Karen E. Huntress (2009)

Mr. Emerson of the funds. elderly resident of Sandwich, by deception and with a purpose to deprive Schonarth obtained control over money belonging to Denley Emerson, an seventeen counts oftheft by deception. The indictments charged that Mr. 2. In 2002, the State of New Hampshire charged Vincent Schonarth with

Office, 33 Capitol Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. material to this proceeding, Ms. Huntress worked at the Attorney General's Ms. Huntress was admitted to practice on May 29,2002. At all times 1. Ms. Huntress is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire.

as set forth in the Stipulation are established by clear and convincing evidence: Stipulation, ("Stipulation") as to the facts of this matter. Accordingly, the facts described below The Respondent and the ADO have stipulated, and the Committee accepts the 1. FINDINGS OF FACT

McNamara. Susan R. Chollet was absent. Alan 1. Cronheim and James R. Martin were recused. Cole, Thomas P. Connair, Gerald A. Daley, Richard H. Darling, and Marilyn Billings Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, David N. Respondent, Karen E. Huntress, Esquire, who was present. Committee members present included represented the Attorney Discipline Office ("ADO"); Emily Gray Rice, Esquire, represented the Argument in the above-captioned matter. Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel, On January 29, 2009, the Professional Conduct Committee ("Committee") heard Oral

Huntress, Karen E. advs. Attorney Discipline Office # 08-006

Alan J. Cronheirn HoIly 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'

the cost of certain vehicles, Noreen Langill-Schonarth asserted: 13. Near the end of the hearing, in response to a question from the State about

including the purchase price of the vehicles. which she claimed an interest, but she did not recall any relevant specifics, The State asked Amanda where she had purchased the automobiles in 12. Amanda Langill testified regarding her claim of interest in the property.

the State sought to sell at auction. 11. At the hearing, the Langills asserted that they had purchased the items that

10. The Superior Court scheduled the matter to be heard on March 14,2007.

warrant their intervention and/or any other relief." property the State seeks to auction in State v. Vincent Schonarth to detennination of"whether the [Langills] have a sufficient interest in the Order remanding the Langills' claims to Superior Court for a 9. On November 26, 2006, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued an

her daughter, Amanda Langill (referred to collectively as the"Langills"). litigation brought by Mr. Schonarth's wife, Noreen Langill-Schonarth, and 8. The State's efforts to move forward on the auction were halted by

satisfy the restitution order.. execution to seize and sell Mr. Schonarth's possessions at auction to 7. Once Mr. Schonarth's conviction was final, the State obtained a writ of

defended the appeal. See State v. Schonarth, 152 N.H. 560 (2005). 6. Mr. Schonarth appealed his conviction. Ms. Huntress successfully

$300,000.00. New Hampshire State Prison and was ordered to pay restitution of almost 5. After trial, Mr. Schonarth was convicted on all counts and sentenced to the

the State. 4. The criminal case went to trial in April of2003. Ms. Huntress represented

was residing there at the time. executed a search warrant on Mr. Emerson's residence. Mr. Schonarth 3. During its investigation of Mr. Schonarth, in March 2002, the State p. 3 Page 3 of 11 that the only income of the household to pay for the items seized Schonarth is not credible. The court finds that the State's assertion denies. The evidence supporting any claims by Petitioner seized $5000.00 from a lockbox, which the State vigorously Further, she makes outrageous claims such as the State having income, much less sufficient income, to make such purchases. produce receipts for any of the items or verify that she had any and auction. Under questioning, petitioner Schonarth is unable to have bought many of the items which the state seeks to sieze (sic) Petitioner Langill are dismissed. Petitioner Schonarth claims to court would not permit her to do so. Accordingly, all claims of tried to provide her with answers to the court's questions, but the restitution. Her mother, Petitioner Schonarth (defendant's wife) of interest in the property the State seeks to auction to satisfy the 2007. Petitioner Langill is unable to articulate any basis of a claim sentence. The court held a hearing on the claims on March 14, substantial restitution orders which were part ofthe defendant's State from seizing certain property of the defendant to satisfy case against the defendant solely for the purpose of preventing the Petitioners Schonarth & Langill seek to intervene in the criminal

Langills' petition. The Order held: 16. On or about March 14,2007, the Court issued an order denying the

15. The Court (Fitzgerald, J.) took the matter under advisement.

14. In response, Ms. Huntress stated:

21. Ms. Huntress was struck by the specificity of Noreen Langill-Schonarth's

Noreen Langill-Schonarth did not provide the exhibits to Ms. Huntress. email, Ms. Huntress emailed her on March 28, 2007, and requested them. 20. Since Noreen Langill-Schonarth had not attached exhibits to her March 27

claim. email, Ms. Huntress wanted to research the issues with respect to each 19. Before responding to the claims in Noreen Langill-Schonarth's March 27

he made about me. Fitzgerald owns (sic) me an apology for the false comments Honorable conrt for their own benefit. I feel Judge States document of which they tried to hide from this Room. Amounts totaling $4,018.36 is admitted to in the that money was taken from the lock boxes in the Dark #1633 proves Mrs. Schonarth was in fact telling the truth items taken from the property of the Schonarths. #1630 and A: Inventory of N.H. Attorney Generals Office inventory of Dark Room of Ms. Langill in March 2002." See: Exhibit stated that"no money was taken from the lock boxes in the calling her a"liar." The State committed perjury when they outrageous claims" and"is not credible," which is basically Judge Edward J. Fitzgerald 1lI when he stated"she makes Mrs. Schonarth takes offence to the bias (sic) comments of

18. Paragraph 1 of the email stated:

myriad of issues for reconsideration. reconsideration of the Conrt's March 14, 2007, Order, and it raised a Schonarth. The email appeared to contain the text of a motion for 17. On March 27, 2007, Ms. Huntress received an email from Noreen Langill­

(Emphasis added).

Dated: March 14, 2007 So Ordered.

dismissed. Accordingly, all claimis (sic) ofPettioner (sic) Schonarth are entire record of all proceedings presented by the State. was the proceeds of the defendant's theft is correct based on the p. 5 Page 5 of 11 number of weeks ago, and has now had a chance to review the the Court. The State ultimately obtained a copy from the Court a to provide a copy of the entire document to the State, as filed with Unfortunately, despite repeated requests, Angie Schonarth refused during the hearing on March 14, 2007 were otherwise accurate. claims, to ensure that the State's representations to the Court but wanted the opportunity to review all of Angie Schonarth's The State had intended to correct the record as soon as possible,

29. Ms. Huntress explained her belated effort to correct the record as follows:

continued to possess a total of $4,019.36. 2007, hearing, the State had seized cash from the Schonarths and 2007, she had leamed that, contrary to her assertions at the March 14, 28. In Ms. Huntress' August 9 pleading, she explained that, on March 28,

"State's Motion to Clarify andlor Correct the Record." Supreme Court, Ms. Huntress filed a pleading in Superior Court entitled, 27. On August 9, 2007, one day before the State's brief was due in the

August 10, 2007. due on or before July 11, 2007, and the State's brief was due on or before Langills' appeal and issued a briefing schedule. The Langills' brief was 26. On June 11,2007, the New Hampshire Supreme Court accepted the

Schonarth that appeared to contain the text of a notice of appeal. 25. On April 24, 2007, Ms. Huntress received an email from Noreen Langill­

Superior Court. Noreen Langill-Schonarth did not do so. to forward to Ms. Huntress a complete copy of any pleading(s) she filed in 24. On April 2, 2007, Ms. Huntress sent Noreen Langill-Schonarth a request

memorandum detailing his discovery; he did so on March 28, 2007. the Emerson property. Ms Huntress asked Investigator Brodeur to prepare a ($4,019.36) in the evidence locker that had been seized during the search of 23. Investigator Brodeur reported back to Ms. Huntress that he had found money

if so, whether it was still present in the evidence locker. there was any cash seized during the search of the Emerson property, and examine the Attorney General's evidence locker to determine whether 22. Ms. Huntress requested Attorney General Investigator Paul Brodeur to

she had previously mentioned. Schonarth was now quoting $4,018.36, as opposed to the $5,000.00 that p. 6 Page 6 of 11

should not be taken: remedial actions including, but not limited to the following, notice of this order show good cause in writing why circumstances. The State shall within 10 days of the clerk's concerned that remedial action is required under such Court of its error until August 9, 2007. The Court is representations were false but took no action to notify the been seized. As early as March 27, 2007 the State knew its seized cash which the State represented to the court had not on the part of Petitioner Schonarth based on her claim of to the court's rulings was a finding of a lack of credibility order denying Petitioners' claims on the same day. Central hearing on the claims on March 14, 2007 and issued an were part ofthe defendant's sentence. The court held a defendant to satisfy substantial restitution orders which preventing the State from seizing certain property of the criminal case against the defendant solely for the purpose of Petitioners Schonarth & Langill sought to intervene in the

31. In an Order dated August 27, 2007, the Court held:

material to the Court's decision and should not alter the result. March 14, 2007, hearing regarding the State's seizure of cash were not persuade the Superior Court that her inaccurate statements during the 30. The remaining thrust of Ms. Huntress's August 9 pleading was an effort to

submits that no other corrections to the record are necessary. remaining issues raised in her motion to reconsider. The State p. 7 Page 7 of 11 Amanda Langill. further participation in the petition of Angie Schonarth and 5. The undersigned justice recuses himself from

discovery and hearing on the petition. conference shall be held to determine a schedule for 4. After the appointment of counsel, a status

petitioners. payment of all fees incurred by counsel in representing the office of the Attorney General shall be responsible for clerk of Court is directed to secure such counsel. The counsel is to be appointed to represent the petitioners. The part of the State does not again prejudice the petitioners, 3. In order to assure that such carelessness on the

aside and it is hereby vacated. to the court's findings, justice requires that the order be set 2. Inasmuch as the erroneous assertion was material

Amanda Langill were not credible. determination that petitioners Angie Schonarth and underlying order, it was a material fact in the court's existence of the currency might not have changed the had been seized from the defendant. While the fact of the predicated on the State's erroneous assertion that no cash 1. The Court's order of March 14,2007, was

order of 8127107, the Court rules as follows: Following a review of the State's response to the court

32. In a subsequent order dated December 31, 2007, the Superior Court held:

(Emphasis in original).

Dated: August 27, 2007 So Ordered.

appeal pending in Supreme Court Docket No. 2007-0319. Supreme Court may wish to stay any consideration of the consideration of vacating its prior order and that the pending before this court the court's sua sponte shall notifY the Clerk of the Supreme Court that there is The Clerk of the Carroll County Superior Court p. 8 Page 80fll

Langill-Schonarth's credibility. misstatements were material to the Court's decision regarding Noreen 38. Ms. Huntress was aware on or about March 28, 2007, that her factual

after the Court Order in the case. 37. Ms. Huntress became aware of her misstatements approximately 14 days

Schonarths during a search of the Emerson residence in 2002. assertions at the March 14 hearing, the State had seized cash from the 36. Specifically, Ms. Huntress learned on March 28,2007, that contrary to her

14,2007, hearing were false. about March 28, 2007, that certain statements she made during a March 35. As explained in more detail above, Ms. Huntress became aware on or

34. Allegations set forth above are incorporated by reference.

establishes these violations by clear and convincing evidence:

Stipulation, as to the Rules of Professional Conduct that were violated. The Stipulation

The Respondent and the ADO have stipulated, and the Committee accepts the

Stipulation'1['1[1-33, at 1-9.

Attorney Discipline Office. 33. In a letter dated January 8, 2008, the Court referred the matter to the

Dated: December 31, 2007

trial. petition are unrelated to any issue concerning defendant's denied. The findings concerning the above referenced Defendant's Motion to Vacate Guilty Finding is

lawyer's mental state; (c) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and

list the following factors to be considered in imposing sanctions: (a) the duty violated; (b) the

adopted the Standards the Court has considered them when imposing sanctions). The Standards

e.g., Shillen's Case, 149 N.H. 132, 139 (2003) (noting that although the Court has never formally

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) (Standards), the Committee looks to them for guidance. See,

Although New Hampshire has not adopted the American Bar Association's Standards for

!d. ~~ 34-44 at 9 to 10.

of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). violated the above rules, there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence 44. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Huntress

Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(3). 43. Ms. Huntress' conduct in this regard constitutes a violation of N.H. R.

was not reasonable. 42. Ms. Huntress's delay in excess of four months before correcting the record

Fitzgerald of her misstatements. Supreme Court brief was due on the Langills' appeal, to notify Judge 41. Instead, Ms. Huntress waited until August 9, 2007, the day before her

2007, of her inaccurate statements (or as soon as practicable thereafter). correct the record immediately after her discovery on or about March 28, 40. Ms. Huntress had a duty to take reasonable remedial measures and to

credible. supporting any claims by [Noreen Langill-Schonarth] is not lockbox, which the State vigorously denies. The evidence claims such as the State having seized $5000.00 from a Further, [Noreen Langill-Schonarth] makes outrageous

written in its March 14, 2007, order: 39. Specifically, with respect to Ms. Huntress's statements, the Court had p. 10 Page 10 of 11

appropriate discipline in this matter is a Reprimand. This sanction is in accord with the purposes

Having made the above findings and rulings, the Committee concludes that the

pendency of this matter.

ADO and has expressed sincere remorse, and has fully cooperated with the ADO throughout the

excellent reputation in the community. Ms. Huntress made a"full and free disclosure" to the

Huntress had no prior disciplinary record, lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, and has an

Ms. Huntress did not have any aggravating factors in this matter. In mitigation, Ms.

acknowledged her failure to take immediate action to correct the record.

identified the baseline sanction as a public censure. Standards § 6.13. Ms. Huntress

Respondent's failure to pay attention to her obligation of candor to the tribunal. The Committee

had been falsely impugned to the Court. The legal profession also suffered harm based on

underlying matter. This had an impact on the injury to Ms. Langill-Schonarth, whose credibility

led to her failure to appropriately prioritize the urgency ofthe need to correct the record in the

mental state was effected by a very demanding caseload at the Attorney General's Office, which

immediately correct a material misstatement of fact to a court in a timely marmer. Ms. Huntress'

Ms. Huntress violated a fundamental obligation as an officer of the Court by failing to

aggravating or mitigating factors on the ultimate sanction. Id.

Coddington's Case, 155 N.H. 66, 71 (2007). The Committee then considers the effect of any

Committee first categorizes the respondent's misconduct, then identifies the appropriate sanction.

N.H. 503, 513 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). In applying these factors the

(d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Standards, supra § 3.0; Coffey's Case, 152 p. 11 Page 11 of 11

File Emily Gray Rice, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplina.ry Counsel Distribution:

February lQ.., 2009

37(3)(c).

appeal this decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See also Supreme Court Rule

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(A)(III)(d)(2)(D)(4)(A), the parties have the right to

Misconduct.

N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(3): Failure To Take Reasonable Remedial Measures, and 8.4(a):

For the above reasons the Committee issues a Reprimand to the Respondent for violating

Respondent will pay all costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

The Respondent and the ADO have stipulated, and the Committee accepts, that the

149 N.H 19, 28 (2002). This sanction is also in accord with the Standards.

of attorney discipline as described by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See, e.g., Feld's Case,