Craig N. Salomon (2007)

File Craig N. Salomon, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

November 20, 2007

Stipulation to a Public Censure, attached hereto and made part thereof to grant the Motion to Permit Waiver of Hearings Committee Process, and voted to accept the On November 20,2007, the Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration, voted

Gerald A. Daley* Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Alan J. Cronheim * non attorney member Thomas P. Connair James J. Tenn, Jr. David N. Cole David N. Page* Toni M. Gray, * Vice Chair 603-224-5828. Fax 228-9511 James R. Martin Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Gretchen Rule Hamel Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Richard H. Darling*

recen tly -purchased house.

him on a claim for damages relating to a chronic paint problem on his

2. In the Fall of p. 2 1999, David West retained Arthur C. Randlett to represent

Hampton, New Hampshire 03862.

Mr. Salomon's current law firm address is: P.O. Box 427, North

Randlett & Bernard, 750 Exeter Road, Hampton, New Hampshire 03842.

this proceeding, Mr. Salomon operated his law office as Salomon,

Mr. Salomon was admitted to practice in p. 2 1973. At all times material to

p. 2 1. Mr. Salomon is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire.

I. Stipulation of Facts

Salomon, hereby submit this Stipulation in the above-referenced case.

Disciplinary Counsel, Landya B. McCafferty, and Respondent, Craig N.

$ p. 3 2,500 retainer.

9. On December 15, 1999, Mr. West hired Mr. Randlett and paid him a

represent Mr. West and outlined the fee arrangement.

8. In a letter to Mr. West dated November 30, 1999, Mr. Randlett agreed to

had two partners who supported and worked alongside him.

Randlett. In hiring Mr. Randlett, Mr. West believed that Mr. Randlett

7. Mr. West did not have any prior knowledge or association with Mr.

partnership or firm.

Messrs. Randlett and Salomon and Ms. Bernard were in a law

6. Upon seeing the advertisement, Mr. West reasonably concluded that

that they were simply sharing office space.

& Bernard, Attorneys at Law." Nothing in the advertisement disclosed

photo of the three of them together with the caption,"Salomon, Randlett

Bernard ran an advertisement in the Yellow Pages that consisted of a

5. In or about the Fall of 1999, Messrs. Randlett and Salomon and Ms.

the office space.

to pay a pro rata share of the overhead for the operational expenses of

Nina Bernard. They had no partnership agreement; rather, each agreed

Exeter Road in Hampton with two other attorneys, Mr. Salomon and H.

4. In or about the Fall of 1999, Mr. Randlett shared office space at 750

advertisements.

p. 4 3. Mr. West discovered Mr. Randlett through the local Yellow Pages 3

simply shared office space and expenses related thereto.

and Ms. Bernard were not, in fact, a legal partnership. Rather, they

15. During the lawsuit, Mr. West learned that Messrs. Randlett and Salomon

Hampshire Supreme Court.

to his retaining Mr. Randlett; the dismissal was affirmed by the New

was dismissed on the basis that Mr. West's cause of action expired prior

Randlett's alleged negligent mishandling of Mr. West's claim. The lawsuit

Salomon and Ms. Bernard, for legal malpractice associated with Mr.

turned out, Mr. West brought suit against Mr. Randlett, as well as Mr.

14. In or about May 2000, Mr. West and Mr. Randlett parted ways. As it

remained together in this office space as"Salomon & Randlett."

Bernard relocated her office. Thereafter, Messrs. Salomon and Randlett

"Salomon, Randlett & Bernard." On or about March 1 p. 4 3, 2000, Ms.

phone for the three of them and identified the office to callers as

Salomon and Ms. Bernard shared a receptionist. She answered the

1 p. 4 3. From the Fall 1999 through February 2000, Messrs. Randlett and

& Bernard, Attorneys at Law."

12. Similarly, the sign outside Mr. Salomon's office read:"Salomon, Randlett

Salomon, Randlett & Bernard, Arthur C. Randlett."

11. Mr. Randlett signed his letters to Mr. West as follows:"Very truly yours,

Law."

letterhead bore the heading:"Salomon, Randlett & Bernard, Attorneys at

10. Throughout Mr. Randlett's representation of Mr. West, Mr. Randlett's p. 5 4

alongside a photo of the three attorneys); (b) his business letterhead and

Pages (the name"Salomon, Randlett & Bernard, Attorneys at Law"

them in the following ways: (a) his business advertisement in the Yellow

knowingly implied that he was in such a law partnership or firm with

Mr. Randlett and Ms. Bernard during this time-frame, Mr. Salomon

21. Although Mr. Salomon was not, in fact, in a law partnership or firm with

another.

Randlett and Ms. Bernard; nor did they ever share profits with one

Salomon never entered into a law partnership or firm agreement with Mr.

space and overhead expenses with Mr. Randlett and Ms. Bernard. Mr.

20. From the Fall of 1999 through February 2000, Mr. Salomon shared office

in a partnership or other organization only when that is the fact."

19. Under Rule 7.5(d), Mr. Salomon had a duty to"imply that [he] practicers]

18. Allegations set forth above are incorporated by reference.

Rule 7.S(d): Implying a Partnership/Law Firm

II. Stipulation as to Rules Violated

partnership or firm with either Mr. Randlett or Ms. Bernard.

himself out as a partnership or law firm when he was not in a

professional misconduct against Mr. Salomon for, inter alia, having held

17. In a letter dated July 20, 2005, Mr. West asserted allegations of

that location through October 200 p. 5 4.

with Mr. Randlett, who left the office space. Mr. Salomon remained at

16. On or about March 27,2003, Mr. Salomon discontinued his association p. 6 5

sanction must take into account the severity of the misconduct." Id.

Case, 1 p. 6 52 N.H. 503, 513 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted)."The

profession, and prevent similar conduct in the future." g, Coffey's

maintain public confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity of the legal

purpose of the Court's disciplinary power"is to protect the public,

the conclusion that Mr. Salomon should be Publicly Censured. The

Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992) ("Standards") support

2 p. 6 5. Both case law in New Hampshire and the American Bar Association's

would serve the purposes of attorney discipline.

Censure as the appropriate sanction in this matter. A Public Censure

24. Disciplinary Counsel and Mr. Salomon jointly recommend a Public

III. Stipulation as to Sanction

evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a).

violated the above rules, there is necessarily clear and convincing

23. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Salomon

this regard would constitute a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7. p. 6 5(d).

22. If proven by clear and convincing evidence, Mr. Salomon's conduct in

Randlett & Bernard, Attorneys at Law."

Bernard;" and (d) his business sign identifying itself as"Salomon,

identified Mr. Salomon's business to the public as"Salomon, Randlett &

stationery of the same name; (c) his use of a shared secretary who p. 7 6

and the injury caused by his misconduct.

29. The Standards next require analysis of both Mr. Salomon's state of mind

his law practice.

professional obligation to communicate accurately about the nature of

28. Under the first prong of the analysis, Mr. Salomon violated his

sanction.").

the effect of any aggravating or mitigating factors on the ultimate

sanction. See id. ("After determining the sanction, [the Court] considers

aggravating or mitigating factors and whether they affect the baseline

looks to the fourth and final step in the analysis: the existence of any

sanction"). Once the baseline sanction is determined, the Court then

categorize the respondent's misconduct and identify the appropriate

152 N.H. 710, 714 (2005) ("In applying these factors, the first step is to

misconduct and determining a baseline sanction. See Wolterbeek's Case,

27. The first three steps create the framework for characterizing the

N.H. at 513.

aggravating or mitigating factors." Standards § 3.0; Coffey's Case, 152

injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of

duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual

four part analysis for courts to consider in imposing sanctions:"(a) the

guidance. Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. at 513. The Standards set forth a

2 p. 7 6. Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, it looks to them for p. 8 7

sanction.

any aggravating and/ or mitigating factors that affect the baseline

34. The final step in the analysis, however, is to determine whether there are

Reprimand and a Public Censure. See Standards § p. 8 7.0.

appropriate baseline sanction in this case falls somewhere between a

33. Having analyzed the facts under the first three prongs of the test, the

the integrity of the bar suffers actual harm.

sort of misleading advertisement, the public suffers potential harm and

retained Mr. Randlett). Nonetheless, anytime an attorney engages in any

basis that the underlying cause of action had expired before Mr. West

the end result in this case (i.e., the dismissal of Mr. West's lawsuit on the

32. It is not clear, however, how Mr. Salomon's conduct could have changed

was a solo practitioner.

that he would not have hired Mr. Randlett had he known Mr. Randlett

implied that Mr. Randlett was in a partnership. Mr. West would testIfy

actions because he relied on the communications and advertising that

would testify that he suffered actual harm as a result of Mr. Salomon's

actual injury caused by Mr. Salomon's misconduct. Here, Mr. West

31. The third prong of the analysis requires consideration of the potential or

Mr. Salomon acted without any purposeful intent to harm or deceive.

practice and association with Mr. Randlett and Ms. Bernard. However,

negligently concering the misleading communications about his law

30. With respect to Mr. Salomon's mental state, Mr. Salomon acted p. 9 8

extensive prior record.

39. Clearly, a Reprimand would not be appropriate in light of Mr. Salomon's

communication as well, although not of an intentionally deceitful nature.

under Rule 3.3(d). The instant misconduct involves a failure of

and Mr. Salomon's failure to disclose adverse material facts to a court

Nonetheless, the May 24,2005 Public Censure involved a candor issue

3 p. 9 8. None of Mr. Salomon's prior episodes of misconduct involve Rule 7.5.

the instant case pre-dates each sanction listed above.

37. With the exception of the 199 p. 9 8 Warning, Mr. Salomon's misconduct in

• September 2 p. 9 8, 2007 Public Censure • June 16, 2005 Warning • May 24,2005 Public Censure • March 25, 1998 Warning

A). Mr. Salomon's disciplinary history is as follows:

a prior disciplinary record (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit

36. There is one significant aggravating factor in this case. Mr. Salomon has

9.32(b).

negligent, he was not motivated by dishonesty or deceit. See id. at §

Standards § 9.32(e). Additionally, while Mr. Salomon's misconduct was

responsibility and cooperated fully with the disciplinary process. See

to mitigation, Mr. Salomon has acknowledged his misconduct, accepted

35. There are two mitigating factors and one aggravating factor. With respect p. 10 9

Conduct Committee does not agree with the Stipulation as to Rules

bound to the facts as stipulated. In the event that the Professional

45. Mr. Salomon understands that by signing this Stipulation, he is hereby

V. Effect of Stipulation

Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

44. Mr. Salomon agrees to pay the expenses incurred by the Professional

IV. Stipulation as to Costs

Public Censure.

discipline in New Hampshire, the appropriate sanction in this matter is a

recommended by the Standards, as well as the purposes of attorney

43. In sum, taking into consideration both the four part analysis

in this matter.

a Public Censure, rather than a suspension, is the appropriate sanction

underlying facts in this matter, Disciplinary Counsel has concluded that

42. Having carefully considered Mr. Salomon's record as well as the

predates the instant misconduct.

with the exception of the 1 p. 10 998 Warning, each of his prior sanctions

where Mr. Salomon's prior record involves dissimilar misconduct and,

negligent communication, as occurred here. This is especially the case

41. A suspension is simply too great a sanction for misconduct constituting

suspensIOn.

sufficient to increase the sanction from a Public Censure to a

40. The question remains, however, whether Mr. Salomon's prior record is p. 11 10

Dated: ~:;r 2-, 2007

Dated: October~ 2007

nonetheless hereafter bound to the facts as stipulated.

Violated and/ or the Stipulation as to Sanction, Mr. Salomon is