John J. Cronin III (2008)

{007600-0038 C0433652_1 } costs associated with the MPRE. The Respondent's financial records will be subject to random passage ofthat test within one year of the date of this order. The Respondent will bear all the Examination ("the MPRE") and provide the Committee with confirmation of his successful The Respondent is directed to take the Multi-state Professional Responsibility

six month suspension for a period of two years based on certain conditions. Rules, it is the Committee's view that the public can be protected by staying the imposition of the his community activities, and his current recognition of the requirements imposed by the cited Respondent's Request for a Hearing is denied. In light of the history of Respondent's practice, Reconsideration and his Mfidavit, the Committee grants his Motion for Reconsideration. However, based on the information provided by the Respondent in his Motion for Hampshire Supreme Court and the ABA Standards cited in the Comnrittee's initial decision. Respondent's violations of certain Rules is consistent with relevant decisions of the New The Committee's order of January 18, 2008, imposing a six month suspension for the

Request for Hearing. Assistant Disciplinary Counsel's Objection to Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Reconsideration, Affidavit of John J. Cronin, ill, and Request for Hearing, and On February 19, 2008, the Professional Conduct Committee considered the Respondent's

Cronin, John J., III advs. Brenda L. Tilton # 05-038

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, Snite 102 Richard H. Darling'

File Brenda L. Tilton Craig A. Calarnan, CPA James L. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Russell F. Hilliard, Esquire Distribution:

February 2k, 2008

imposed. full compliance with the stated conditions for the two year period, the suspension will not be costs associated with its investigation and prosecution ofthis matter. If Respondent demonstrates audits for a period of two years and the Respondent will also reimburse the Committee for all admitted to practice in 1978, At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Cronin p. 3 I, Mr, Cronin is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire, Mr. Cronin was

convincing evidence as follows: The Professional Conduct Committee accepts the Stipulation of Facts by clear and 1, FACTUAL FINDINGS

factual findings and rulings as detailed below: Sanction, and Respondent's Hearing Memorandum, the Professional Conduct Committee makes Counsel's Memorandum of Law on Rule Violations, Disciplinary Counsel's Memorandum on Exhibits, Joint Waiver of Hearings Committee Process, Stipulation of Facts, Disciplinary Having reviewed the record, including the Notice of Charges, Answer, Jointly Submitted

Chair, was absent for deliberations, p, Connair, Vice Chair Toni M. Gray and David N, Cole were recused, Margaret H. Nelson, Darling, Gretchen Rule Hamel, James R, Martin, David N, Page, Alan J. Cronheim and Thomas Committee members were Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, Gerald A. Daley, Richard H,

Attorney Discipline Office, Russell F. Hilliard, Esquire, appeared on behalf ofMr. Cronin, above-referenced matter. James 1. Kmse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel appeared for the On October J 6,2007, the Professional Conduct Committee heard oral arguments in the

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 0330] Gretchen Rule Hamel Margaret H, Nelson, Chair 4 Chcnell Drive, Suite 102 Richard H, Darling'

concluded his work for Mr. Hardwick in April 2001,for which he had billed Februmy 2001. There is no record of a banlc deposit of such funds. Mr. Cronin a) Hardwick (real estate contract dispute): Mr. Hardwick paid Mr. Cronin $5000 in

8. Relevant client matters are summarized as follows: operating account. 7. Disbursements to and on behalf of clients in these matters were made from Mr. Cronin's recording of additional charges and expenses. held such funds in his office or deposited them into his operating account pending services rendered and expenses incurred at the time of receipt of such funds. Mr. Cronin forth below, Mr. Cronin received funds from clients in excess of charges recorded for disputes) accepted by Mr. Cronin during the period, February 2001 to June 2005, as set 6. With respect to some client matters (involving criminal, divorce and other litigated that client ledgers for such account were prepared and accurately maintained. 5. The aforementioned audit reflected that Mr. Cronin maintained a client trust account and Calaman's audit report is incorporated herein. certain selected client matters involving handling offunds in 2001 and 2002. Mr. through June 30, 2005. Mr. Calaman also examined those accounts in connection with account and his firm operating account principally for the period, January 1,2003, 4. Mr. Calaman's audit included examination and analysis ofMr. Cronin's client trust October 10, 2005. for the Attorney Discipline Office, completed the audit and reported his findings on agreed to an audit of his firm's accounting records. Craig A. Calaman, CPA, staff auditor 3. Mr. Cronin responded to Ms. Tilton's complaint by letter of April 25,2005. He also Cronin mishandled client funds and falsely attested to the execution of a client's wilL correspondence dated April 29, 2005. Ms. Tilton alleges, among other things, that Mr. filed a sworn complaint by letters of March 25 and 29, 2005, with additional 03458. She was formerly employed as a secretary in Mr. Cronin's office. Ms. Tilton 2. The Complainant is Brenda L. Tilton of 51 Union Street, Peterborough, New Hampshire Hampshire 03442. operated his law office as Cronin Law Offices, 388 Greenfield Road, Bennington, New p. 5 Page 3 of 13

paid in to Mr. Cronin more than the recorded charges and expenses. In February, September 18, 2003, and October 6, 2003, each reflected that Ms. Comeau had $2150. There is no record of any bank deposits of these funds. Invoices dated check) in July, November, and December 2003, and January 2004, for a total of totaled $449. Additional amounts were paid by Ms. Comeau (in cash and by $1250 (including $650 in cash). Charges and expenses recorded through July 23 d) Comeau (domestic relations): On June 23, 2003, Ms. Comeau paid Mr. Cronin as"Unused legal fees paid." operating account in the amount of$349. The disbursement check was identified December 2003, Mr. Cronin made a disbursement to Ms. Ferrill from the funds paid by Ms. Ferrill were deposited into Mr. Cronin's operating account. In of$5000. Recorded charges and expenses at that time totaled $2374. All of such additional funds on April 28, 2003. As of that date, Ms. Ferrill had paid in a total customary ... rates as we have previously discussed." Ms. Ferrill tendered the $2500." Mr. Cronin represented that he would"continue to bill against that at my Cronin asked that Ms. Ferrill forward"an additional retainer in the amount of 2002. As of that date, $469 in charges had been recorded. In April 2003, Mr. c) Ferrill (domestic relations): Ms. Ferrill paid $2500 to Mr. Cronin on October 10, was identified as"balance of the Retainer." Marconi from the operating account in the amount of$769. The disbursement operating account. On March 12, 2003, Mr. Cronin made a disbursement to Ms. totaled $173 J. The funds paid by Ms. Marconi were deposited into Mr. Cronin's invoice reflected that recorded charges and expenses through November 21, 2002, 2002. As of that date, $56 in charges had been recorded. A March 12, 2003 b) Marconi (property dispute): Ms. Marconi paid Mr. Cronin $2500 on July 17, as"Return Unused Retainer." operating account in the amount of $2500. TI1e disbursement check was identified 2004, Mr. Cronin made a disbursement to Mr. Hardwick from Mr. Cronin's approximately $300. Following receipt of an inquiry from Mr. Hardwick in June p. 6 Page 4 of 13 is no record of a bank deposit of funds paid by Mr. Wylie. In June 2004, Mr. $2000 requested, Between May 5 and May IT, recorded fees totaled $255. There indicating,"Retainer requested: $2000." On May II, 2004, Mr. Wylie paid the h) Wylie (domestic relations): On May 5, 2004, Mr. Cronin wrote to Mr. Wylie, retainer funds." from the operating account. The disbursement was identified as"return unused $435 in charges. In September 2004, Mr. Cronin disbursed $1963 to Ms. Ferren second $1000 installment on May 3, 2004, Mr. Cronin had recorded an additional installment was paid, recorded charges totaled $322.50. As of the payment of the initial bank deposits of such funds. As of April 23, after the initial $1000 installments during the period, April to June 2004. There is no record of any g) Ferren (property dispute): Ms. Ferren paid Mr. Cronin a total of$3000 in amount of $1923, identified as"Return unused portion of Retainer." Included in the refunds was a check to Ms. Bishop-Timtson in April 2004, in the disbursements from the operating account, including refi.mds totaling $2088. recorded through April 20, 2004. totaled $930. Mr. Cronin made subsequent record of a bank deposit of such fi.mds paid by Ms. Bishop-Timtson. Charges Mr. Cronin $3000. She labeled the payments as"divorce retainer." There is no f) Bishop-Timtson (domestic relations): In March 2004, Ms. Bishop-Timtson paid invoice reflects that recorded charges through April 18, 2004, totaled $1148.75. recorded charges through February 10,2004, totaled $631.25. An April 26, 2004, bank deposit of these funds paid by Mr. McMahon. As of that time of receipt, 19,2004, Mr. McMahon paid Mr. Cronin $2500 in cash. There is no record of a "my fees will be charged against the Retainer at my regular rate ...." On March Mr. Cronin requested"a Retainer in the amount of $2500" and represented that domestic violence matter in district court and a divorce matter in superior court. February 2004, confirming his willingness to represent Mr. McMahon in a e) McMahon (domestic relations; criminal): Mr. Cronin wrote to Mr. McMahon in operating account. Mr. Cronin's records reflected a final balance due of$350. 2004, Mr. Cronin made a disbursement for copies of court documents from his p. 7 Page 5 of 13

Submitted Exhibits 14, 15). prepared by Craig A. Calaman, CPA dated October 10,2005. (Ir. 10116107, at 20-21; Jointly During Oral Argument, Mr. Cronin stipulated to the facts contained in the Audit Report

nor was he present at any time Ms. Justason was at his office on October 23, 2003. oftwo office employees. Mr. Cronin did not witness Ms. Justason's execution of her will; Ms. Justason later appeared at Mr. Cronin's office and executed her will in the presence Mr. Cronin signed Ms. Justason's will as a witness to her execution of the document. 12. Prior to leaving the office on October 23,2003, and in advance of Ms. Justason's arrival, not be present. Justason's appointment. He remembers calling. Ms. Justason to advise her that he would October 23,2003. Mr. Cronin determined that he had to leave the office before Ms. II. Ms. Justason was scheduled to appear at Mr. Cronin's office to execute her will on Will and Testament for her. 10. In the fall of 2003, Mr. Cronin met with his client, Irene Justason, and prepared a Last into a special interest-bearing trust account, pursuant to a Court order of August 12,2004. funds. He held the cash in his office until August 17, 2004. He then deposited the funds some dispute between the parties. Mr. Cronin made no immediate bank deposit of the withdrawn by Ms. Fortune from ajoint account with her husband, and was the subject of cash fi'om his client on July 22, 2004. The sum represented the balance of funds 9. With respect to a domestic relations case for Ms. Fortune, Mr. Cronin received $23,866 in disbursement check was identified as"Return of unused balance of retainer." a check to Ms. Mosher in November 2004, in the amount of$637. The Mr. Cronin made subsequent disbursements from the operating account, including totaled $3613. There is no record ofa bank deposit of funds paid by Ms. Mosher. Mosher. Between June 3 and August 2, 2004, recorded charges and expenses $5000. Mr. Cronin's records reflect receipt of"Retainer-$5000" from Ms. i) Mosher (domestic relations): On June 14,2004, Ms. Mosher paid Mr. Cronin disbursement check was identified as"return unused portion of Retainer." Cronin disbursed $1602.50 to Mr. Wylie out of the operating account. The p. 8 Page 6 of 13

8.4(a) by violating Rules l.lS(a)(I) and 8.4(e). The Committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Cronin violated Rule Rule 8.4(a): Misconduct

presence of the other witness." (Ex. 5 at 57). "3. Each Witness signed at the request of the testatrix, in her presence, and in the employee of Mr. Cronin, to notarize the will stating: witnesses." (Ex. 5, at 57). Respondent also caused the Justice of the Peace, Diane A. Kraemer, an request, in her presence, and in the presence of each other, hereunto to subscribe our names as declared by the said Irene E. Justason as and for her will, in the presence of us, who at her witnesses were present (Stipulation of Facts ~ 10-12). The will states:"Signed, sealed, and 8.4( c) by signing a will as a witness for a client, while neither the Testatrix nor the other The Committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Cronin violated Rule Rule 8.4(c): Misconduct

Hillsborough County Superior Court. (Exs 13, IS; Stipulation of Facts ~ 9). approximately one month, and by placing the funds in trust only after he was ordered to do so by deposit these funds in a trust account, by keeping the cash in his desk drawer or file cabinet for Rule 1.15(a)(1) and Supreme Court Rule 50(2)(B) by accepting $23,866.00 in cash, by failing to The Committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Cronin also violated

rather than placing them in a client trust account. (Ex. 14 pp. 16-22). violated Rule 1.15(a)(1) by putting retainers in his operating account in nine separate matters The Committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Cronin repeatedly Rule LJ5(a)(1): Safekeeping Property

violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Conduct Committee concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Cronin The above facts having been found by clear and convincing evidence, the Professional II. RULINGS OF LAW p. 9 Page 7 of 13 All of these client funds held in Mr. Cronin's operating account were at risk, All of these

trust account. is all to the contrary. (Ex. 9, pp. 75-77.) None of the unearned fees were deposited in a client agreement or were in any way designated"non-refundable." Indeed, the contemporary evidence None of the fees forming the basis of this matter were paid pursuant to a general retainer

than $2,500 (Stipulation ~ 8(a); Ex. 14, p. 22; Ex. 15, pp. 181, 182). unaccounted for. No explanation was provided for Mr. Cronin's failure to refund $4,700, rather refund of unearned fees. Mr. Cronin refunded $2,500 on June 14,2004. The remaining $2,200 is 2001, for which he had billed approximately $300. In June, 2004, Mr. Hardwick requested a of a bank deposit of those funds. Mr. Cronin completed his work for Mr. Hardwick in April, In the Hardwick matter, Mr. Cronin received $5,000 in February, 2001. There is no record

of them (Stipulation; Ex. 14, 15). clients on an hourly basis and at the conclusion of the matter refunded unearned fees, or a portion and handling of those funds over an extended period of time belies that claim. He billed those operating account because they were"flat fees" fully earned at the time of receipt, his practice maintained throughout these proceedings that he was entitled to place all of the funds into his trust account but instead deposited them into his operating account. While Mr. Cronin Mr. Cronin in nine matters detailed in the Audit Report did not place client funds into a

with the provisions of the New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules. Funds shall be deposited in one or more clearly designated trust accounts in accordance in COlmection with a representation shall be held separate from the lawyer's own property. Property of clients or third persons which a lawyer is holding in the lawyer's possession those funds in a client trust account, and provides in pertinent part: Rule 1.1S(a)(l) requires an attorney in possession of funds belonging to a client to place Rule 1.IS(a)(l) violations: III. ANALYSIS p. 10 Page 8 of 13 ordered a two year suspension (Dohertv's Case, 142 N.H. pp. 449-453). Rule 50(2)(B) by failing to deposit the unearned funds into a client tmst account. The Court Court affirmed a referee's findings that Doherty violated Rule 1.15(a)(1) and Supreme Court account, places him in the same position as Doherty. In Doheliy, the New Hampshire Supreme Mr. Cronin's acceptance of unearned client flmds which he failed to place in a client trust

violated Rule 1.15(a)(I) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. bankruptcy court noted that Doherty'S failure to deposit the $10,000 into a client trust account Ducey, 160 B.R. 465, 473 (Bankr.) N.H. (1993) (quoted in Doherty, supra, at 449-450). The upon-receipt retainer for an attorney" representing a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding. In re the debt was not dischargeable and that there was"no such thing as a non-refundable, earned­ personal bankruptcy seeking to have the $10,000 debt discharged. The bankmptcy court held that ordered Mr. Doherty to refund the $10,000. Doherty refused to return the funds and filed for account. Mr. Doherty subsequently withdrew £I'om the matter, however, the bankruptcy court nonrefundable retainer which he deposited into his operating account rather than a client trust Doherty argued that a $10,000 retainer he received to file a bankmptcy petition was a Supreme Court Rule 50(2)(B). Doherty's Case, 142 N.H. 446 (1997) is instructive. There, Committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Cronin violated Rule 1.15(a)(1) and safeguard client funds by placing them in a client trust account. The Professional Conduct All of the above constitute clear, repeated and flagrant violations of the lawyer's duty to

Cronin but they were also at risk of theft or burglary. account. (Ex. 15 pp. 25-26; Stipulation, ~ 9). These funds were not only at risk to creditors ofMr. August 12, 2004, Hillsborough County Superior Court Order to place the funds in a client trust file cabinet from July 22, 2004, until August J 7,2004, when Mr. Cronin complied with an These escrow funds, part of a divorce, were held by Mr. Cronin either in his desk drawer or in a The $23,591.00 received in cash by Mr. Cronin on July 22, 2004, was at even greater risk.

required by Rule 1.15(a)(l). client funds were subject to attachment by creditors of Mr. Cronin. None were safeguarded as p. 11 Page 9 of 13 Although the Supreme Court has not adopted the American Bar Association's Standards

66 (2007). aggravating or mitigating circmnstances appearing in the record. Coddington's Case, 155 N.H. upon its own facts and circmnstances, taking into account the severity of the misconduct and any in the future; the purpose is not to inflict punishment. We judge each attorney discipline case confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and prevent similar conduct is mindful that the purpose of attorney discipline is to protect the public, maintain public the Committee considered the appropriate sanction. In determining the sanction, the Committee Having found that Mr. Cronin violated the Rules of Professional Conduct noted above,

violated Rule 8.4(c), Mr. Cronin necessarily violated Rule 8.4(a). Having found that Mr. Cronin committed numerous violations of Rule 1.15(a)(1) and Rule 8.4(a) Violation

evidence ofa violation of Rule 8.4(c). execution of a client's will under the above circumstances constitutes clear and convincing Cronin's duty as a lawyer and damaged the integrity ofthe judicial system. Attesting to the aside as invalid. Signing the will in the absence of the testatrix or the other witness violated Mr. the testatrix died before the new will was prepared, the will could have been challenged and set document attesting that all were present and witnessed each other's signatures (Ex. 5, p. 57). Had Mr. Cronin also caused the other witness, as well as the Justice of the Peace, to sign a

Professional Conduct 8.4(c). testatrix nor the other witness was present. (Stipulation, ~ 9-12). See New Hampshire Rules of Mr. Cronin violated Rule 8.4(c) when he signed a will as a witness, when neither the Rule 8.4( c) Violation p. 12 Page 10 of 13 instead keeping them in his office where they were subject to risk of seizure, fIre or burglary. contend that this sum represented earned fees or a flat fee, yet he failed to safeguard the funds, The $23,591.00 in cash entrusted to him is even more troubling. Mr. Cronin does not

should have known, that they were at risk of seizure by creditors. client trust account. He failed to safeguard those funds and as an experienced attorney knew, or and as Mr. Cronin acknowledges, he deposited these funds in his operating account rather than a unearned fees at the completion of the engagement. Nevertheless, as demonstrated by the audit, by clients as unearned fees-not flat fees. He billed hourly against those funds and refunded of his contemporaneous records demonstrate that he treated the funds initially deposited with him did however, know or should have known that he was dealing improperly with client funds. All Mr. Cronin, apparently through negligence, failed to return all of the unearned fees. Mr. Cronin he retumed unearned fees. The notable exception is the Hardwick matter, noted above, where Here, Mr. Cronin did not"knowingly convel1" client property; indeed in most instances

client." Standards, supra, § 4.12. Richmond's Case, 153 N.H. 729 (2006). that he is dealing improperly with client property and causes injury or potential injury to a supra § 4.1 1. However, suspension is generally warranted when"a lawyer knows or should know knowingly converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client." Standards, According to the Standards,"Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer

effect of any aggravating or mitigating factors on the ultimate sanction. Id. identifY the appropriate sanction. Coddington's Case, 155 N.H. 66 (2007). We then consider the In applying these factors, we first categorize the respondent's misconduct and then

Case, 155 N.H. 66 (2007). and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Standards, supra § 3.0; Coddington's (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; Standards list the following factors for consideration in imposing sanctions: (a) the duty violated; for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) (Standards), we look to them for guidance. Id. The p. 13 Page 11 of 13 failure over a three year period to place client funds in trust, violated Rule 1.15(a)(1). time of these violations was clear and that Mr, Cronin knew or should have known that his acted with a dishonest motive. However, we believe that Rule 1.15(a)(1) as it was drawn at the taken into consideration in mitigation. In addition, the Committee did not find that Mr. Cronin dishonest motive and that Rule 1.15(a)(I) is unclear. A clean disciplinary record is a factor to be Mr. Cronin argues in mitigation that he has a clean disciplinary record, that he lacked a

Hampshire since 1978. neither persuasive nor credible. In addition. Mr. Cronin has been practicing law in New contrary, that the funds received from clients were"flat fees" or"earned fees." This argument is to acknowledge any violation of Rule 1.15(a)(I), maintaining, despite all of the evidence to the notes that Mr. Cronin has shown no remorse, indeed throughout these proceedings he has refused mitigation, on the fact that he has no prior disciplinary history. In aggravation, the Committee We next address the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Mr. Cronin relies, in

because the will was subject to attack as void. from a more serious violation. His false signing did however cause potential injury to his client with the assistance of another attorney. Mr. Cronin, through no action of his own, was saved 6.12. Here the will was not submitted to the Court but was subsequently amended by the testatrix documents arc being submitted to the Court and causes potential injury to a party. Standards § provide that suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or the Court Mr. Cronin would have known that it contained a false statement. The Standards in the absence of the testatrix and the other witness was wrong. Had the will been submitted to apparently an isolated event. There is no question but that Mr. Cronin knows that signing the will fact witnessed nothing was a deceptive act but was not committed for his personal gain and was Mr. Cronin's violation of Rule 8.4(c) by falsely signing a will as a witness, when he in

within the meaning of the Standards. The risk to which all of these client funds were subjected, constitute"potential injury" p. 14 Page 12 of 13 Committee on condition that he provide the Committee with verification that he has successfully Mr. Cronin shall be reinstated on October 1,2008, without filfther hearing before this

obtained. Supreme Court Rule 38(13). date. The notice to be given to his clients shall advise that alternate counsel should be promptly proceedings of his suspension and consequent inability to act as an attorney as of the suspension administrative proceedings and the attorney or attorneys for each adverse party in such matters or or certified mail, return receipt requested each client who is involved in litigated matters or or has not arranged for substitute counsel for his clients by that date, he shall notify by registered To the extent that Mr. Cronin has not filed withdrawals in pending cases by Aprill, 2008

Supreme Court Rule 37(3). The suspension shall take effect on April 1,2008. Committee's expenses in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. New Hampshire the period of suspension. Mr. Cronin is also assessed the costs of the Professional Conduct Cronin shall also take and pass the Multi-state Professional Responsibility Examination during two years commencing on his resumption of the practice of law following his suspension. Mr. compliance with Rule J .15 and Supreme Court Rule 50, at Mr. Cronin's expense for a period of that Mr. Cronin submit to random audits of his oftlce operations, including, specifically, Committee concludes that the appropriate sanction is a six month suspension with the condition 1. J 5(a)(1), hisviolation of Rule 8A(c) and violation of Rule 8.4(a), the Professional Conduct Under the totality of the circumstances, including the multiple violations of Rule

amount of any refunds given based on his hourly billing. To the contrary, Mr. Cronin kept hourly records and billed on an hourly basis. He determined the Unfortunately there are no contemporaneous documents of any kind, supporting those assertions. funds in his operating account was proper because each constituted"flat fees" or fixed fees. funds'in trust accounts. To the bitter end, Mr. Cronin maintained that each of these deposits of Mr. Cronin's failure, throughout the proceedings to acknowledge his obligation to place client Aggravating factors include the number of violations over an extended period as well as p. 15 Page 13 of 13

File Brenda L. Tilton Russell F. Hilliard, Esquire James L. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

January 22, 2008

Supreme Court. effect on April 1, 200S, unless either party files a timely appeal in the New Hampshire costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter. The suspension shall take 1.15(a)(l), S.4(c) and S.4(a) ofthe Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Cronin is assessed all John 1. Cronin, III, from the practice of law for a period of six months for violating Rules For all of the foregoing reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee hereby suspends

shall take such action as it deems appropriate. Professional Conduct be discovered as a result of such audits, the Attorney Discipline Office above during the two year period following his reinstatement. Should violations of the Rules of shall alTange for at least two unannounced random audits ofMr. Cronin's practice as described Following Mr. Cronin's reinstatement as described above, the Attorney Discipline Office

complied with all terms of the Order. Supreme Court Rule 37(3)(14). completed the multi-state professional responsibility examination after April I, 200S and has