Curtis E. Payne (2008)

convincing evidence, and acceptance of the Stipulation as to the Rule violations by clear and

Mandatory Diversion. The Committee voted to accept the StipUlation as to the facts by clear and

Professional Misconduct Based on a Stipulation, and to Issue a Reprimand with Provision for

The Committee granted the Motion to Permit Waiver of Hearings Committee Process, to Find

Diversion.

Misconduct Based on a Stipulation, and to Issue a Reprimand with Provision for Mandatory

including the Motion to Permit Waiver of Hearings Committee Process, to Find Professional

Marilyn Billings McNamara, Esq. The Committee thoroughly reviewed the record in this matter,

Cronheim, Esq., Richard H. Darling, Gretchen Rule Hamel, Esq., James R. Martin, Esq. and

matter. Members present included: Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, David N. Cole, Esq., Alan 1.

On September 16, 2008, the Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the above-captioned

Gerald A. Daley* Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Alan J. Cronheim * non attorney member Thomas P. Connair David N. Cole Marilyn Billings McNamara Toni M. Gray,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 CJ Fax 228-9511 James R. Martin Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Gretchen Rule Hamel Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Richard H. Darling*

contradicted Mr. Larocque's version of events.

identified as being potentially helpful to Mr. Larocque's defense, directly

6. Mr. Payne filed the Motion after two witnesses whom Mr. Larocque had

mount a defense on his behalf."

stated that"Mr. Larocque is insisting on a trial and Attorney Payne is unable to

Mr. Larocque's case and finding his allegation of the facts to be false." He further

5. In that Motion, Mr. Payne stated that he"makes this request after investigating

asking for pennission to withdraw.

4. At the time of the final pretrial hearing, Mr. Payne filed a Motion with the Court

Superior Court.

matter of State v. Larocque, Docket No. 05..;S-880, 881 and 88 p. 2 2 in Grafton County

3. Mr. Payne was appointed by the Court to represent Douglas Larocque in the

P.O. Box 5 p. 2 2, Enfield, New Hampshire 03748.

New Hampshire with a mailing address of p. 2 278 New Hampshire Route 4, Suite 3,

p. 2 2. At all relevant times hereto Mr. Payne has maintained a law practice in Enfield,

1. Mr. Payne was admitted to the New Hampshire Bar in p. 2 2002.

factual findings by clear and convincing evidence:

The Professional Conduct Committee has detennined that the record supports the following

detailed below.

convincing evidence. The Committee reiterates those factual findings and rulings of law as p. 3 3

purposes of attorney discipline as described by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See, ~

is a reprimand with mandatory diversion as set forth below. This sanction is in accord with the

accepted the Stipulation as to sanction and concludes that the appropriate discipline in this matter

Following a careful review of the record by the PCC panel members sitting, the Committee

general rule, N.H.R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a).

10. It is also agreed that the above violations necessarily constitute a violation of the

N.H.R. Prof. Conduct 1.6(a) and 1.16( d) by clear and convincing evidence.

9. It is agreed that the conduct described in this Stipulation constitutes violations of

violated the Rules of Professional Conduct as follows:

Conduct Committee concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence that Curtis E. Payne

The above-listed facts having been found by clear and convincing evidence, the Professional

obligation to withdraw in a manner that protected his client's interests.

an unauthorized disclosure of confidential information and violated Mr. Payne's

and had found Mr. Larocque's allegations as to the facts to be false amounted to

8. Mr. Payne's disclosure to the Court that he had investigated Mr. Larocque's case

take necessary steps to protect Mr. Larocque's interests upon withdrawal.

client. Nonetheless, to withdraw appropriately, Mr. Payne would be required to

if he believed that there was a fundamental breakdown in his relationship with his

7. Mr. Payne may have had reason to request permission from the Court to'withdraw p. 4 4

Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.6(a), 1. 16(d), and 8. p. 4 4(a). In addition, Mr. Payne is required to

With Mandatory Diversion as delineated above to Curtis E. Payne, Esquire, for violating N.H.

For all of the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee hereby issues a Reprimand

513 (2005).

attorney discipline in New Hampshire. See, M. Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503,

for Imposing Lawyer Sanction~ Standard p. 4 4.23, as well as the purposes of

appropriate sanction, and is consistent with the purposes of the ABA Standards

hours of continuing legal education in the areas of criminal law and ethics, is the

coupled with mandatory diversion requiring Mr. Payne to complete 12 additional

1 p. 4 4. In light of the mitigating factors, the Committee concludes that a reprimand when

13. Mr. Payne has been cooperative with the Attorney Discipline Office.

withdraw in circumstances such as this.

criminal defense lawyer should appropriately request leave of the Court to

motive, but rather resulted from his negligence in failing to understand how a

12. Mr. Payne's misconduct in this matter did not involve a dishonest or selfish

11. Mr. Payne has no instances of prior misconduct.

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

Shillen's Case, 1 p. 4 49 N.H. 132, 139 (2003) (noting that, although the Court has never formally

Professional Responsibility, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991). See,~,

teld's Case, 1 p. 4 49 N.H. 19,28 (2002). This sanction is also in accord with the ABA Center for p. 5 5

File Douglas Larocque Thomas V. Trevethick, Deputy General Counsel Curtis E. Payne, Esquire Distribution:

Committee for all expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

requirements. The Committee orders Mr. Payne to reimburse the Professional Conduct

forward for the next reporting year. This requirement is in addition to the standard CLE

this Order with at least four of these credits being"live." These credits can not be carried

complete twelve Continuing Legal Education Credits in Ethics within one year from the date of p. 6 1. Mr. Payne was admitted to the New Hampshire Bar in 2002.

I. Stipulation to Facts

Payne hereby stipulate as follows:

Deputy General Counsel Thomas V. Trevethick and Respondent Curtis E.

7. Mr. Payne may have had reason to request permission from

6. Mr. Payne filed the Motion after two witnesses whom Mr.

5. In that Motion, Mr. Payne stated that he"makes this request

4. At the time of the final pretrial hearing, Mr. Payne filed a

3. Mr. Payne was appointed by the Court to represent Douglas

p. 7 2. At all relevant times hereto Mr. Payne has maintained a law p. 8 3

11. Mr. Payne has no instances of prior misconduct.

III. Mitigating Factors

10. It is also agreed that the above violations necessarily

9. It is agreed that the conduct described in this Stipulation

II. Stipulation as to Rules Violated

8. Mr. Payne's disclosure to the Court that he had investigated

15. While Deputy General Counsel and Respondent agree to be

1 p. 9 4. In light of the mitigating factors, it is agreed that a

IV. Sanction

13. Mr. Payne has been cooperative with the Attorney Discipline

12. Mr. Payne's misconduct in this matter did not involve a p. 10 5

G:\DOCS\Complaint Screening,Concl usionslConcl usion - 2008\08-0 I O. stipulation.doc

Dated: August 6, 2008 clL{;M

Dated: August ~,2008