Panel's finding of no violation of Rule 1.4 and the recommended sanction 2006, Mr. Runge filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asserting that the Committee erred in was the appropriate sanction. (See original decision dated AprilS, 2006.) On or about April 12, Rules 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (client commnnications), and 8.4(a), and found that a Public Censure Committee's meeting on January 17, 2006, the Committee deliberated and found violations of September 29, 2005, hearitig, and the Hearing Panel Report and recommendation. At the the Notice of Charges, the Answer, the Stipulation, the hearing exhibits, the transcript of the The Professional Conduct Committee ("Committee") considered the complete record, including

found to have occurred. that the Rules had been violated and regarding the appropriate sanction if such violations were September 29,2005, a Hearing Panel heard arguments as to whether the facts supported a finding the violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct ("Rules") that had been alleged. On admitted to the facts alleged by Disciplinary Counsel, but did not agree that the facts constituted a hearing, Mr. Runge and Disciplinary Counsel executed a stipulation in which Mr. Runge This matter was initiated by the Attorney Discipline Office based on an attorney referral. Prior to

I. Background

Runge, Jeffrey A. advs. Attorney Discipline Office #04-015

the Hillsborough County Superior Court. Mr. Runge did not infonn Ms. St. Onge that her 9. On August 5, p. 2 2003, Mr. Runge filed the writ with the filing fee and returns of service at

notice on July 30, p. 2 2003. 8. Two of the defendants received notice of the writ on July 22,2003, and the third received

necessary. the Sheriff s Office to ensure timely service of the writ, as he did not believe any follow up was 7. Between July 15, p. 2 2003, and July 18, 2003, Mr. Runge took no action to follow up with

office mailed the writ to the Sheriff s Office for service. he hand delivered the writ to the Sheriffs Office on that date. On that same date, Mr. Runge's Runge telephoned the Sheriffs Office and learned that timely service could be accomplished if 6. Mr. Runge signed the Writ of Sununons on July 15, p. 2 2003. Also on July 15, 2003, Mr.

the writ by simply filing the writ in the appropriate Court. expired on that Friday and that Superior Court Rule p. 2 2 provided an alternative means of service of 5. On July 15, 2003, a Tuesday, Mr. Runge was aware both that the statute oflimitations

again, offered to accept service ofthe writ of summons on behalf of her clients. understanding that the defendants' offer of $5,000 was not acceptable to Ms. St. Onge and, once 4. In a letter dated April 14, p. 2 2003, Ms. Dick wrote to Mr. Runge and acknowledged her

client, we would accept service of a writ of summons on behalf of [ defendants]. Since our assessment ofthis matter differs to such a material degree from that of your

3. In a letter dated January 31, p. 2 2003, Ms. Dick wrote to Mr. Runge as follows:

to accept service should you elect to file suit. substantiate a demand of$150,000. Alternatively, we are prepared to engage counsel We would welcome the opportunity to review those documents which you feel

included the following: letter to Mr. Runge acknowledging his settlement demand of$150,000. Ms. Dick's letter p. 2 2. On January 13, 2003, the defendant's insurance adjuster, Alison A. Dick, Esquire, wrote a

statute oflimitations was set to expire on July 18, p. 2 2003. allegedly negligent administration ofa triple dose of her allergy injections. In this matter, the medical malpractice lawsuit. Ms. St. Onge's malpractice claim arose out of her physician's 1. On or about March 22, 2001, Linda St. Onge retained Mr. Runge to represent her in a

convincing evidence, as follows: On reconsideration, the Committee affinned the facts found in the original decision, by clear and

II. Stipulation: Findings of Fact p. 3 3

sheriff on July 15, 200 p. 3 3. Rather, Mr. Runge's office mailed the writ to the sheriff on that date. to forward the writ to the sheriff for service. Mr. Runge did not hand-deliver the writ to the 19. Rather than file the writ on July 15, 16, or 17, 2003, Mr. Runge decided on July 15, 2003,

permits alternative service of process of filing the writ in the appropriate Court. 18. Mr. Runge was also aware on that date that New Hampshire Superior Court Rille 2

on Ms. S1. Onge's claim would run on Friday, July 18, 200 p. 3 3. 17. On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, Mr. Runge was aware that the three-year statute of limitations

Runge's appeaL Hampshire Supreme Court. By order dated December 29,200 p. 3 3, the Court declined to accept Mr. 16. Thereafter, Mr. Runge filed a Notice of Appeal on Ms. S1. Onge's behalf with the New

on the clerk's written notice of the order or decision"). Super. C1. R 59-A (requiring motions to reconsider to be filed"within ten (10) days ofthe date attorney informed her that the deadline for filing a Motion to Reconsider had passed. See N.H. 15. Upon her receipt ofthe Court order, Ms. S1. Onge consulted a different attorney. That

believe that a good faith basis existed to file such a motion. 14. Mr. Runge did not file a Motion to Reconsider on Ms. S1. Onge's behalf, as he did not

address your concerns. Accordingly, it would be appreciated if you could contact fr..is office so that we may We understand that you will want to discuss this matter Ll1 greater detaiL This is an unfortunate situation for which we do not see any recourse on your behalf.

your suit has been dismissed by the Court. Motion to Dismiss for lack of service within the statute of limitations. Accordingly, in the above listed matter. As you can see, the Court has granted the defendant's Enclosed please find a copy of the Court's Notice of Decision dated October 8, 200 p. 3 3,

of the Court's order. In that letter, Mr. Runge wrote: 1 p. 3 3. By letter dated October 16, 2003, Mr. Runge wrote to Ms. St. Onge and enclosed a copy

12. On October 8, 200 p. 3 3, the Court mailed the dismissal Order to the parties.

11. On October 7, 200 p. 3 3, the Court (Brennan, J.) granted the Motion to Dismiss.

Objection. Objection arguing accident, mistake, or misfortune. Mr. Runge copied Ms. S1. Onge on the Dismiss, based on the statute oflimitations. On September 29, 200 p. 3 3, Mr. Runge filed an 10. On September 19, 2003, the defendants' attorney,Mark D. Attorri, filed a Motion to

lawsuit was subject to dismissal on grounds of the statute oflimitations. p. 4 4

client's interest is provided at an appropriate time and an appropriate manner. (c) A client is reasonably informed when information relevant to the protection of the

client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. courses of action to the extent that such explanation is reasonably necessary to permit the (b) A lawyer shall explain the legal and practical aspects of a matter and alternative

promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. (a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed regarding the status of a matter and

contemplated by Rule 1.3. irretrievably lost. Respondent's action constitutes"avoidable harm to the client's interests" Court when he sent it to the Sheriffs Office. Failing to do so, the client's cause of action was negligence of others. Respondent could have met the deadline by simply filing the Writ with the the Sheriffs Office, as ethical obligations under the Rules cannot be overcome by citing the days in advance of the statute of limitations deadline. Respondent cannot shift responsibility to required by the Rules. Here, the Respondent had every opportunity to ensure timely filing, four Respondent's argument that his actions in this case met the minimum standard of diligence the Writ on behalf of his client. The Connnittee concurred with the Hearing Panel's rejection of Respondent violated the diligence requirement set forth in Rule 1.3 when he failed to timely file

the client's interest nor to the lawyer-client relationship. (2) in all other matters of representation, it is carried out with no avoidable harm to

upon schedule of performance. changes in circumstances, known to the lawyer, which require adjustments to the agreed terms of an agreement to excuse performance which is not prompt and diligent in light of agreement between the client and the lawyer; however, t.he lawyer may not rely on the (1) it is carried out in the manner and within the time parameters established by the

(b) Performance by a lawyer is prompt and diligent when:

(a) A lawyer shall act with reasonable promptness and diligence L'1 representing a client.

violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence: The above facts having been affirmed, the Committee affirmed its conclusions that Respondent

III. Rulings of Law

expired. ensure that service took place before July 18, 2003, the date on which the statute of limitations 20. After mailing the writ to the sheriff on July 1 p. 5 5, 2003, Mr. Runge did nothing thereafter to 5

For the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee hereby issues this Public Censure of

V. Conclusion

affinned its decision on the appropriate sanction. find any points oflaw or fact that it had"overlooked or misapprehended," the Committee Hearing Panel's recommendations, but can exercise its own judgment. As the Committee did not be found based on the stipulated facts. The COITuTtittee is not bound in such situations by the were stipulated and so are not in dispute. The only dispute was which, if any, violation( s) could on issues of fact such that witness credibility is critical to the outcome of a case. Here, the facts Panel regarding the Rule 1.4. Deference is properly afforded a hearing panel when the case turns The Motion for Reconsideration asserts that the Committee erred in disagreeing with the Hearing

or misapprehended ..." a request to"state, with particular claritj, points oflaw or fact that t.~e committee has overlooked Reconsideration requests are governed by Rule 37 A(Vl). Specifically, Rule 37 A(Vl)(a) requires

Censure, for the reasons stated in the April p. 5 5, 2006, decision. The Committee originally detennined that the appropriate sanction in this case is a Public

IV. Sanction

violation under Rule 8.4( a). As the Committee has found violations of Rule 1.3 and Rule 1.4, it also necessarily finds a

induce another to do so, or to do so through the acts of another; (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

deadline for filing a motion to reconsider. consider all options to protect her interests, including consulting a different attorney, within the infonn his client ofthe Court's dismissal of her case in a timely enough mar,ner to allow her to Respondent filed an Obj ection to the defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Respondent also did not Respondent's client was not infonned of the failure to meet the statute oflimitations until wished not to cause the client additional emotional tunnoil unnecessarily, are unconvincing. rationales for the delay, including that he hoped opposing counsel"might not notice" arid that he grounds, although he became aware of this fact as early as August p. 5 5, 2003. Respondent's after September 29,2003, that her action was subject to dismissal on statute oflimitation that the Respondent violated Rule l.4(a). Respondent did not infonn the client until sometime Committee disagrees and finds, by clear and convincing evidence, based on the Finding of Fact, although it did find that Respondent's actions, given the circumstances, were"inattentive." The The Hearing Panel found no ethical violation and no harm to the client with respect to this Rule, p. 6 6

File Russell F. Hilliard, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

September l, 200 p. 6 6

and prosecution of this matter, including all costs of reconsideration. Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Runge is assessed all costs associated with the investigation Jeffrey A. Runge, for violating Rule 1.3, Rule 1.4(a), and Rule 8.4(a) of the New Hampshire