Allyn C. Bridge (2009)

convincing evidence: The now acL.~itted facts from the }'Jotice of Charges establish the follo\v1ng, by clear and are deemed admitted. N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 37A(III)(b)(3)(A). file an Answer. Based on the failure to file an Answer the allegations of the Notice of Charges The ADO issued a Notice of Charges in this matter on July 24, 2008. Mr. Bridge did not I. FINDINGS OF FACT

rulings oflaw. Sanction dated March 4,2008. The Committee now makes the following findings off act and January 16, 2009 (attached to the Hearing Panel Report); and the ADO's Memorandum on ("ADO") Proposed Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law and Request for Costs dated limited to: a Hearing Panel Report of February 3, 2009; the Attorney Discipline Office's The Committee had previously reviewed the record in this matter, including, but not Thomas Connair was absent. J. Cronheim, Gerald A. Daly, Richard H. Darling, Gretchen Rule Hamel, and James R. Martin. Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, Susan Chollet, David N. Cole, Alan April 21, 2009. The following Committee members were present: Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, The Professional Conduct Committee (the"Committee") deliberated this matter on

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

for failing to file trust certificate. 1 He was suspended from the practice on January 16, 2009, for non-payment of Bar dues and on February 19,2009,

Failure to Cooperate; and Rule 8.4(a): General Rule. Diligence; Rule 1.4(a)-(c): Client Communications; Rule 3.2: Expediting Litigation; Rule 8.1 (b): evidence that Mr. Bridge violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.3: Based on the above deemed admitted facts, the Committee finds by clear and convincing II. RULINGS OF LAW

conditions. disagree with Disciplinary Counsel's recommended sanction of a three month suspension with Counsel, has been informed of Disciplinary Counsel's recommended sanction, and does not has now informed the Committee that Mr. Bridge has begun communicating with Disciplinary communications from the ADO or contest the allegations against him, but Disciplinary Counsel requests, Ms. Howe complained to the ADO. Mr. Bridge did not respond to subsequent status of her lawsuit (which, unknown to Ms. Howe, had not been filed) despite numerous On January 23, 2008, having had no communications from Mr. Bridge regarding the his law office and told him she wanted Mr. Bridge to refile the lawsuit in Superior Court. primarily an equity action. On or about September 5, 2007, Ms. Howe met with Mr. Bridge at Franklin District Court. On August 16, 2007, the Court dismissed the case, ruling that it was On or about February 21, 2007, Mr. Bridge filed a writ of summons against Mr. Howe in payments. pay Ms. Howe's credit card bill but then did not, and Ms. Howe could not afford to make the $10,500.00 by using her credit card to charge an item for Mr. Howe. Mr. Howe had agreed to Ms. Howe. There was some urgency to Ms. Howe's lawsuit, as she had loaned her son a breach of contract action against her son, Edward J. Howe, who had defaulted on a loan from On or about October 25, 2006, Janet Howe (the Complainant) retained Mr. Bridge to file Mr. Bridge is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire l. p. 3 Page 3 of8

there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). Because there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Bridge violated the above rules, Rule 8.4(a): General Rule

R. Prof. Conduct 8.1 (b). authority. Mr. Bridge's failure constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. Mr. Bridge has a duty to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary Rule 8.l(b): Failure to Cooperate

constitutes clear and convincing evidence ofa violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3.2. obligation to expedite litigation consistent with his client's interests. Mr. Bridge's failure could be paid. By failing to file Ms. Howe's lawsuit in Superior Court, Mr. Bridge violated his Ms. Howe had an interest in pursuing her lawsuit against her son so that her credit card bills Mr. Bridge had a duty to expedite the filing of Ms. Howe's lawsuit in Superior Court. Rule 3.2: Expediting Litigation

1.4(a)-(c). Howe and constitute clear and convincing evidence of violations ofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct failures to respond constitute violations of his fundamental obligation to communicate with Ms. lawsuit and to promptly comply with her reasonable requests for information. Mr. Bridge's Mr. Bridge had a duty to keep Ms. Howe reasonably informed about the status of her Rules 1.4(a}-(c): Client Communications

convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3. her attorney-client relationship with Mr. Bridge. Mr. Bridge's failure constitutes clear and District Court dismissal. This caused avoidable harm both to Ms. Howe's legal interests and to Howe. He failed to do so when he failed to refile Ms. Howe's lawsuit in Superior Court after the Mr. Bridge had a duty to act with reasonable promptness and diligence representing Ms. Rule 1.3 Diligence p. 4 Page 4 of8 cooperate. about this case, as discussed below, reduces the severity of his original failure to Office is also serious, Mr. Bridge's recent contact with Disciplinary Counsel her about her case. While his failure to cooperate with the Attorney Discipline pursue Ms. Howe's lawsuit and then his subsequent failure to communicate with The most serious rule violations committed by Mr. Bridge involve his failure to

with the Attorney Discipline Office, by failing to respond to the grievance. in an expeditious marmer. Additionally, Mr. Bridge violated his duty to cooperate timely marmer about the status of her case, and to move her case toward litigation to represent her in a diligent marmer, to communicate with her properly and in a client as well as to the profession. Mr. Bridge violated his obligations to his client Under the first prong of the analysis, Mr. Bridge violated obligations both to his Counsel's Memorandum on Sanction. That analysis follows: The Committee found persuasive and adopts the analysis set forth in Disciplinary aggravating or mitigating factors. Id identified, this Committee looks to the fourth and final step in the analysis: the application of any misconduct and identify the appropriate sanction."). After an appropriate baseline sanction is 710-714 (2005) ("in applying these factors, the first step is to categorize the respondent's characterizing the misconduct and determining a baseline sanction. Wolterbeek's Case, 152 N.H. Id (citing Standard 3.0). Consideration of the first three elements creates the framework for caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." sanctions:"(a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury The Standards set forth four elements the Committee must consider when imposing "Standards") for guidance, id at 513. the American Bar Association's Standards/or Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992)(the analysis that"must take into account the severity of the misconduct," id, the Committee looks to In determining what constitutes an appropriate sanction for a particular rules violation, an in the future." E.g., Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005)(internal quotation marks omitted). confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and prevent similar conduct The purpose of the Court's disciplinary power"is to protect the public, maintain public matter is a three month suspension. Based on the above deemed admitted facts and record, the appropriate sanction in this III. ANALYSIS p. 5 Page 5 of8

4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when:

4.41 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

Standard 4.4 provides: communication with clients is Standard 4.4, entitled"Lack of Diligence." The applicable standard for misconduct involving lack of diligence and poor In determining a baseline sanction, the Standards provide additional guidance.

prospects for the recovery of her claim were prejudiced. retainer fee she paid Mr. Bridge at the outset of her case, and Ms. Howe's failed efforts, Ms. Howe received little or no value in exchange for the $600.00 returned her Superior Court filing fee ($48.50). Further, in light ofMr. Bridge's behalf, so that she might seek other counsel. Mr. Bridge also should have have advised Ms. Howe that he had not and would not take any action on her at a minimum, taken steps to reduce the harm to Ms. Howe. Mr. Bridge should going to pursue Ms. Howe's lawsuit in Superior Court, he certainly should have, claim in Superior Court. When Mr. Bridge apparently determined he was not Ms. Howe relied to her detriment on Mr. Bridge's commitment to pursue her

Howe's inability to pay a credit card obligation. lawsuit against her son (that Mr. Bridge failed to pursue) was motivated by Ms. Howe had very little money with which to retain a lawyer. Indeed, Ms. Howe's legal profession. Here, the injury to Ms. Howe was of a financial nature. Ms. The third prong requires analysis of the injury to Mr. Bridge's client and/or the

each of his violations. state. There is no dispute that Mr. Bridge acted at least knowingly with respect to The second prong of the three-part test requires analysis of Mr. Bridge's mental p. 6 Page 6 of8 3 Section 4.44 uses the term"Admonition." The most analogous sanction in New Hampshire is a Reprimand. 2 Section 4.43 uses the term"Reprimand." The most analogous sanction in New Hampshire is a Public Censure.

are serious and warrant an increase in the baseline sanction. Ms. Howe gave him for the Superior Court filing fee. The aggravators in this case § 9.220). At the very least, Mr. Bridge should have returned $48.50, the amount Bridge has not made any effort to provide restitution to Ms. Howe. See Standards in the process. See Standards § 9.22(d). A third aggravating factor is that Mr. and his client's case, and he also ignored the Attorney Discipline Office early on factor is that Mr. Bridge committed multiple violations: he neglected his client repetitive and raises serious public protection concerns. A second aggravating underlying misconduct in this case, it appears that Mr. Bridge's misconduct is While the issuance of the Reprimand and Waming in those cases post -dated the this case. (A copy of Mr. Bridge's disciplinary history is attached as Exhibit 1). cases involve conduct on the part of Mr. Bridge that is similar to that at issue in case entitled Bridge, Allyn C. advs. Angela St. John, PCC #07-053. Both of these Order dated August 20,2008, the Committee issued Mr. Bridge a Warning in a entitled, Bridge, Allyn C. advs. Attorney Discipline Office, PCC #05-064. By 2007, Mr. Bridge received a Reprimand With Conditions for misconduct in a case a prior disciplinary record. By Order of this Committee, dated September 12, In this case, the following aggravating factors are present. First, Mr. Bridge has

factors. sanction must now be considered in light of the aggravating and mitigating would fall somewhere between a public censure and a suspension. The baseline attorney discipline, Mr. Bridge's misconduct warrants a baseline sanction that In light of the-three prong test, the applicable Standard, and the purposes of

(1993) (similar). sanction for deceit in particular context of case); Welt's Case, 136 N.H. 588 O'Meara's Case, 150 N.H. 157 (2003) (holding that public censure is appropriate misconduct far more serious than that committed by Mr. Bridge. See generally this case may not be warranted. The Court has issued public censures for backdrop, however, a suspension for lack of diligence in the particular context of appropriate baseline sanction in this case. Using New Hampshire case law as a to suffer harm as a result. Thus, section 4.42(a) suggests that a suspension is the Mr. Bridge knowingly failed to perform services for Ms. Howe and caused her

or no actual or potential injury to a client. not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes little 4.44 Admonition 3 is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does or potential injury to a client. not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes injury 4.43 Reprimand 2 is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does p. 7 Page 7 of8

practice. provider, that he is of sound mental health such that he can resume his law treatment recommendations and, in the opinion of his mental health treatment that he has complied or is complying with his mental health practitioner's I. Prior to being reinstated Mr. Bridge shall provide Disciplinary Counsel with proof

three month suspension is appropriate in this matter, with the following conditions:

Based on the above analysis and the deemed admitted facts, the Committee finds that a

Disciplinary Counsel's Memorandum on Sanction at 3-7.

the aggravating factors, a short, rather than lengthy, suspension is appropriate. The mitigating factors in this case are very compelling. When weighed against

assistance of food stamps in recent times. been unable to meet his own basic financial obligations and has needed the law. While he is aware of the financial harm that he caused to Ms. Howe, he has shortcomings and is genuinely attempting to address them outside the practice of both instances to his depression. To Mr. Bridge's credit, he is open about his Discipline Office early in the disciplinary process. He attributes his neglect in he admits that he neglected his obligations to cooperate with the Attorney profession. Mr. Bridge concedes that his misconduct caused Ms. Howe harm, and Bridge has a strong desire for his therapy to be separate and distinct from the legal options he may have available through the Lawyer's Assistance Program, but Mr. decided what he is going to do. Disciplinary Counsel explained to him the "inactive status" or resigning from the New Hampshire Bar; he has not yet "odd jobs" and social welfare programs. He is contemplating either going on law. He is having intense financial difficulties, but is trying"to stay afloat" with properly as a professional. Mr. Bridge has, as a result, recently stopped practicing involves litigation) exacerbates his depression and renders him unable to function consultation with his therapist, that the practice oflaw (particularly when it August of 2007, and has been diagnosed with depression. He has decided, in Office. Mr. Bridge candidly explained that he sought therapeutic treatment in Ms. Howe, as well as his early lack of cooperation with the Attorney Discipline September 29,2008, and expressed genuine remorse both for his behavior toward way of background, Mr. Bridge met in-person with Disciplinary Counsel on mitigating factors. There are many compelling mitigators in this case. First, by Having listed the aggravators, it is now necessary to weigh them against the p. 8 Page 8 of8

File Janet Howe Allyn C. Bridge cc: Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel

May 29,2009 (fv) - -bt ~ M~

investigation and prosecution of this matter. 5. Mr. Bridge is assessed all expenses and costs incurred by the Committee for the

health provider during the two year period following his reinstatement. proceedings consistent with any adverse report rendered by Mr. Bridge's mental 4. The ADO shall take such steps as it deems necessary to commence further

law. extent to which Mr. Bridge is of sound mental health and capable of practicing Bridge is complying with the mental health provider's recommendations and the and December. These reports shall specifically discuss the extent to which Mr. his mental health provider to the ADO on the last day of March, June, September, following the reinstatement he shall be obligated to provide quarterly reports from 3. If Mr. Bridge requests and is granted reinstatement, for a period of two years

after suspension. 2. Mr. Bridge shall comply with all Supreme Court Rules governing reinstatement