This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Thomas P. Hand Jr. (2009)
Street, P.O. Box 358, Newmarket, New Hampshire 03857. Swanson, Esq., at Swanson and Hand, PLLC, at 53 Main matter, Mr. Hand practiced law with his partner, Dale T. October 28, 1996. At times material to the captioned Hampshire attorney who was admitted to the bar on 1. Respondent, Thomas P. Hand, Jr., Esq., is a New
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Facts are set forth below: Stipulation of Facts which established those facts by clear and convincing evidence. The By Order dated March 20,2009, the Committee previously voted to accept the parties'
Marilyn Billings McNamara and Thomas P. Connair were absent. telephone; Alan J. Cronheim; Gerald A. Daley; Gretchen Rule Hamel and James R. Martin. Pizzimenti, Vice Chair; Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair; Susan R. Chollet; David N. Cole via Wiggin was also present. Members present included: Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, Benette Attorney Discipline Office, Thomas P. Hand, Jr., Esquire, appeared pro se. Ms. Jorgene F. above captioned matter. James L. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, appeared for the On April 21, 2009, the Professional Conduct Committee heard Oral Argument in the
REPRIMAND
Hand, Thomas P. Jr. advs. Jorgene F. Wiggin # 06-044
Alan J. Cronheim 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'
Professional Conduct Committee New Hampshire Supreme Court Page 2 of8
payable to Thomas Hand in the amount of $28. Wiggin also tendered a check dated June 30, 2005, made payable to Thomas Hand in the amount of$956.37. Mrs. 7. Mrs. Wiggin tendered a check dated June 10,2005, made
personally. fees with checks made payable to Thomas Hand, requested that Mrs. Wiggin tender payment for services and Hampshire ($56.37) and in California ($28). Mr. Hand associated with the real estate conveyances in New additional $84.37 to cover recording and transfer fees charged Mrs. Wiggin $900. Mr. Hand charged an 6. In consideration of the legal services rendered, Mr. Hand
death certificate. supplied Mr. Hand with certified copies of her husband's deeds with Mr. Hand to be recorded. Mrs. Wiggin also prepared by Mr. Hand. She left the original, executed aforesaid property. Mrs. Wiggin executed the documents planning documents and the deeds required to transfer the 5. At the end of June 2005, Mr. Hand completed the estate
Wiggin's Revocable Living Trust. Mr. and Mrs. Wiggin, would be conveyed into Mrs. that property in New Hampshire and California, held by from an earlier marriage. The estate plan also contemplated to Mrs. Wiggin's children and to Mr. Wiggin's children 4. The estate planning documents were to include references
following the death of her husband in April 2005. property transfers in New Hampshire and California to revise her estate planning documents and to effect 3. On or about June 2, 2005, Mrs. Wiggin retained Mr. Hand
responded on December 11,2006. formally docketed on November IS, 2006. Mr. Hand Mrs. Wiggin or her successor counsel. The complaint was promised, and Mr. Hand's failure to communicate with documents, Mr. Hand's failure to complete the services 19, 2006, regarding errors made by Mr. Hand in preparing Hampshire. Mrs. Wiggin filed a complaint on September 2. The Complainant is Jorgene F. Wiggin of Milton, New Page 3 of8 Mr. Swanson corrected the error in the estate planning to assist her in correcting the estate planning documents. with Mr. Swanson, Mr. Hand's former partner, who agreed 16. In or about February 2006, Mrs. Wiggin communicated
not contact Mrs. Wiggin after that conversation. would check into the situation and call back. Mr. Hand did with her estate planning documents. Mr. Hand said he business number. She apprised Mr. Hand of the problem 15. Mrs. Wiggin eventually reached Mr. Hand at the new
not respond. business number and left messages, to which Mr. Hand did 14. Mrs. Wiggin called Mr. Hand several times at the new
address and telephone number. staff provided Mrs. Wiggin with Mr. Hand's new business Stewart Title of Northern New England. Mr. Swanson's Hand had left the firm and that he had gone to work for Swanson and Hand law office. She was advised that Mr. documents, Mrs. Wiggin tried to reach Mr. Hand at the 13. Upon discovery of the mistake in her estate planning
Wiggin's children had been confused. The identities of the Mrs. Wiggin's children and Mr. in the estate planning documents prepared by Mr. Hand. 12. In or about December 2005, Mrs. Wiggin noticed an error
with matters relating to Mrs. Wiggin. did not leave behind a complete file or record associated II. When Mr. Hand left the Swanson and Hand law firm, he
282 Corporate Drive, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Title of Northern New England, with a business address at Swanson and Hand law firm and went to work for Stewart 10. On or about September 30, 2005, Mr. Hand left the
either of the referenced deeds. 9. Unbeknownst to Mrs. Wiggin, Mr. Hand did not record
legal services to and collected fees from Mrs. Wiggin. not make any record at the law firm of having provided Wiggin and retained the proceeds thereof. Mr. Hand did 8. Mr. Hand endorsed the referenced checks from Mrs. Page 4 of8
Stipulation as to the violations of the Ru1es of Professional Conduct, which were established by In its Order of March 20, 2009, the Committee also previously voted to accept the parties'
further restitution in the total amount of $218. 39. additional costs incurred by Mrs. Wiggin, Mr. Hand made of$350. In January and February 2007, following notice of tendered checks in October and December 2006, for a total legal expenses incurred by Mrs. Wiggin. Mr. Hand Hand also made restitution by paying for the additional matter, Mr. Hand called Mrs. Wiggin to apologize. Mr. 21. After learning of Mrs. Wiggin's complaint filed in this
$228.39. Hampshire for which he billed Mrs. Wiggin an additional the real estate conveyances in California and New subsequently performed additional services associated with deed in Strafford County Registry of Deeds and deed had not been recorded. Mr. Swanson recorded the Hampshire property into her Revocable Living Trust. The executed by Mrs. Wiggin in June 2005 to transfer the New materials left behind by Mr. Hand and found the deed 20. In April 2006, Mr. Swanson located and searched a box of
$350 for these services. invoice dated March 23,2006, Mrs. Wiggin was charged necessary deeds and real estate transfer documents. By any of the documents prepared by Mr. Hand, prepared the documents, Mr. Swanson, who had been unable to locate 19. In addition to revisions to Mrs. Wiggin's estate planning
2006. However, Mr. Hand did not respond. 18. Mr. Hand received Mr. Swanson's letter of February 14,
anticipated recording of deeds. Mr. Hand having collected fees associated with the Swanson further noted that the firm law had no record of location and recording of the referenced deeds. Mr. his new business address, requesting information about the 17. On February 14, 2006, Mr. Swanson wrote to Mr. Hand at
been recorded. also determined that neither of the referenced deeds had documents and made other recommended revisions. He Page 5 of8
1.4(a) and (c). reasonable requests for information. N.H. R. Prof. Conduct respond to inquiries, and to promptly comply with informed regarding the status of the matter, to promptly 27. Mr. Hand owed Mrs. Wiggin a duty to keep her reasonably
Rule 1.4: Clieut Communications
Conduct 1.3 ( a) and (b). aforesaid breaches of duty in violation ofN .H. R. Prof. 26. There is clear and convincing evidence ofMr. Hand's
her estate plan. real estate and undermined the intent and effectiveness of referenced deeds clouded Mrs. Wiggin's title in the subject avoidable harm to Mrs. Wiggin. His failure to record the 25. Mr. Hand also breached his aforesaid duty by causing
Hampshire and California. deeds effecting the transfer oftitle to property in New 24. Mr. Hand breached his aforesaid duty by failing to record
Prof. Conduct 1.3 (a) and (b). such a manner as not to cause avoidable harm. N.H. R. services with reasonable promptness and diligence, and in 23. Mr. Hand owed Mrs. Wiggin a duty to provide such legal
Hampshire and California. with her estate plan and real estate conveyances in New retained Mr. Hand to provide legal services in connection relationship from and after June 2005 when Mrs. Wiggin 22. Mr. Hand and Mrs. Wiggiu had an attorney-client
Rule 1.3: Diligence
II. RULINGS OF LAW
Misconduct, as discussed further below: Professional Conduct 1.3: Diligence; Rule 1.4: Client Communication and Rule 8.4(a): clear and convincing evidence. The Rules which the Respondent violated were: N.H. Rules of Page 6 of8 applying these factors, the first step is to categorize the respondent's misconduct and identifY the determining a baseline sanction. See, e.g., Wolterbeek's Case, 152 N.H. 710, 714 (2005rhn The first three steps create the framework for characterizing the misconduct and
Grew's Case, 156 N.H. at 365. lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Standard 3.0; (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the The Standards set forth a four part analysis for the Committee to consider in imposing sanctions: American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards"). Id In determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee looks for guidance to the
the severity of the misconduct and any mitigating circumstances appearing in the record." Id Each attorney discipline case is judged on"its own facts and circumstances, taking into account profession, and prevent similar conduct in the future." Grew's Case, 156 N.H. 361, 365 (2007). protect the public, maintain public confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity of the legal remain"mindful that the purpose of attorney discipline is not to inflict punishment, but rather to In assessing the appropriate sanction in attorney discipline cases, the Committee must
III. ANALYSIS
N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a) violations as set forth herein, Mr. Hand has also violated 30. Because there is clear and convincing evidence of other
Rule 8.4(a): Geueral Rule
1.4(a) and (c). aforesaid breaches in violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 29. There is clear and convincing evidence ofMr. Hand's
location and recording of deeds. necessary corrections to estate planning documents and the inquiries and requests made on her behalf) regarding to Mrs. Wiggin's inquiries and requests (including such 28. Mr. Hand breached said duty by failing promptly to respond Page 7 of8
Reprimand. I Section 4.44 uses the term"Admonition." The most analogous sanction in New Hampshire is a
prosecution of this matter. accept the Stipulation that Mr. Hand shall pay all costs associated with the investigation and Hampshire, the Committee voted to impose a Reprimand in this matter. The Committee voted to Taking these factors into consideration, and the purposes of attorney discipline in New
IV. SANCTION
include Mr. Hand's remorse, and an absence of a prior disciplinary record. The Committee did not identifY any aggravating factors in this case. Mitigating factors
and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client. and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, Admonition I is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent
the subject deeds. The baseline sanction is best described in the Standards as Section 4.44: client's interests in both New Hampshire and California real estate, by not promptly recording Under the third prong of the analysis, the Committee found the potential hann to his
to communicate with his client. violations were a knowing and negligent breach of duties to provide diligent representation and Under the first two prongs of the analysis, the Committee found that Mr. Hand's
Court] considers the effect of any aggravating or mitigating factors on the ultimate sanction."). whether they affect the baseline sanction. See, e.g., id. ("After detennining the sanction, [the fourth and final step in the analysis: the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors and appropriate sanction."). Once the baseline sanction is detennined, the Court then looks to the Page 8 of8
File Ms. Jorgene Wiggin Thomas P Hand, Jr., Esquire James L. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:
Chair M gar . Nelson
May~,2009 ~rl~ยท /