Timothy G. Sheedy (2007)

File Shane R. Stewart, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

made part thereof. above-captioned matter on the basis of the Stipulation filed by the parties attached hereto and Motion to Permit Waiver of Hearings Committee Process, and voted to issue a Reprimand in the On November 20,2007, the Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration, granted the

Sheedy, Timothy G. advs. Nicholas and Astrid Pishon # 05-089

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*

benefits of using a trust instrument and otherwise updating their Will.

Pishons had a Will at that time but wanted to explore the possible

had a meeting with Mr. Sheedy to discuss their estate planning. The

2. On October 6, 2004, Astrid F. and Nicholas E. Pishon (the Complainants)

Hampshire 0330 p. 2 1.

Tarbell Professional Association, 45 Centre Street, Concord, New

material to this proceeding, Mr. Sheedy has been practicing law at

Mr. Sheedy was admitted to practice on October 22, p. 2 1993. At all times

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

I. Stipulation of Facts

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

Disciplinary Counsel, Landya B. McCafferty, and Respondent, Timothy

approved the trust, and asked a series of follow-up questions with

October 13, p. 3 2004, the Pishons informed Mr. Sheedy that the bank had

their real estate holdings into a trust. In a letter to Mr. Sheedy dated

7. After the meeting, the Pishons obtained the bank's concurrence to move

disappearance.

any further information they could learn about their son's

The Pishons were interested in finding out from Mr. Sheedy if there was

Seabrook on July 4, p. 3 2000, disappeared and has not been seen since.

to their son, Curtis Pishon, who, while working as a security guard at

p. 3 2004 meeting, the Pishons also sought Mr. Sheedy's counsel with respect

6. In addition to discussing their estate planning issues at the October 6,

follow up on that issue.

the Pishons to put the real estate into a trust. The Pishons agreed to

which held the mortgage on the Pishons' real estate, would agree to allow

5. One of the issues that surfaced at the meeting was whether the bank,

familial issues.

their desires and concerns with respect to their familial relationships and

accepted the paperwork the Pishons provided and made notes about

data pertaining to their situation. During the meeting, Mr. Sheedy

of their Wills, codicils to both Wills, and additional personal and financial

4. During the meeting, the Pishons provided Mr. Sheedy with a copy of each

holdings into a revocable trust to avoid probate.

p. 4 3. The Pishons were particularly interested in moving certain real estate 3

General Counsel of the New Hampshire Supreme Court Attorney

1 p. 4 3. In a letter to Mr. Sheedy dated September 28,2005, James L. DeHart,

complaint against Mr. Sheedy and again requested their file.

the Attorney Discipline Office dated September 25, 2005, filed a formal

12. Having received no response from Mr. Sheedy, the Pishons, in a letter to

11 th letter on April 12, 2005.

11. The return receipt indicated that Mr. Sheedy's law firm received the April

elsewhere to resolve our continuing issues. closed. This will enable us to seek legal assistance thereto, be returned to us and that our account be request that our documents, and your notes relating account since our initial meeting last October we Since we have not been contacted in relation to our

requested, as follows:

Pishons sent a letter to Mr. Sheedy by certified mail, return receipt

10. Still having received no response from Mr. Sheedy, on April 11, 2005, the

method of communication with him.

9. Mr. Sheedy had recommended to the Pishons that email was a good

expect to continue planning? hoped to have heard from you by now. When may we We had a meeting last October in your offices and had

Pishon wrote the following in an email to Mr. Sheedy:

8. Having received no response from Mr. Sheedy, on January 16,2005, Mr.

written approval to put the properties into a trust.

the Pishons enclosed a copy of certain documents, including the bank's

respect to certain estate planning issues. With the October 1 p. 4 3 letter, th p. 5 4

N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3(a).

this time-frame constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of

21. Mr. Sheedy's failure to take legal action on the Pishons' behalf during

relationship.

the Pishons' behalf caused avoidable harm to their lawyer-client

20. Mr. Sheedy's failure to act with reasonable promptness and diligence on

during this time-frame constitutes a lack of diligence.

19. Mr. Sheedy's failure to take any legal action on the Pishons' behalf

Pishons.

12, 2005, Mr. Sheedy failed to take any legal action on behalf of the

18. As explained above, following the October 6, 200 p. 5 4 meeting, through April

and after the initial meeting in Mr. Sheedy's office on October 6, 200 p. 5 4.

17. Mr. Sheedy had an attorney-client relationship with the Pishons from

16. Allegations set forth above are incorporated by reference.

II. Stipulation as to Rules Violated

the Pishons' Attorney Discipline Office complaint.

15. On or about October 28, 2005, Mr. Sheedy filed his written response to

their complete file.

1 p. 5 4. On or about September 30,2005, Mr. Sheedy forwarded to the Pishons

complaint and requested his reply.

Discipline Office, forwarded to Mr. Sheedy a copy of the Pishons' p. 6 5

with the Attorney Discipline Office against Mr. Sheedy.

28, 200 p. 6 5, after the Pishons filed their September 25, 2005, complaint

29. Mr. Sheedy did not respond to those correspondences until September

file to them.

dated April 11, 200 p. 6 5, the Pishons requested that Mr. Sheedy return their

28. In two separate correspondences, one dated January 16 and the other

27. Allegations set forth above are incorporated by reference.

Rule 1.16(d): Failure to Return File

evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct l.4(a)-(c).

26. Mr. Sheedy's conduct in this regard constitutes clear and convincing

comply with the Pishons' reasonable requests for information.

200 p. 6 5 email, and April 11, 2005 letter, Mr. Sheedy failed to promptly

2 p. 6 5. By failing to respond to the Pishons' October 13, 2004 letter, January 16,

matters.

the Pishons reasonably informed regarding the status of their legal

24. By failing to communicate with the Pishons, Mr. Sheedy failed to keep

Pishons about their legal issues.

relationship with Mr. Sheedy, Mr. Sheedy failed to communicate with the

the date on which the Pishons terminated their attorney-client

23. From their initial meeting on October 6, 2004, through April 12, 200 p. 6 5,

22. Allegations set forth above are incorporated by reference.

Rule 1.4(a)-(c): Failure to Communicate p. 7 6

into account the severity of the misconduct." Id.

513 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted)."The sanction must take

prevent similar conduct in the future." ~,Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503,

confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and

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

the conclusion that Mr. Sheedy should be Reprimanded. The purpose of

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

34. Both case law in New Hampshire and the American Bar Association's

purposes of attorney discipline.

the appropriate sanction in this matter. A Reprimand would serve the

33. Disciplinary Counsel and Mr. Sheedy jointly recommend a Reprimand as

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

32. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Sheedy

evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1. 1 p. 7 6(d).

31. Mr. Sheedy's conduct in this regard constitutes clear and convincing

to the Pishons shortly after receipt of their April 11, 2005 request.

manner; Mr. Sheedy had erroneously believed the file had been returned

Sheedy failed to ensure the return of the Pishons' file to them in a timely

30. Following the Pishons' January 1 p. 7 6 and April 11,2005, requests, Mr. p. 8 7

misconduct.

of both Mr. Sheedy's state of mind and the injury caused by his

38. To determine the baseline sanction, the Standards next require analysis

them.

both to represent his clients diligently and to communicate properly with

3 p. 8 7. Under the first prong of the analysis, Mr. Sheedy violated his obligations

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. p. 8 710, 714 (2005) ("In applying these factors, the first step is to

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

36. 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 lavvyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of

duty violated; (b) the lavvyer'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

35. Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, it looks to them for p. 9 8

Hampshire is a Public Censure. 1 Section 4.43 uses the term"Reprimand." The most analogous sanction in New

a client. representing a client, and causes injury or potential injury to negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in Reprimand 1 is generally appropriate when a lawyer is

43. Standard 4.43 states:

extent the attorney's negligence caused harm to the client.

between a Reprimand and Public Censure based on whether and to what

communication obligations is Standard 4.4. That standard differentiates

42. The section of the Standards that deals with a lawyer's diligence and

the integrity of the profession suffers actual harm.

neglect. Whenever an attorney is neglectful toward his clients, however,

clear if the Pishons suffered any legal harm as a result of Mr. Sheedy's

as a result of Mr. Sheedy's neglect toward their legal issues. It is not

41. Here, the Pishons certainly suffered unnecessary frustration and anxiety

actual injury caused by Mr. Sheedy's misconduct.

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

comply with that obligation was unintentional.

the return of the file. Nonetheless, it is also true that his failure to

mail request. Mr. Sheedy concedes that it was his obligation to ensure

Pishons had received their file following their April 11, 2005, certified

respect to the return of the file, Mr. Sheedy incorrectly thought that the

Sheedy acted negligently rather than purposefully. For example, with

3 p. 10 9. With respect to Mr. Sheedy's mental state, the evidence is clear that Mr. 9

Hampshire is a Reprimand. 2 Section 6.14 uses'the term"Admonition." The most analogous sanction in New

prior record should increase the baseline sanction to a Public Censure.

4 p. 10 9. Without any mitigation, there can be no question but that Mr. Sheedy's

Sheedy's disciplinary record is attached hereto).

conduct similar to that at issue here. See Exhibit A (a copy of Mr.

history. On June 1 p. 10 9, 2000, Mr. Sheedy received a Public Censure for

48. There is one significant aggravating factor. Mr. Sheedy has a disciplinary

sanction.

any aggravating and/ or mitigating factors that affect the baseline

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

case is a Reprimand rather than a Public Censure.

first three prongs of the test, the appropriate baseline sanction in this

46. Having characterized the misconduct and analyzed the facts under the

the application of Standard 4.43.

of Mr. Sheedy's misconduct, this is not the type of harm that warrants

45. While the Pishons no doubt suffered frustration and anxiety as a result

potential injury to a client. representing a client, and causes little or no actual or negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in Admonition 2 is generally appropriate when a lawyer is

44. Standard 4.44 states: p. 11 10

including his present service as Chairman of the Board of Directors for

he has devoted a great deal of his time as a volunteer for local charities,

9.32(c); his misconduct was neither deceitful nor selfish, see id. 9.32(b);

been cooperative and forthcoming throughout this process, see Standard

53. Additionally, there are several other mitigating factors: Mr. Sheedy has

be given greater weight in the final sanction analysis.

the Committee, the mitigation in this case is more compelling and should

52. While Mr. Sheedy's prior discipline record warrants serious attention by

Pennsylvania to visit and care for him.

during his illness, Mr. Sheedy had been traveling to and from

Sheedy's father died. Mr. Sheedy's father had lived in Pennsylvania, and

the Pishons sent Mr. Sheedy their April 2005 certified letter, Mr.

through April of 2005. On May 22, 2005, approximately one month after

serious health issue related to his heart, with the repercussions lasting

stage IV lung cancer. In January 2005, Mr. Sheedy also suffered from a

was dealing with his divorce, Mr. Sheedy's father was suffering from

the divorce was personally devastating to Mr. Sheedy. While Mr. Sheedy

divorce. The divorce involved adultery on the part of Mr. Sheedy's wife;

Pishons in his office, Mr. Sheedy's wife of almost nine years filed for

51. Specifically, one month after Mr. Sheedy's initial meeting with the

misconduct.

Sheedy was suffering intense personal problems at the time of this

50. However, there is significant and compelling mitigation in this case. Mr. p. 12 11

Dated: October £2,2007

nonetheless hereafter bound to the facts as stipulated.

Violated and/ or the Stipulation as to Sanction, the Respondent is

Conduct Committee does not agree with the Stipulation as to Rules

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

57. Mr. Sheedy understands that by signing this Stipulation, he is hereby

V. Effect of Stipulation

Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

56. Mr. Sheedy agrees to pay the expenses incurred by the Professional

IV. Stipulation as to Costs

Reprimand.

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

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

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

this case.

compelling mitigation, a Reprimand is the most appropriate sanction in

54. In light of the nature of the underlying misconduct as well as the

has served for approximately ten years. See id. at 9.32(g).

the New Hampshire Chapter of the March of Dimes, on whose Board he p. 13 12

Dated: October 23, 2007 p. 14 ATTEST:

Date: June 19, 2000

justices, participated by special assignment under RSA 490:3. participate; Groff, Mangones, and Mohl , JJ., superior court Brock, C.J., and Horton and Broderick, JJ., did not

prosecution of this matter. by the professional conduct committee in the investigation and Timothy G. Sheedy is hereby assessed all expenses incurred

8.4(a). Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a), 1.1(c) (4) I 1.3, 3.4(c), and T~mothy G. Sheedy is hereby publicly censured for violating

of Professional Conduct. (e) ~ule 8.4(a) py violating provisions of the Rules motions for relief therefrom; and the probate court and having failed to file any Obligations to make account filings as ordered byt (d) Rule 3. 4'(c) by knowingly disobeying the

his client; promptness and diligence in the representation of (c) Rule 1.3 by failing to act with reasonable

manneri behalf of his client in a timely and effective (b) Rule 1.1(c) (4) by failing to undertake actions on

representation; knowledge required to assure competent with another lawyer who possessed the skill and (a) Rule 1.1(a) by failing to associate or consult

following Rules of Professional Conduct: The court finds that Timothy G. Sheedy has violated the

LD-98-012, In the Matter of Timothy G. Sheedy