Stephen T. Jeffco (2009)

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

Brouillard.

2009, L'1e Stipulation of Facts dated Januaiy 14,2009, and the January 16, 2009, letter from Mr.

The Committee considered the Record, including: Oral Argument held on January 29,

Esquire, were absent. Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, and Alan J. Cronheim, Esquire, were recused.

Esquire, and Marilyn Billings McNamara, Esquire. Susan R. Chollet and Gretchen Rule Hamel,

Esquire, Thomas P. Connair, Esquire, Gerald A. Daley, Richard H. Darling, James R. Martin,

Margaret Nelson, Esquire, Chair, Benette Pizzimenti, Esquire, Vice Chair, David N. Cole,

Complainant, were in attendance at Oral Argument. Committee members present included

represented the Respondent, Stephen T. Jeffco, Esquire. Mr. Jeffco and Bruce P. Brouillard, the

Counsel represented the Attorney Discipline Office ("ADO"), and Russell F. Hilliard, Esquire,

Argument and deliberated the above captioned matter. James L. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary

On January 29,2009, the Professional Conduct Committee ("Committee") heard Oral

Jeffco, Stephen T. advs. Bruce P. Brouillard #05-076

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

agreement with the goverument. At Mr. Jeffco's request, Mr. Irish scheduled would have to corumit to participating"one hundred percent" under any proffer Mr. Jeffco agreed to remain in the case, but made clear to Mr. Brouillard that he

whether a further debriefing with the goverument could be successful. about other people involved in the drug activity, thus raising a question at the time [him]." Further, Mr. Brouillard did not want to testifY or provide information wanted to try the debriefing again, although he questioned"what might be in it for better job" of answering the goverument's questions. Mr. Brouillard indicated he failure to tell the truth. Mr. Brouillard subsequently apologized for not doing"a think he could continue to represent Mr. Brouillard because of Mr. Brouillard's After the referenced meeting, Mr. Jeffco advised Mr. Brouillard that he did not

criminal activity or about the involvement of others. Brouillard was not fully candid or truthful about his involvement in the subject or debriefed, by the goverument. The debriefmg was a failure because Mr. Following execution of the proffer agreement, Mr. Brouillard was interviewed,

goverument's position on sentencing. proffer of information. There was no reference in the proffer agreement to the an agreement under which the goverument would"consider" Mr. Brouillard's On July 26,2001, Mr. Jeffco and Mr. Brouillard met with Mr. Irish and executed

Mr. Jeffco required a minimum of $50,000. indictment, Mr. leffco would require a minimum of $25,000. In the event of trial, hourly basis and that fees would be a minimum of$10,000. In the event of an consulting fee, Mr. Jeffco advised Mr. Brouillard that he would charge on an in counection with the criminal matter. Following payment of an initial Mr. Brouillard retained Mr. Jeffco on or about June, 11,2001, to represent him

investigation. had also been overheard arranging drug transactions with others under drugs were purchased for re-sale. Through telephone surveillance, Mr. Brouillard officer that he had been purchasing cocaine for several years and that some of the of a search warrant, during which Mr. Brouillard admitted to a law enforcement In early June 2001, prior to retaining Mr. Jeffco, Mr. Brouillard was the subject

Court for the District of New Hampshire. related forfeiture claim pursued by the Unites States in the United States District relates to Mr. Jeffco's performance as defense counsel in a criminal matter and the Federal Prison Camp-Devens in Ayer, MA. Mr. Brouillard's complaint matter on August 23, 2005. At the time of filing, Mr. Brouillard was an inmate at The Complainant, Bruce Brouillard, of Nashua, N.H., filed a complaint in this

as set forth in the Stipulation are established by clear and convincing evidence: p. 3 Page 3 of 13

all charges and I won't sue the US Govermnent for defamation of character." govermnent's proposal was one-sided and"my counter to them should be: Drop In his memorandum to Mr. leffco, Mr. Brouillard also said he thought the

whether his medical condition could be used in negotiating a plea bargain. and whether it would file a motion relating to sentencing. Mr. Brouillard asked govermnent would determine whether he had provided"substantial assistance" to recall every detail of his drug history; he was concerned about how the Road property. Mr. Brouillard also indicated that it would be impossible for him proposed plea agreement, including those regarding forfeiture of his Danbury challenged the govermnent's evidence and rejected various provisions in the sending Mr. Brouillard a copy of the proposal for his review. Mr. Brouillard In his memorandum, Mr. Brouillard complained that Mr. leffco had delayed

the govermnent's proposal. memorandum to Mr. leffco dated February 21, 2003, summarizing his reaction to Following their aforesaid February 2003, meeting, Mr. Brouillard wrote a

or about February 10, 2003. Brouillard reviewed the discovery material and the plea proposal at a meeting on agreement covering the criminal and forfeiture matters. Mr. Jeffco and Mr. 2003, Mr. Irish also forwarded to Mr. leffco the govermnent's proposed plea which Mr. Jeffco forwarded to Mr. Brouillard for his review. On lanuary 30, The govermnent supplied Mr. leffco with a large volume of discovery material

through the end of March 2003. weeks thereafter to require bed rest while undergoing radiation and chemotherapy time in recent months for surgery related to cancer. He was expected for several On or about November 27, 2002, Mr. Brouillard was hospitalized for the second

forfeiture matter. telephone. He asked Mr. leffco about the status of discovery and about the complaining that he had not been able to cormnunicate with the Mr. leffco by On September 13, 2002, Mr. Brouillard wrote a memorandum to Mr. leffco

conspirators were also indicted. conspiracy to possess and distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine. Alleged co­ of the indictment (and the only count applicable to Mr. Brouillard) alleged On April 10, 2002, Mr. Brouillard was indicted by a federal grand jury. Count I

candid and truthful. No further debriefing meetings were scheduled. govermnent determined, once again, that Mr. Brouillard was not being fully another debriefing meeting on September 14, 2001. At that meeting, the p. 4 Page 4 of 13 under that Section and specifically outlined in the text of the plea agreement. under Section 3El.I if Mr. Brouillard failed to satisfy various criteria required offense." However, the govemment could oppose any sentencing adjustment upon the defendant's"affinnative acceptance of personal responsibility for the "Adjusted Offense Level" pursuant to Sentencing Guideline Section 3EI.I, based govemment agreed that it would not oppose reduction in the defendant's Act of 1984 and the federal Sentencing Guidelines would apply in this case. The Regarding sentencing, the plea agreement provided that the Sentencing Refonn

special assessment of $1 00, and a minimum four years of supervised release. a minimum five years in prison, a maximum fine of $2,000,000 [sic], a mandatory distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, an offense carrying possible penalties of guilty to Count I of the indictment for conspiring to possess with intent to referenced plea agreement provided that Mr. Brouillard would enter a plea of agreement. There was no agreement at that time on the forfeiture issue. The language in the plea agreement regarding forfeiture of assets was deleted by Jeffco, Mr. Brouillard executed a plea agreement with the govemment. Proposed On May 29, 2003, and following review of the govemment's proposal with Mr.

applicable." provision"that stipulated that the mandatory minimum [sentence] would not be understood that the government would agree to a plea agreement including a Irish and Assistant U.S. Attorney Clyde Garrison at that time. Mr. Jeffco criminal matter on May 22, 2003. Mr. Jeffco had additional discussions with Mr. Mr. Jeffco appeared on Mr. Brouillard's behalf at a pretrial hearing in the

statutory minimum level applicable in Mr. Brouillard's case. provision ofthe Sentencing Guidelines was directed at avoiding sentencing at the Sentencing relief sought by Mr. J effco under the aforementioned safety valve

advised Mr. Irish of his client's serious medical condition. count of a telephone drug violation under 21 U.S.C. Sect. 843(b). Mr. Jeffco also Sentencing Guidelines and under Section 5Hl.4 (medical condition), or b) one seek sentencing relief under Section 5Cl.2 ("safety valve") of the federal agreement involving either a) a low level conspiracy to sell, with pennission to lowest level. With Mr. Brouillard's consent, Mr. Jeffco also proposed a plea involvement of the other co-defendants, placing Mr. Brouillard at the next to Mr. Jeffco wrote to Mr. Irish on May 21, 2003. Mr. Jeffco addressed the relative

course of the representation. Mr. Jeffco recalls frequently communicating with Mr. Brouillard during the Brouillard claimed that Mr. Jeffco had failed to respond to many telephone calls. about his case and about the status of negotiations with the government. Mr. Jeffco, complaining that he had had difficulty communicating with Mr. Jeffco On or about May 6, 2003, Mr. Brouillard wrote another memorandum to Mr. p. 5 Page S of 13

Court also had Mr. Brouillard confirm that he had had ample opportunity to in prison, a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years ...." The imposition of a statutorily authorized sentence. It could include up to four years Court cautioned Mr. Brouillard as follows:"You could be exposing yourself to the various sentencing options available under the Sentencing Guidelines. The confirm his understanding of the plea agreement, including provisions addressing evidence obtained against Mr. Brouillard. The Court also had Mr. Brouillard elicited an offer of proof from the government. Mr. Garrigan summarized the Prior to accepting Mr. Brouillard's plea at the May 29,2003, hearing, the Court

Count I of the indictment. Judge Joseph DiClerico and entered a plea of guilty to the conspiracy charge at On May 29, 2003, Mr. Brouillard appeared before United States District Court

client in this regard. clear and convincing evidence that he did not adequately communicate with his hearing. Mr. Jeffco conceded, however, that a hearing panel was likely to find perceive that there was an issue to discuss in this regard prior to the sentencing options Mr. Brouillard might have in that event. Mr. Jeffco claims he did not government would oppose application of the safety valve provision and what Mr. Jeffco did not discuss with Mr. Brouillard the possibility that the

an effort to satisfy the safety valve provision criteria. did not discuss whether Mr. Brouillard would meet again with the government in downward from the statutory minimum sentence. Mr. Jeffco and Mr. Brouillard Section SKl.l of the Sentencing Guidelines, permitting the Court to depart government, in its sole discretion, could decide to file a motion pursuant to investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, the determined that Mr. Brouillard had provided"substantial assistance" in the but hoped that the issue would be left open. The government also agreed that if it further opportunity for Mr. Brouillard to satisfy the safety valve provision criteria, been cooperative. Mr. Jeffco had no discussion with the government about any Mr. Jeffco was aware of the government's position that Mr. Brouillard had not

scheme or plan ...." offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the SC1.2 provides that the defendant shall have"truthfully provided to the forth in the text of the plea agreement. However, the fifth criterion under Section meets the criteria set forth in the Guideline Section." Such criteria were not set SC 1.2) if the Probation Department"determines the defendant is eligible, and he application of the safety valve provision ofthe Sentencing Guidelines (at Section In the plea agreement, the government agreed that it would not oppose the p. 6 Page 6 of 13

"didn't talk at the 'right time.'" that now the information he supplied was being used against him because he believing that he would be treated more fairly in exchange for his cooperation and also charged that when he"talked" originally, he was"coerced" by the police into summarized relating to co-defendants and complained of disparate treatment; he discuss filing a timely response. Mr. Brouillard contested some of the evidence sending him the Report and that he had not been afforded an opportunity to 2003, letter to N'li'. Jeffco. Mr. Brouillard complained that Mr. Jeffco had delayed Mr. Brouillard reacted to the Presentence Investigation Report in his August 22,

sent Mr. Linehan additional financial information from Mr. Brouillard. Linehan two days later on August 20,2003. On August 26, 2003, Mr. Jeffco also review and consideration of the package of medical records submitted to Mr. Linehan's Report. Mr. Jeffco viewed the Report as a"first draft," subject to On August 18,2003, Mr. Jeffco wrote to Mr. Brouillard, enclosing a copy ofMr.

sentencing ...." reports might"form the basis for a motion for downward departure in the receiving numerous medical reports through Mr. Jeffco; he indicated that the condition, including his cancer and treatment thereof. Mr. Linehan anticipated Mr. Linehan's Report included a summary of Mr. Brouillard's physical

pretty good." Mr. Brouillard was prepared to agree with Mr. Irish that"we all knew each other Mr. Brouillard should not be treated any more harshly than the others. However, entered pleas, Mr. Brouillard noted that they were more involved than he and that drug abuse. With reference to the three other co-defendants who had already sentenced for it, and that he suffered a medical condition possibly linked to his of substance abuse, to admit he was wrong and that he was prepared to be the sentencing judge. Mr. Brouillard proposed to summarize his personal history On July 21,2003, Mr. Brouillard sent Mr. Jeffco his draft personal statement to

pending sentencing. Mr. Brouillard's medical condition, the Court released Mr. Brouillard on bail, the statutory minimum. At the conclusion of the May 29 hearing, and in view of motions relating to"downward departure" in sentencing, i.e., sentencing below Guidelines. Mr. Garrigan agreed to the submission, but took no position on any indicated he intended to make the submission under Sect. 5H1.4 of the Sentencing Mr. Jeffco to offer medical evidence at the time of sentencing. Mr. Jeffco Prior to close of the hearing, counsel disclosed their further agreement to allow

with Mr. Jeffco's representation. consult with Mr. Jeffco regarding the plea agreement and that he was satisfied p. 7 Page 7 of 13 position. Jeffco claims he did not perceive any cause to respond to the government's determination that Mr. Brouillard was eligible for safety valve treatment. Mr. Investigation Report, causing Mr. Linehan to issue an Addendum withdrawing his Mr. Jeffco made no response to the government's objection to the Presentence

Report, including the offense level calculation. was accurate. Mr. Jeffco further indicated that there was no objection to the his client had reviewed the Presentence Investigation Report and that the Report valve. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Jeffco represented to the Court that he and level of cooperation and the government's position on application of the safety However, the parties had not had any further discussion about Mr. Brouillard's that time, Mr. Jeffco had forwarded updated medical information to Mr. Irish. Mr. Brouillard's sentencing hearing was convened on December 19,2003. By

subject to criminal forfeiture. criminal activity, so that all of Mr. Brouillard's interest in such property was nexus" between the Danbury Road residence property and Mr. Brouillard's judgment. He also agreed that the government had established the"requisite Preliminary Order of Forfeiture. Mr. Brouillard agreed to a $100,000 personal On November 17,2003, the parties agreed to the terms of a proposed

Sentencing was ultimately scheduled for December 19, 2003. would not have to serve any time in prison. Mr. Jeffco denies so indicating. that Mr. Jeffco indicated he thought there was a possibility that l\I'li. Brouillard medical records to offer in support of sentencing relief. Mr. Brouillard recalls In connection with sentencing, Mr. Jeffco focused his attention on obtaining

Investigation Report at the time of sentencing. government's position on the safety valve and the change in the Presentence position. Mr. Jeffco told Mr. Brouillard that he would address the issue of the he did not perceive any cause for responding or objecting to the government's Brouillard, file an objection to the Report or to the Addendum. Mr. Jeffco claims did not respond to Mr. Irish's objection to the Report; nor did he, on behalf ofMr. argument by defense counsel at the sentencing hearing in this case." Mr. Jeffco objection to application of the safety valve,"although it may be a point of Mr. Linehan concluded that the Addendum had"resolved" the government's

the criteria required under Sect. 5C1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines. drug conspiracy case, and that, accordingly, Mr. Brouillard had not satisfied all of Mr. Brouillard had not been truthful regarding his role and the role of others in the offense level to 25. Mr. Linehan deferred to the U.S. Attorney's assessment that to"safety valve" consideration for Mr. Brouillard, thereby increasing the total the Presentence Investigation Report on August 26, 2003, deleting any reference Responding to the government's objection, Mr. Linehan issued an Addendum to p. 8 Page 8 ofl3 he was still confused as to why he did not receive offense level reduction under On June 6, 2005, Mr. Brouillard wrote to Mr. Jeffco. Mr. Brouillard indicated

McAuliffe to get all the reliefI am entitled to." together we can come up with a plan of attack to get back in front of Judge outside legal assistance to help with the case and now proposed that"maybe Jeffco, at the beginning of their relationship, had rejected the idea of obtaining issues properly, resulting in financial loss. Mr. Brouillard further noted that Mr. received the materials requested and that Mr. Jeffco had not handled the forfeiture a"few lawyers as fellow inmates." Jy1"..r. Brouillard complained that he had not Mr. Brouillard wrote again to Mr. Jeffco on May 20, 2005, after consulting with

of Appeals, as well as copies of correspondence with the U.S. Attorney. copies of pleadings filed in the U.S. District Court and in the First Circuit Court some relief. Mr. Brouillard wrote to Mr. Jeffco on March 21, 2005, requesting decision to Mr. Brouillard, indicating that a recent court decision might offer On February 14, 2005, Mr. Jeffco forwarded the First Circuit Court of Appeals been requested and that Mr. Brouillard's argument in that regard was"forfeited." the District Court's decision, finding that protection of the safety valve had not On December 29, 2004, the First Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed

intended his Notice of Appeal to serve as an objection. Summary Affirmance. Nor did Mr. Jeffco file any other document indicating he filed Notice of Appeal, did not file an objection to the government's Motion for Sentencing Guidelines. Mr. Jeffco, relying on the position he took in the earlier­ minimum sentence based on medical evidence offered under Section 5Hl.4 of the court erred by declining to consider a downward departure from the statutory 3553(f) or Sect. 5Cl.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines. He also argued that the trial affording Mr. Brouillard protection under the safety valve provision at 18 U.S.C. First Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Jeffco argued that the trial court erred by not On December 23, 2003, Mr. Jeffco filed Defendant's Notice of Appeal with the

denied necessary medical treatment. The Court denied Mr. Jeffco's Motion. indications from Mr. Brouillard and his wife, Krista Robbins, that he was being Motion to Stay Sentence and Permit Defendant to Self-Report, following taken into custody. On December 22,2003, Mr. Jeffco filed an Emergency Probation Department and rejected Mr. Jeffco's position. Mr. Brouillard was The Court considered Mr. Irish's objection and assurances from the U.S.

sentence reduction or bases for objecting to the court's disposition. processed and placed as a new prisoner. Mr. J effco offered no other grounds for a Brouillard would not receive the necessary medical treatment while being urged a finding of"exceptional circumstances" based on the likelihood Mr. Mr. Jeffco was permitted an additional opportunity to address the Court. He p. 9 Page 9 of 13

the U.S. Probation Department's determination in this regard. federal Sentencing Guidelines, or contest the resulting change in relative to the applicability of the safety valve provision ofthe U.S. Probation Department's Presentence Investigation Report (a) Mr. Jeffco did not respond to the government's objection to the

as follows: There is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Jeffco breached said duty,

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 ~~ 1-122, at 1 to 29.

December 17, 2006, after serving a total of 34 months in prison. sentenced Mr. Brouillard to 36 months. Mr. Brouillard was released on co-conspirators. By order of October 13,2006, the u.s. District Court re­ Court also declined to consider alleged disparities in disposition of cases against accommodation under the Sentencing Guidelines for his medical condition. The sentence was 23. The Court declined to afford Mr. Brouillard any further originally recommended, that the total offense level applicable to Mr. Brouillard's minimum sentence. The Court ruled, as the Presentence Investigation Report had Sentencing Guidelines, allowing the Court to depart downward from the statutory was"fully compliant" with the requirements of the safety valve provision of the At the re-sentencing hearing, the government represented that Mr. Brouillard

Vacate Sentence. and June 2005 letters. On July 7, 2005, Mr. Brouillard,pro se, filed a Motion to in March, May, and June 2005. Mr. Jeffco does not remember receiving the May Mr. Jeffco did not respond to Mr. Brouillard's aforementioned correspondences

sessions." government's determination not to file a Sect. 5K1.1 motion"due to my pro-offer other avenue of appeal. Mr. Brouillard acknowledges that he understood the Report. He asked for an explanation of what happened and whether there was any the plea agreement and the content of the original Presentence Investigation the safety valve provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines, considering the terms of p. 10 Page 10 of 13 profession, and prevent similar conduct in the future." E.g., Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513

"is to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity of the legal

Kersey's Case, 150 N.H. 585,586 (2004). Rather, the purpose of the Court's disciplinary power

Disciplinary action and sanctions are not intended as a mode of inflicting punishment.

Stipulation ~~ 123-130, at 29 to 31.

various telephone calls and written inquires, as set forth herein. (c) Mr. Jeffco failed to timely respond to many ofMr. Brouillard's

interests in connection with sentencing. and alternative courses of action to protect Mr. Brouillard's sentencing. Mr. Jeffco also failed to discuss appropriate strategy the Presentence Investigation Report, and as anticipated at of the safety valve, as articulated in the govermnent's objection to relative to the effect of the govermnent's opposition to application (b) Mr. Jeffco failed to discuss with Mr. Brouillard and to advise him

govermnent's position on application of the safety valve. provision for safety valve treatment in sentencing and the tenns and effect of the plea agreement, with particular regard to the (a) Mr. Jeffco failed to adequately advise Mr. Brouillard relative to the

as follows: There is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Jeffco breached said duty,

Guidelines. sentencing for Mr. Brouillard under the federal Sentencing and on appeal, thereby causing delay in obtaining more appropriate failed diligently to protect Mr. Brouillard's interests at sentencing (c) By failing to address material issues, as set forth above, Mr. Jeffco

such treatment. treatment; and whether Mr. Brouillard was or should be eligible for was in breach of the plea agreement by opposing safety valve of eligibility for safety valve treatment; whether the govermnent U.S. Probation Department had properly changed its detennination (b) Mr. Jeffco did not address at the sentencing hearing whether the p. 11 Page 11 of 13

position regarding implementation of the agreement, aod alternative courses of action bearing on

his client relative to the terms of a plea agreement, the consequences of the government's

sentencing, aod in preserving his client's rights on appeal; aod b) by not adequately informing

diligently protecting his client's rights in connection with implementation of a plea agreement, in

Mr. leffco acknowledges causing serious or potentially serious harm to his client by a) not

diligent representation aod to communicate with his client. Under the third prong of the aoalysis,

fairly characterized as a combination of knowing aod negligent breaches of his duties to provide

Under the first aod second prongs of the aoalysis in this case, Mr. leffco's violations are

See Wolterbeek's Case, 152 N.H. 710, 714 (2005).

existence of aoy aggravating or mitigating factors aod whether they affect the baseline saoction.

saoction is determined, the Court then looks to the fourth aod final step in the aoalysis: the

for characterizing the misconduct aod determining a baseline saoction. After the baseline

The first three parts in the analysis recommended in the Standards create the framework

513 (2005).

existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." Standards § 3.0; Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503,

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

forth four factors to consider in imposing saoctions:"(a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's

determine the baseline saoction. Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005). The Standards set

Association's Standards/or Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992) ("Standards") for guidaoce to

The New Hampshire Supreme Court aod this Committee look to the Americao Bar

the misconduct." Id.

(2005) (internal quotation marks omitted)."The saoction must take into account the severity of p. 12 Page 12 of 13

Accordingly, the Committee concludes, and the Respondent and Assistant Disciplinary

disciplinary record is a significant mitigating factor.

aggravating factor. By the same token, Mr. Jeffco's many years of practice without a prior

The Committee identified Mr. Jeffco's substantial experience in the practice oflaw as an

Standards, Mr. Jeffco's conduct warrants a baseline sanction of Public Censure.

Upon consideration of the initial three-part test and the referenced language ofthe

4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when:

4.4: Lack of Diligence:

In determining a baseline sanction, the Standards offer the following guidance at Section

appropriate sentencing for Mr. Brouillard under the federal Sentencing Guidelines.

final disposition of the pending criminal matters. The foregoing caused delay in obtaining more p. 13 Page 13 of 13

File Russell F. Hilliard, Esquire James 1. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

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), Mr. Jeffco has the right to

prosecution of this matter.

Respondent. Mr. Jeffco is also assessed all costs associated with the investigation and

and 8.4(a) by clear and convincing evidence, the Committee issues a Public Censure to the

Based on the above reasons, having found violations of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3; 1.4

Public Censure.

can be maintained, and the integrity of the legal profession can be preserved by imposing a

It is the Committee's view that the public can be protected, public confidence in the Bar

Counsel stipulate, that the appropriate sanction in this matter is Public Censure.