This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Steven L. Maynard (2009)
Committee voted to impose a sanction of a six month suspension, stayed for one year, thereby
believes that continued supervision for an additional year will benefit Mr. Maynard. The
The Committee finds that this arrangement has been effective and constructive, and
COlT'u.'11ittee on l'Jovember 10, 2006, in.lv!aynard, Steven L. advs. James A. Pierce # 03-096.
instant matter pre-date a sanction of a six month suspension stayed for two years, issued by this
"The sanction must take into account the severity of the misconduct." !d. The events of the
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
Rule Prof. Conduct 1.5(a): Fees.
The Committee voted to accept the Stipulation as to the removal of a violation of N.H.
and Marilyn Billings McNamara. Richard Darling was not present.
David N. Cole, Thomas P. Connair, Gerald A. Daley, Gretchen Rule Hamel, James R. Martin,
Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, Susan R. Chollet, Alan J. Cronheim,
deliberated the above-captioned matter. Members present included: Margaret H. Nelson, Chair,
On February 17,2009, the Professional Conduct Committee heard Oral Argument and
SIX MONTH SUSPENSION STAYED FOR ONE YEAR
Maynard, Steven L. advs. Paul R. DeLuca # 07-062
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 File
Robert M. Parodi, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:
Chair Mar et . elson
March t[, 2009
matter.
Mr. Maynard is assessed all costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this
Committee's Order dated October 16,2006, in #03-096, shall apply and be extended accordingly.
suspension shall be extended to December 31, 2009. All terms and conditions of the
extending the requirements imposed by the decision in # 03-096. Mr. Maynard's stayed Trooper and arrested for possession of marijuana. Following his arrest,
2. On April 5, 2005, Paul R. DeLuca was stopped in his car by a State
03060-3408.
Maynard & Parodi, PLLC, 40 East Pearl Street, Nashua, New Hampshire
this proceeding, Mr. Maynard practiced law with the firm of Buchanan,
Mr. Maynard was admitted to practice in 1979. At all times material to
1. Mr. Maynard is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire.
1. Stipulation of Facts
captioned case.
this StipUlation as to Facts, Rule Violations and Sanction in the above
by and through Disciplinary Counsel, Landya McCafferty, Esq., hereby submit
Respondent, Steven 1. Maynard, Esq., and the Attorney Discipline Office,
AND SANCTION
STIPULATION AS TO FACTS, RULE VIOLATIONS
#07-062
Paul R. DeLuca
advs.
Maynard, Steven L.
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
j B
EXHIBIT 2
able to negotiate the felony charge pending in Rockingham County
8. After a suppression hearing and during jury selection, Mr. Maynard was
counties.
two new criminal cases pending in Rockingham and Hillsborough
in the past. Mr. DeLuca retained Mr. Maynard to represent him on these
7. Mr. DeLuca had retained Mr. Maynard to represent him on other matters
226-JD.
Building at 3 Radcliffe Drive, Nashua, New Hampshire, Docket No. 05-C-
6. The federal forfeiture case was entitled, United States v. Land and
docket number 05-S-1160.
Possession with Intent to Sell charge with the same case name, and
5. The Hillsborough County Superior Court -South case was also for felony
marIJuana.
felony Possession with Intent to Sell approximately five pounds of
Hampshire v. Paul DeLuca, Docket No. 05-S-1915. The charge was for
4. The Rockingham County Superior Court case was entitled, State of New
district court.
government filed a civil forfeiture action against him in the federal
Rockingham and Hillsborough County Superior Courts, and the federal
the State initiated criminal actions against Mr. DeLuca in both the
3. As a result of the arrest and subsequent search of Mr. DeLuca's home,
and found additional marijuana.
the State executed a search warrant at Mr. DeLuca's home in Nashua 3
discovery. I left a message for the Trooper to call me. I hope I filed an appearance in your case and have requested Dear Paul:
1 3. In a letter to Mr. DeLuca dated April 13, 2005, Mr. Maynard wrote:
indicated that he would be charging Mr. DeLuca on an hourly basis.
fee would fall. Mr. Maynard's intake information in Mr. DeLuca's file
simply gave Mr. DeLuca a range within which he expected the ultimate
charging an hourly rate, or some sort of flat fee. Rather, Mr. Maynard
$20,000.00. Mr. Maynard did not make clear whether he would be
case would be"expensive" a."d would likely cost between $15,000.00 and
retained Mr. Maynard upon Mr. Maynard's oral representation that the
12. At the inception of the representation, in April 2005, Mr. DeLuca
Maynard handled Mr. DeLuca's legal bills for the two criminal charges.
11. This attorney discipline case deals with the manner in which Mr.
lasted a total of 1 3 months.
10. Mr. Maynard's representation of Mr. DeLuca in the above two matter
against Mr. DeLuca was ultimately nol-prossed.
to Suppress the evidence obtained and the felony charge then pending
Hillsborough County matter, the Court (Hampsey, J.) granted the Motion
9. In or about May 2006, and following a suppression hearing in the
jail sentence.
and Mr. DeLuca pled guilty to the misdemeanor charge for a suspended
charge for a plea. On March 16, 2006, the State nol prossed the felony
Superior Court down to a misdemeanor Possession of Controlled Drug 4
were generally in amounts of $500.00 or $750.00.
Mr. DeLuca's money out of the trust fund and into the operating account
DeLuca during the preceding month or months. The disbursements of
disbursement amount based on the vlork he had completed for Mr.
basis during the representation. Mr. Maynard estimated the
account. Mr. Maynard made these authorizations on an almost monthly
monies out of the firm's trust account and into the firm's operating
17. Periodically, Mr. Maynard would authorize the transfer of Mr. DeLuca's
Maynard's law firm trust account.
16. Upon receipt, Mr. DeLuca's payments would be placed into Mr.
complied with those requests.
requests from Mr. Maynard to replenish his retainer; Mr. DeLuca
15. From April 2005, through May 2006, Mr. DeLuca received periodic
correspondence, as explained below in more detail.
agreement concerning fees to writing until the April 2 4, 2007,
1 4. Other than the April 13, 2005, letter, Mr. Maynard did not reduce any
If you have any questions please call me. and we will work from there. retainer at the earliest possible time in the amount of $7, 500 park of $15,000 to $20,000. I would ask that you get us a case is going to be expensive. I estimate legal fees in the ball avoid a conviction and/or serious penalty. However, the I am prepared to represent you and do the best we can to Rockingham County and/ or Hillsborough County. end up in the Superior Court in either Strafford County, going to be resolved in the district court; it will ultimately potentially extremely serious penalties involved. It is not you understand that your case is a serious one and there are 5
costs).
DeLuca. The total amount billed was $18,9 50.00 (including $150.00 in
22. On or about May 2 5, 2006, Mr. Maynard submitted an invoice to Mr.
Mr. DeLuca's case.
amount of fees for past work done on the basis of $2 50.00 per hour on
account on his own estimation of what he deemed was a"reasonable"
DeLuca's money from the firm's trust account to the firm's operating r-- 21. Mr. Maynard based his authorization to transfer specific amounts of Mr.
records of the time he spent working on Mr. DeLuca's cases.
representation of Mr. DeLuca--did Mr. Maynard keep contemporaneous
produced while representing Mr. Deluca, at no time during his
20. With the exception of notes and other file materials that Mr. Maynard
that accounted for the monies that Mr. Maynard withdrew.
Mr. Maynard send Mr. DeLuca an itemized bill, or anything in writing
explained in more detail below), at no time during the representation did
19. With the exception of Mr. Maynard's April 24, 2007, correspondence (as
October 11, 200 5 $750.00 September 20, 2005 $500.00 September 12, 2005 $500.00 August 15, 2005 $500.00 July 15, 2005 $750.00 June 1,2005 $500.00
amounts of Mr. DeLuca's retainer monies:
disbursed from the trust account to the operating account the following
18. By way of example, between June and October 200 5, Mr. Maynard 6
for Mr. Deluca and thereby prepare something akin to an"itemized"
to reconstruct and estimate the time spent on legal work he performed
Maynard utilized his calendar, notes, pleadings, and other file materials
25. Following his receipt of Mr. DeLuca's March 21,2007, letter, Mr.
Mr. Maynard's secretary.
on only two occasions and on one of those occasions spoke with Betty,
March 21, 2007, letter, Mr. DeLuca had telephoned Mr. Maynard's office
Mr. Maynard states that his records reveal that, prior to Mr. Deluca's
"numerous" conversations with his office about getting an itemized bilL
Mr. Maynard disputes Mr. Deluca's description of having had
your firm.... to your firm, including a listing of all payments I made to billed against the retainer and subsequent payments I made more money. I would like an itemized statement of your time only thing I have received was a bill indicating that lowe you yet to receive any such documentation from your office. The from the inception through the end. As of this date, I have itemized billing statement for your services rendered to me spoken with Betty and have left messages about getting an On numerous occasions I have contacted your office and Dear Attorney Maynard:
24. In a letter to Mr. Maynard dated March 21,2007, Mr. DeLuca wrote:
of the bookkeeping error, Mr. Maynard's law firm corrected the invoice.
made a total of$15,001.50 in payments to Mr. Maynard. Upon discovery
bookkeeping error rendered the invoice inaccurate. Mr. DeLuca had
$14,000.00 to date, and owed $4,950.00. As it turned out, a
23. The May 25 invoice reflected that Mr. DeLuca had paid a total of in
7
the Rockingham County Superior Court case. Only the portion relating
one for the Hillsborough County Superior Court case and the other for
2 7. Mr. Maynard's"breakdown of time spent" is divided into two sections,
further questions please feel free to contact me. I believe this satisfies all of your requests. If you have any defend. would probably cost between $15,000 and $25,000 to I made a good faith estimate at the outset that the cases a $5,000 retainer against time to be billed at $250 per hour. seizure of drugs. Our agreement was that you would pay me Superior Court South for the search of your home and in the Superior Court and in Hillsborough County in the Rockingham County initially in Hampton District Court then drug cases that had been filed in two courts - As you know, I had agreed to represent you in the felony $4,450. in October 2006 which makes a current balance due of of $14,000. You did make one additional payment of $500 received from you indicating that you made total payments I have once again attached a breakdown on payments time spent on your cases .... breakdown reasonably reflects a conservative statement of with prosecutors and meetings. However, I think the conferences and meetings with you, telephone conferences South. The breakdown does not reflect all the telephone Superior Court and Hillsborough County Superior Court spent on your criminal cases in Rockingham County As you have requested, enclosed is a breakdown of the time Dear Paul:
on Mr. DeLuca's two cases:
with what Mr. Maynard referred to as the"breakdown of the time spent"
26. On or about April 24, 200 7, Mr. Maynard sent the following cover letter
payments, as requested in Mr. DeLuca's March 21 letter.
statement of the time Mr. Maynard billed against Mr. DeLuca's retainer 8
and manner in which he accounted for his time and charged a fee.
reasonably informed about the status of his case, including the method
32. Mr. Maynard owed Mr. DeLuca an obligation to keep Mr. DeLuca
31. Factual findings set forth above are incorporated by reference.
Rule 1.4(a): Failure to Properly Communicate
DeLuca about his manner of billing, a Rule l.4(a) charge is appropriate.
benefit. As a result of Mr. Maynard's failures to communicate with Mr.
underestimated his actual time so that Mr. DeLuca received a financial
DeLuca's case, it is also true that Mr. Maynard appears to have
keep formal, contemporaneous records of the time he spent on Mr.
negotiated resolution. While Mr. Maynard concedes that he failed to
30. The parties have agreed to dismiss the Rule 1. 15(a) charge as part of the
Rule 1.1S(a): Failure to Safeguard Client Money
II. Stipulation as to Rules Violated
calculation:" 85.4 hours@ $250/hr. = $21,350.00."
29. Mr. Maynard's "breakdown of time spent" included the following total
he estimated the time spent for each entry.
other file materials to create the entries in the left-hand column, and that
2 8. Mr. Maynard states that he utilized his calendar, notes, pleadings and
"time spent."
a description of the work performed and the right-hand column lists the
entries. The document contains two columns: the left-hand column lists
to the Rockingham County Superior Court case contains dates for the 9
evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a).
violated the above rules, there is necessarily clear and convincing
3 9. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Maynard
Rule 8.4(a): General Rule
constitute a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a).
38. If proven by clear and convincing evidence, Mr. Maynard's conduct would
Mr. DeLuca reasonably informed of the status of his fees.
37. Mr. Maynard's conduct as described above constitutes a failure to keep
DeLuca during the relevant time-frame.
on an estimated basis as to how many hours he had worked for Mr.
36. Mr. Maynard removed Mr. DeLuca's money from the firm's trust account
the amount withdrawn and the basis of the withdrawal.
fees, Mr. Maynard did so without written disclosure to the client about
account, but when he removed funds from the trust account as"earned"
35. Mr. Maynard placed Mr. DeLuca's retainer funds into the firm's trust
Deluca's cases.
34. Mr. Maynard did not keep contemporary time records of his work on Mr.
about the status of his bill.
legal work on the case in order to respond to inquiries from the client
33. Mr. Maynard should have kept contemporaneous time records of his 10
law practice, there have been no negative reports from clients nor any
pursuant to #03-096). Since Mr. Parodi began monitoring Mr. Maynard's
in regular contact with Robert M. Parodi, Esq. (Mr. Maynard's monitor
44. Since the effective date of the prior Order, Disciplinary Counsel has been
time-period of Mr. Maynard's stay in # 03-096, to December 31,2009.
Committee issue a sanction in the instant case that would extend the
pre-dated the sanction in #03-096, the parties propose that the
43. In light of the fact that Mr. Maynard's misconduct in the instant case
charged as a result of Mr. Maynard's failure to properly record his time.
accounting and failures to communicate, and may well have been under
DeLuca was not harmed financially by Mr. Maynard's inadequate
instant case are serious. The parties also agree, however, that Mr.
42. The parties agree that Mr. Maynard's failures to communicate in the
suspension.
41. The material events underlying the instant case pre-date the #03-096
October 30, 2006).
10, 2006. See Exhibit 1 (copy of Committee's Order in #03-096, dated
stipulation. The Committee's Order in that case took effect on November
compliance with the detailed terms and conditions of the parties'
but stayed the suspension for two years contingent on Mr. Maynard's
096," the Committee imposed a six-month suspension on Mr. Maynard,
40. In a prior case entitled,"Maynard, Steven 1. advs. James A. Pierce, #03-
III. Stipulation as to Sanction 11
enforce the conditions of this stipulation.
as well as in connection with any process required to implement and
Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter,
50. Mr. Maynard agrees to pay the expenses incurred by the Professional
IV. Stipulation as to Costs
. ~ 49. A proposed order is attached as Exhibit 3 .
the stay in that case terminated on November 10, 2008.
48. Mr. Maynard agrees to extend the stay in # 03-096, acknowledging that
procedural defects in this proposed sanction. See Exhibit 2.
47. Mr. Maynard has waived the ability to challenge in the future any alleged
the proposed sanction; Mr. DeLuca is in agreement with the sanction.
46. Disciplinary Counsel has consulted with Mr. DeLuca about the terms of
Hampshire.
the instant case and would serve the goals of attorney discipline in New
096, accords proper weight to the nature of Mr. Maynard's misconduct in
45. An extension to December 31,2009, of the time period of the stay in #03-
that Mr. Parodi's supervision has been both effective and constructive.
regular contact with Disciplinary Counsel; Disciplinary Counsel believes
grievances filed with the Attorney Discipline Office. Mr. Parodi keeps in 12
/
Dated: -=Ic-l.-+-I_I ___ ~, 2008 BY:~~~~"'-.-- __ _
Steven L. Maynard, Esquire By: k~ Dated: __ 1_(.'--1 G_IQ-'-- __ , 2008
Respectfully submitted,
the facts and rule violations as stipulated.
Violations and Sanction, Mr. Maynard is nonetheless hereafter bound to
Conduct Committee does not agree with the Stipulation as to Rule
bound to the facts as stipulated. In the event that the Professional
51. Mr. Maynard understands that by signing this Stipulation, he is hereby
v. Effect of Stipulation admitted to practice in 1979. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Maynard operated 1.. Mr, Maynar'd is an attomey licensed to practice law in New Hampshire.. Mr.. Maynar'd was
the record supports the following findings of fact by clear' and convincing evidence: Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration and review of the Stipulation, determined that The parties entered into a Stipulation of Facts and Rules Violated. On October 17, 2006, the FACTUAL FINDINGS
as detailed below: Motions and Memoranda, the Professional Conduct Committee makes factual findings and lUlings I-Ia'llL'lg Ievie~.ved t.l:1e record, in.cIuding L~e l"Jotice of Charges, A.t~s"ver, Complaint History,
Mr. Maynard was also present. Attorney Discipline Office .. David A. Garfunkel, Esquire, appeared on behalf of the Respondent Page and Ioni M. Gray were absent Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel, appeared for the Hanlel and James R. Martin.. Margaret H. Nelson and Benette Pizzimenti were recused.. David N David N, Cole, Thomas P Connair, Gerald A, Daley, Repolter, Richard H. Darling, Gretchen Rule above-referenced matter. Members present were Alan J. Cronheim, Acting Chair, Ellen L Arnold, On October 17, 2006, the Professional Conduct Committee heard oral argument in the
Contingent on Compliance with Tellis and Conditions of Stipulated Agreement
Six Month Suspension, Stayed for Two Years
Maynard, Steven 1. advs. James A. Pierce # 03-096
AFFIRlVIING LANGUAGE IN STIPULATED AGREEMENT) (REISSUED TO CLARIFY PARAGRAPH REFERENCES AND
Alan J Cronhehn Holly B. Fazzino, Admin Coordinator Thomas P Connair * non attorney member David N. Cole David N Page* EUen L Arnold Jruues R Mrutin Toni M. Gray, * Vice Chair 603-224-58280 Fax 228-9511 Gretchen Rule Hamel Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 0330] Richard H. Darling' Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Pruk Stree~ Suite 304 Gerald A. Daley'
Professional Conduct Committee New Hampshire Supreme Court 1
EXHIBIT Page 2 of12
with medical releases, nor did he forward copies of these requests to Mr. Pierce. Maynard did not respond to any of these requests, other than providing one defense attorney discovery requests, including additional interrogatories and requests for medical records.. Mr. 10. Mear-l\vhi!e, throughout the Fall, 2002, the defendants propo1.mded nillllerous additional
Pierce's review or tender any discovery materials to defendants' counsel. 9.. Mr. Maynard did not prepar·e final answers to the August 20, 2002, interrogatories for Mr' credibility OnVll .. Pierce's version of events. concerned about the strength ofMr.. Pierce's lawsuit and, more specifically, about the intenogatories and after reviewing the medical records, Mr Maynard states that he became 8. At some point in the late FaIl~ 2002, after receiving TV!L Pierce's draft_answers to the T Dilling the Fall of2002, Mr.. Maynard reviewed Mr .. Pierce's relevant medical records. 2002, Mr. Pierce forwarded to Mr. Maynard his hand-written answers to the interrogatories. 6. Mr. Maynard forwarded the set ofintenogatOlies to lvlr. Pierce and, in or about September, MI. Pierce by one or mOle of the defendants.
5.. On or about August 20, 2002, Mr.. Maynard received a set ofintenogatories propounded of 4.. On August 2, 2002, Mr. Maynard filed an Appearance in that case on behalf of Mr. Pierce .. survived i..nitia! scmti_'1Y and should be served on the defend~_'1ts.. R. Muirhead's Report and Recommendation that Mr.. Pierce's claims of medical negligence 3.. In an Order dated August 1,2002, the federal district court granted Magistrate Judge James county jails. proceedings, Me Pierce was incarcerated at the New Hampshire State Prison or at one of the Superintendent. RCHC, et al.(docket #02-CV-164).. [Doc. #IJ At all times relevant to these
Corrections ("RCHC").. The action was entitled James A Pierce v. Gene Charron. medical malpractice against a number of employees at the Rockingham County House of District Court for the District of New Hampshire ("federal district court") alleging, inter alia, 2. On April 8, 2002, James A Pierce filed a l2!Q se civil rights complaint in the United States Hampshire, 03060-3408 .. his law office as Jordan, Maynard & Parodi, PLLC, 40 East Pearl Street, Nashua, New Page 3 of12
hereinafter refened to collectively as the"motions to dismiss.") remaining defendants filed motions to dismiss on the same grounds. (These motions are
grounds that lvir. Pierce had railed to exhaust his administr'ative remedies" Thereafter, the 17. On December 5, 2002, several defendants filed a motion to dismiss Mr' .. Pierce's lawsuit on Maynard's decision. during the Fall, 2002, meeting was heated, as MI'. Pierce was not satisfied with Mr. 16. Mr'.. Pierce did not agree with Mr .. Maynard's assessment of the case. Their conversation courl would have then forwarded pleadings and other mail directly to M1'. Pierce .. Mr'. Pierce's appearance pro se would have been that the defendants and the federal district ! 5 One practical effect of M1. Maynard's withdrawal (if the court permitted withdrawal) and
basis until he could secme new counsel. Mayn3Id to withdraw from the case so that Mr.. Pierce could represent himself on a JlIQ. se 14. Mr'.. Maynard did not explain to Mr'. Pierce that one option available to him was for Mr', to Mr Pierce, take any actions either to harm or to help his case Pierce had secured a new lawyer.. In the meantime, Mr. Maynard would not, as he explained lawyer. Mr'.. Maynard explained that he would file a withdrawal fi'Om the case only after M1.. 13.. Mr.. Maynard states that he advised Mr'.. Pierce dwing the Fall, 2002, meeting to seek a new administrative remedies at the RCHC before filing his lawsuit. respond to discovery requests or on the gr'Olmds that Mr .. Pierce had failed to exhaust his Mr·. Maynard states that he explained that the case would likely be dismissed for failure to
assisted Mr.. Pierce in this manner, Mr. Maynard would be committing a fraud on the COllit. Pierce that he would not respond to defendants' discovery requests out of concern that, ifhe any further action in the case on Mr.. Pierce's behalf Mr. Maynard states that he told Mr.. view of his assessment of the case and Mr.. Pierce's credibility, he was disinclined to take 12.. Dwing the Fall, 2002, meeting, Mr. Maynard states that he explained to M1.. Pierce that, in Pierce's claim. Ihis meeting is hereinafter refeIIed to as"the Fall, 2002, meeting." communicated his concerns about Mr.. Pierce's credibility and the overall weakness ofMr. 11. At some point in the late Fall, 2002, M1.. Maynard visited Mr. Pierce at the prison and Page 4 of12
motions to dismiss. communication [wm his attorney about either the pending discovery deadlines or the required the reopening of his federal lawsuit as he had never received any notice or other June 30, 2003, after writing to the Clerk of the district cOUlt. Mr Pierce argued that fairness reopen his federal lawsuit. Iv[r. Pierce had learned of L1-ris entry of judgment sometime before
29.. On or about September 20,2003, Mr. Pierce filed in federal district comt a pro se request to his lawsuit, Mr. Maynard informed Mr. Pierce that his federal lawsuit had been dismissed. 28 Dming the July 2,2003, visit, in response to a question from Mr. Pierce about the status of was at that time incarcerated at the Hillsborough COlmty House of Corrections ("HeHOC"). 27. On July 2,2003, in response to a request1l:om Mr. Pierce, Mr. Maynard visited Mr.. Pierce, who 2003, Mr.. Maynard did not cOJTl..municate with Mr.. Pierce. 26. From the time of their meeting at the prison in the late Fall, of2002 tlu'Ough early July of communicate with Mr. Pierce about the judgment 25 Mr.. Maynard did not forward a copy ofthe May 15 judgment to Mr. Pierce or otherwise 24. Judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on May 15, 2003
otherwise communicate with Mr. Pierce about the Orders. 23. Mr. Maynard did not f01ward a copy ofJudge McAuliffe's May 14 Orders to Mr. Pierce or mootness grounds.. granting the motions to dismiss, Judge McAuliffe dismissed the motions to compel on Pierce's lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.. As a result oihis Order 22. On May 14,2003, Honorable Steven 1. McAuliffe granted the motions to dismiss Mr.. motions to compel to Mr. Pierce or otherwise communicate with Mr.. Pierce about them. 21. Mr .. Maynard did not respond to the motions to compel; nor did he forward copies of the
(These motions are hereinafter referred to collectively as the"motions to compel.") 20. Similar defense motions to compel were filed on December 31, 2002, and April 15,2003. compel and for sanctions as a result ofMr.. Pierce's failure to comply with discovery requests. 19.. On Decemher 10, 2002, one of the defendants filed the first of a series of defense motions to motions to dismiss to Mr. Pierce or otherwise communicate with Mr. Pierce about them 18.. MI'.. Maynard did not respond to these motions to dismiss; nor did he forward copies of the Page 5 ofl2
committing a fraud on the COUll.. records) out of cone em that, ifhe assisted Mr. Pierce in this manner, Mr. Maynard would be Pierce's answers to interrogatories and other discovery (including Mr'. Pierce's medical Pierce's version of events and was not comfortable forwmding to the defendants Mr
34. As of the date of the Fall, 2002, meeting, Mr. Maynard states that he did not believe Mr'.
Rule 1.16(a)(1): Withdrawal
convincing evidence ofa violation ofNH. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a)-(c). 13.. Mr. Maynard's failure ofcornmunication as described above constitutes clear and informed decisions about his case extent that such explanation was reasonably necessary to permit Mr'. Pierce to make also failed to explain to Mr'.. Pierce the legal and practical aspects of Mr'. Pierce's case to the
Mr. Maynard failed to keep Mr.. Pierce reasonably informed about the status of his case and his case; and he did not inform Mr. Pierce that he could withdraw ii-om the case In so doing, motions to dismiss; he did not timely communicate with Mr .. Pierce about the dismissal of timely communicate with Ml'.. Pierce about the existence ofvmous discovery requests and 32.. As explained in more detail above, Mr.. Maynard failed to communicate in that he did not
Rule l.4(a).(c): Communication
that the record supports the following rulings oflaw by clear and convincing evidence: the Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration and review ofthe Stipulation, determined The parties had entered into a Stipulation off acts and rules violated. On October 17, 2006, RULINGS OF LAW
Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of prosecution. neglected to take any further action with respect thereto, and the First Circuit Court of 31. Mr Pierce filed a pro se notice of appeal ofJudge McAuliffe's October 7 Order but exhaust available remedies (and must do so) before plll'suing his claims in this court." his prior dismissal of Mr. Pierce's case was"without prejudice .. plaintiff remains free to 30 By Order dated October 7,2003, Judge McAuliffe denied Mr. Pierce's request but noted that Page 6 of 12
suspension stayed for two years under a series ofterms and conditions desigoed to closely monitor
Ihe parties, in their Stipulation, agr·eed on a sanction which would include a six month SANCTION
providing for remediation. better serve both the public and the Respondent by recognizing the seriousness of the violations, yet stayed suspension with a tightly controlled system ofmonitOling by a committed mentor could recuning complaints, a straightforward suspension might be an appropriate sanction. Conversely, a and the fact that his actions resulted Lll no fraud, deceit, or personal gain Given the Respondent's
warnings. Also to be considered, however, are the mitigating factors of the Respondent's remorse complaints to the Attomey Discipline Office, resulting in a reprimand, pubiic censures, and An aggravating factor in this case is the Respondent's hiStOlY, which includes several ANALYSIS
there is necessarily clear aJld convLTlcing evidence ofa violation of Rule 8..4(a). 38. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence of violation of the aforementioned Rules,
Rule 8.4( a): General Rule
violation otN.}! R. Prof Conduct U6(a)(1}.
37. Me. Maynard's conduct in this regard constitutes clem and convincing evidence of a Mr.. Maynard was required to withdraw from representation at that time. Mr.. Pierce would result in a violation ofthe rules of professional conduct (i.e., Rule 3.4(d)), 36. Because at the time of the Fall, 2002, meeting"tvfr. Maynard's continued representation of Pierce's answers to intenogatories.. responded to legally proper defense requests for discovery, including requests for Mr.. administrative remedies As ofthat date, Me. Maynmd was also awme that he had not yet likely be dismissed on that basis or on grounds ofMr. Pierce's failure to exhaust
Mr.. Pierce that he would not take fiuther action on Me. Pierce's case and the case would 35.. Further, as ofthe date ofthe Fall, 2002, meeting, Me Maynmd states that he explained to Page'7 of 12
assume Mr Parodi's responSibilities 1 When Mr. Parodi is unavailable because of vacations, trial schedule or other professional or personal reasons, Alexander S Buchanan, Esq _will
Maynard will not have authority to make tlJat determination. Mr.. who will decide whether the firm will undertake representation Mr. (c) All prospective civil cases will be screened by Robert Parudi, Esq. and availability., also support other attorneys in the office, depending upon workload
days a week).. The secretary assigned to support Mr.. Maynard may (Cunently, the secretary supporting Mr. Maynard works only four luHtime secretary to provide Mr.. Maynard with secretarial support. (b) Jordan, Maynard and Parodi (Mr. Maynard's law office) will assign a paragraph (m) below l Counsel regarding Mr. Maynard's compliance as provided in sub conditions ofthis Stipulation and also agrees to report to Disciplinary agrees to monitor Mr. Maynard's compliance with the terms and
Parodi (Mr. Maynard's law firm) and a signatory to this agreement, (a) Robert M. Parodi, Esq.., the managing partner ofJordan, Maynard and
monitoring of his practice oflaw, as described herein.. 1 Mr. Maynard agrees to comply with the terms ofthis Stipulation, including the
stayed for two years contingent on compliance with the following stipulated terms and conditions: Committee concluded that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a six month suspension to be Maynard's law firm in agreeing to monitor and supervise Me. Maynard's practice. Accordingly, the the parties. The Committee further took note of the level of interest and commitment shown by Mr.. future conduct would be prevented by the terms and conditions of the creative sanction stipulated by
the Bar would be maintained, the integrity ofthe legal profession would be preserved, and similar this case The Committee also recognized that the public would be protected, public confidence in of rules by Mr.. Maynard were part of a pattern and that suspension was an appropriate sanction in Mr. Maynard's practice oflaw.. The Professional Conduct Committee recognized that the violations Page 8 oil2
up with Mr·. Maynard, If Mr'. Par'Odi determines that a further identity of the caller and the reason fol' the call and will follow active case files, Mr. Parodi will inquire further about the
\'j If any of the logged=in individuals do not appear itl the firm's (~\ logs: (h) On a weekly basis, Mr. Parodi will review the mail and telephone correspondence. ofthe conespondence, and a brief description of the contents of the references.. The log entries win include the name ofthe client, the date her designated substitute) by client name with appropriate file which the paralegal is responsible) or by Mr'., Maynard's secretary (or
injury cases (if the corTespondence relates to a personal injruy file for or fax) will be logged in by the paralegal responsible for personal (g) All incoming client conespondence to Mr,. Maynard (whether by mail message, a copy ofthat message",~ll be attached to the log. make a notation to that effect on the log. lfthe caller elects to leave a voicemaiL If the caller selects voicemail.Mr.. Maynard's secretary will to leave a message with the secretary or to be put into Mr. Maynard's Mr'.. Maynard is not available, the caller will be asked if he/she prefers substitute) who will log in the calls by caller name, date and time., If secretary assigned to support Mr Maynard (or her designated
(f) All incoming calls for Mr', Maynard will be routed first to the That paralegal will report to and be supervised by Mr·, Parodi,. by a secretary/paralegal with personal injury litigation experience. (e) Diarying and docketing for all personal injury cases will be performed review/discuss Mr Maynard's civil cases (d) Mr. Parodi will meet with Mr', Maynard on a weekly basis to been screened and accepted by Mr.. Parodi. Maynard, however, may provide representation in civil cases that have Yage ':/ or 1L
diligence and/or communication with hls clients in accordance with basis whether there are issues or concerns regarding l\1r. Maynard's (m) Mr. Parodi wiiI report to the Attorney Discipiine Office on a monthly
who retains his services which will include a description of the fee (1) Mr. Maynard will provide an engagement/fee letter to every client related in any way to the criminal case. representation in any other case, including any civil cases that may be make clear that representation in such Ci!ses does not include
(k) The fum's engagement/fee letter for criminal cases will be modified to ensme that this procedme is being followed.. this policy and Mr Parodi will confer with her on a weekly basis to Mr.. Maynard's clients Mr.. Maynard's secretary will be informed of and all pleadings filed by l'vtr.. Maynard w1ll be copied and provided to comt, all pleadings filed by opposing counsel, all discovery requests, (j) With respect to Mr. Maynard's cases, all orders received from the his cases, including the criminal cases..
However, the mail and call logs described above will be kept for all of deciding whether to undertake representation in criminal cases (i) Mr Maynard will continue to have independent responsibility for individuaL will be copied on any response Mr. Maynard sends to the appropriate, he will discuss the matter with Mr Maynard and client is appropriate. If he determines that a further response is files, Me Parodi will determine if a further response to the (ii) If the logged-in individuals do appear in the firm's active case response l'vfr. Maynard sends to the individual.
with Mr. Maynard and Mr.. Parodi will be copied on any response to the caller is appropriate, he will discuss the matter Page 10 ofl2
mises out of events that predate adoption of this Stipnlation by the Professional 4.. If the Attorney Discipline Office receives a complaint against Mr'. Maynard that the N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct. either a materia! breach ofthe terms of the Stipulation or constitutes a violation of establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr .. Maynard's reported conduct is
proofthat Disciplinmy Counsel must meet is as follows: Disciplinary Cormsel must month suspension based upon information reported by Mr .. Parodi, the burden of 3. In any proceeding rmder paragraph 2 ofthis Stipulation to impose the stayed six suspension is warranted. proof by a preponderance ofthe evidence to estabiish that imposition of the stayed Com..mittee's decision shall be finaL Disciplinmy Counsel shall have the burden of (10) minutes to address the issue of imposition ofthe stayed suspension. The oral arguments will be conducted to allow Disciplinary Counsel and Mr'. Maynard ten
imposition of the six month suspension should be granted or denied. Unless waived, for such hearing, t.he Corrm1ittee shall determine whether the motion requesting mgument. Following mr evidentimy heming (ifrequested), or the denial ofa request The Committee shall rule upon any request for an evidentiary hearing and for oral an evidentimy hearing thereon, and to request oral mgument before the Committee shall have the light to respond in writing to Disciplinmy Counsel's motion, to request requesting that the Committee impose the stayed six month suspension. Mr .. Maynard matedal violation, she may file a motion with the Professional Conduct Committee event. If Disciplinary Counsel concludes that, in her opinion, the reported event is a provide Disciplinmy Counsel with any additional information regm'ding the reported
investigation, if any, that she deems appropriate. Mr. Maynard shall have the right to making that determination, Disciplinmy Counsel may conduct such further opinion, the reported event is a material violation ofthe terms of this Stipulation. In Disciplinmy Counsel shall review that report mrd shall determine whether, in her 2. InvIr. Parodi reports issues or concerns in accordance with paragraph l(m),
the telms ofthe Stipulation. Page 11 of 12
8. If the law film ofJOldan, Parodi and Maynard should dissolve, 01 ifMr Maynard or such lesser suspension is appropriate under the facts presented have the discretion to impose a suspension ofless than six months if it tlnds that been proven in accordance with the applicable provisions of this Stipulation, it shall Conduct Committee finds that a basis for imposition of the stayed suspension has 7 In any proceeding to impose the six month stayed suspension, if the Professional disposition of that complaint complaint under paragraph 5 hereof' must be initiated within 30 days affinal stay.. Any request for imposition of the stayed suspension that is based upon a complaints 01 motions ale concluded after the expiration ofthe two year period of'the imposition ofthe stayed six month suspension even if the proceedings on such motions are filed during the two year period, they can provide a basis for seeking pending pursuant to paragraphs 2 or 5 ofthis Stipulation. Ifsuch complaints or shall be permanently stayed provided that there are no complaints or motions 6. At the conclusion of the two yea!' period described herein, the six month suspension Conduct Committee Maynard shall be entitled to an evidentiary hearing and review by the Professional month suspension in this case. If Disciplinary COlmsel makes such a request, Mr. Disciplinary Counsel that the Professional Conduct Committee impose the stayed six Conduct that may result from that complaint may provide a basis for a request by an expedited basis.. ..-'\ny final adjudication of a violation ofthe Rules of Professional
two year stay, that complaint will be processed by the Attorney Discipline Office on Stipulation by the Professional Conduct Committee and are within the period of the the period ofthe two year' stay that arises out of events that post date adoption ofthis 5. If the Attorney Discipline Office receives a complaint against Mr. Maynard during suspension in this ease. result from that complaint will not be a basis for imposition of the six month business.. Any finding ofaviolation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that may Conduct Committee, that complaint will be processed in the ordinary course of Page 12 of 12
File Robert Par'odi, Esquire David A. Garfunkel, EsquiTc c.c Landya B.. McCafferty, Disciplinary Cou,'lsel
Acting Chair _~A1~7wLn~J~.. ~C~ro~nh~e~Un--~~·--~ October 30, 2006 t~CAJVV !'\../~v.9A.rJ\/'./'~_-~ /J C· O· effect on November 10, 2006 ..
3A(d): Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, and Rule 8..4(a): Misconduct Ihis order shall take and 13(b)(2): Diligence, Rule 14 (a)-(c): CO!IL1TIunication, Rule 1.16(a)(I): Withdrawal, Rule compliance with the stipulated agreement above, for violating N.H. R. Prof. Conduct Rule U(a) L Maynard be suspended for six months, suspension to be stayed for two years contingent on For all ofthe above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee hereby orders that Steven CONCLUSION
investigation and prosecution of this matter. Ihe Committee also accepts the Respondent's stipulated assent to pay costs incurred in the
30 days to cure. provisions of the Stipulation that are not acceptable and Mr.. Maynard shall be given the new Stipulation is rejected by the Committee, the Committee shall specify those shall thereafter be presented to the Proiessional Conduct Committee for its review. If immediately. Ihis StipUlation shall be renegotiated within 60 days of such event and Mr. Parodi should separate from the fum, Disciplinary Counsel shall be notified