Allyn C. Bridge (2008)

Committee makes findings offact and rulings oflaw as detailed below. Report and Disciplinary Counsel's letter dated December 17, 2007, the Professional Conduct Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law, transcript of the November 7,2007, hearing, Hearing Panel Having reviewed the record, including Disciplinary Counsel's exhibits, Proposed

November 7,2007. Mr. Bridge appeared and testified on his own behalf. N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 37A (ill)(b)(3)(A). This matter was heard by a Hearing Panel on requires that"the allegations set forth in the Notice of Charges shall be deemed to be admitted." on August 1, 2007. Mr. Bridge did not submit an Answer. Accordingly, Rule 37 A (III)(b)(3)(A) The Attorney Discipline Office issued a Notice of Charges in the above-captioned matter

was not requested. Cronheim. David N. Cole participated by telephone. David N. Page was absent. Oral argument Gretchen Rule Hamel, Richard H. Darling, James J. Tenn, Jr., Gerald A. Daley and Alan J. Vice Chair and Reporter, Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, James R. Martin, Thomas P. Connair, captioned matter. Members present included Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, Benette Pizzimenti, On January 15, 2008, the Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the above­

Bridge, Allyn C. advs. Attorney Discipline Office # 05-064

Gerald A. Daley* Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Alan J. Cronheirn * 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*

arrears. In the January 13 Order, the Court also ordered the parties to list the marital contempt for child support because, at that point, Mr. Scardina was only one week in contempt for failing to pay alimony. The Court's Order did not find Mr. Scardina in 6. In an Order dated January 13, p. 2 2005, the Court (Fitzgerald, J.) found Mr. Scardina in

was present at that hearing with Mr. Bridge. 5. On January 11, p. 2 2005, a hearing was held on the first such contempt motion. Mr. Scardina

Scardina about these contempt motions and orders. 4. This attorney discipline case results from Mr. Bridge's failures to communicate with Mr.

part to make timely child support and alimony payments. filed three separate motions for contempt against Mr. Scardina, all alleging failures on his 3. In the early part of p. 2 2005, while Mr. Bridge was representing Mr. Scardina, Ms. Scardina

represented Ms. Scardina in the divorce. of Denise Scardina & Michael Scardina, No. 04-M-09 p. 2 21 ). Shayna M. Wright, Esquire, Mr. Scardina's then-pending divorce in Merrimack County Superior Court (In the Matter 2. On November 8, 2004, Mr. Bridge filed an appearance on behalf of Michael Scardina in

Hampshire 03301. Bridge operated his law office as Attorney at Law, 15 Chapel Street, Concord, New admitted to practice on October p. 2 28, 2002. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. 1. Mr. Bridge is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Mr. Bridge was

clear and convincing evidence as follows: The Professional Conduct Committee accepts the Hearing Panel's findings of fact by

Ce1enza, Esquire. decided to terminate the services of Mr. Bridge. Mr. Scardina retained C. Michael 1 p. 3 3. After learning from an acquaintance that the marital home had been sold, Mr. Scardina

12. On or about March 18, 2005, the marital home was sold.

otherwise inform Mr. Scardina about such Order. II. Mr. Bridge did not forward to Mr. Scardina a copy ofthe Court's March 18 Order, or

Mr. Scardina's stead to finalize the sale. for the sale ofthe marital residence. The Court also appointed a Commissioner to act in "for failing or otherwise refusing to attend the real estate closing" that had been scheduled 10. In an Order dated March 18,2005, the Court (Lynn, J.) found Mr. Scardina in contempt

Scardina a copy of this motion, or otherwise communicate its contents to him. paperwork to finalize the sale ofthe marital home. Mr. Bridge did not forward to Mr. the appointment of a commissioner to stand in Mr. Scardina's stead to sign the necessary 9. Following the failed closing, Ms. Scardina filed a second motion for contempt and sought

necessary preconditions for the sale had not been met. Scardina did not attend the closing because he objected to the sale on grounds that certain that the Court was going to order him to cooperate with the sale ofthe marital home. Mr. 8. However, because of his attendance at the January 11 hearing, Mr. Scardina was aware

otherwise inform Mr. Scardina of its contents. 7. Mr. Bridge did not forward a copy ofthe Court's January 1 p. 3 3 Order to Mr. Scardina, or

ensure a timely sale so as to avoid foreclosure." residence for sale with a real estate broker and to cooperate fully with the process"to p. 4 4 Mr. Scardina, who was the subject of each Order. The two Orders were dated January 1 p. 3 3, 20. Mr. Bridge failed to forward two contempt Orders (and the related motions) to his client,

violated N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1. p. 4 4(a)-(c) and 8.4(a). Conduct Committee concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Bridge The above facts, having been found by clear and convincing evidence, the Professional

contempt Order in Mr. Scardina's file and forwarded the file to Mr. Celenza. 19. Upon receiving a copy of the May 25 contempt Order, Mr. Bridge placed the May 25

immediately for a wage assigrnnent of child support and alimony." request for attorney fees. The Court further ordered that Mr. Scardina"shall arrange contempt for failure to make timely child support payments and granted Ms. Scardina's 18. In an Order dated May 25,2005, the Court (Fitzgerald, J.) found Mr. Scardina in

17. Mr. Bridge filed no objection to the April 26 motion.

inform him of its contents. 16. Mr. Bridge did not forward to Mr. Scardina a copy ofthe April 26 motion, or otherwise

contempt litigation. to pay child support and to pay Ms. Scardina's accrued attorneys fees for the prior Scardina filed a third motion for contempt for, inter alia, Mr. Scardina's alleged failures 15. On or about April 26, 2005, prior to the aforesaid termination of Mr. Bridge, Ms.

Mr. Bridge filed his withdrawal on or about the same date. 1 p. 4 4. On May 23,200 p. 5 5, Mr. Celenza filed an appearance in the case on Mr. Scardina's behalf. 5

This sanction is also in accord with the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Standards described by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See Coffey's Case, 1 p. 5 52 N.H. 503, 513 (2005). as set forth below. This sanction is in accord with the purposes of attorney discipline as Committee concludes that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a reprimand with conditions Having made the aforementioned findings and rulings, the Professional Conduct

Bridge violated N.H. R. Prof. Condnct 8.4(a) by violating Rule 1.4(a)-( c). The Professional Condnct Committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that Mr.

clear and convincing evidence of a violation ofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4( a)-( c). (and related motion) or otherwise inform him of the contents of these documents, constitutes 24. Mr. Bridge's failure to forward to Mr. Scardina a copy of the March 18 contempt Order

constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a)-( c). Order (and related motion) or otherwise inform him of the contents of these documents, 23. Mr. Bridge's failure to forward to Mr. Scardina a copy of the January 13 contempt

to keep Mr. Scardina reasonably informed regarding the status of a matter. motion) or otherwise inform him ofthe contents of these documents, constitutes a failure 22. Mr. Bridge's failure to forward to Mr. Scardina the March 18 contempt Order (and related

failure to keep Mr. Scardina reasonably informed regarding the status of a matter. related motion) or otherwise inform him ofthe contents of these documents, constitutes a 21. Mr. Bridge's failure to forward to Mr. Scardina the January 13 contempt Order (and

and March 18,200 p. 5 5. p. 6 6 (3) Mr. Bridge was, at the time ofthe relevant events described above, inexperienced in November 7,2007, as reflected in the Hearing Panel Report. Standards ~ 9.32(e); disclosure to the Committee, and spoke with candor and purpose at the hearing on (2) Mr. Bridge did not answer the Committee's charges, but otherwise made full and free (1) Mr. Bridge has no prior disciplinary history. Standards ~ 9.32(a);

inexperience. There are mitigating factors as follows (Standards ~ 9.32): is a basic and core component of communicating with a client and cannot be excused by Conduct Committee remains concerned that providing the client with copies of important orders The Hearing Panel found no aggravating factors in this case. However, the Professional

37(2)(g). sanction was, at its most severe, a Public Censure, within the meaning of Supreme Court Rule June 13,2005. From this analysis, and based on the clear and convincing evidence, the baseline actual injury was minimized by Mr. Bridge's participation in the contempt hearing on inexperience, and (3) that the violation of Rule 1.4 caused minimal, if any actual injury. Any certain materials to his client was negligent, not intentional, and the result of the lawyer's violated, largely ifnot entirely unintentionally; (2) that Mr. Bridge's conduct in not forwarding Applying the first three factors, the Committee concludes as follows: (1) that a duty was

are applied. employed to establish a"baseline" sanction against which the aggravating or mitigating factors Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. at 513. The standards and the first three factors in this analysis are misconduct, and (4) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Standards ~ 3.0; See duty violated, (2) the mental state of the lawyer, (3) the potential or actual injury caused by the The Standards establish a four-part analysis to consider in imposing sanctions: (1) the

Court has"considered them when imposing sanctions"). 139 (2003) (noting that, although the Court has never formally adopted these Standards, the for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991) [the"Standards"]' See, e.g., Shillen ~ Case, 149 N.H. 132, p. 7 7

File Allyn C. Bridge, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

March iL, 2008 M' aret. Nelson, Chair

Committee in the investigation and prosecution ofthis matter. See N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 3 p. 7 7(19). Mr. Bridge is assessed all costs and expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct

any reporting year under the Supreme Court Rules. requirements ofN. H. Supreme Court Rule 53 and may not be used to fulfill the requirements in twelve (12) months of this Order. These hours are in addition to the Minimum CLE (Continuing Legal Education) in law office management and/or client communication within As a condition of the Reprimand, Mr. Bridge is required to complete six (6) hours ofCLE

Report, p. 4). Conduct Committee imposes a sanction of Reprimand with conditions (See Hearing Panel from the baseline sanction is appropriate. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Professional former client, Mr. Scardina, or anyone other than himself suggests that a downward departure Panel, his relative inexperience, and his remorse and unwillingness to lay blame on either the The application of mitigating factors, including Mr. Bridge's candor with the Hearing

reasonably communicate with his client. Standards ~ 9.32(1). (5) Mr. Bridge showed remorse for his negligence and failure to effectively and self-dealing, Standards ~ 9.32(b); and (4) Mr. Bridge had no dishonest or selfish motive, and this is not a case of dishonesty or effectively communicating with clients. Standards ~ 9.32(f). the practice of law and in the management of a law practice, part of which is