Martin K. Glennon (2007)

all the violations enumerated in the Notice of Charges. arguments were confined only to the matter of sanction since Attorney Glennon had stipulated to Oral Argument then proceeded, presented by Attorney McCafferty and Attorney Horan. These

Medical Records and letter. presented to, and discussed by, the Hearing Panel. The Committee further voted to Seal the The Committee voted to accept the records and letter since the facts contained therein had been

September 30, 2005. This was evidence not presented to the Hearing Panel. an appendix to the Memorandum in Opposition to the Hearing Panel Recommendation, fIled the Medical Records of Martin K. Glennon and a letter from his treating physician be included as The Committee members first reviewed and discussed a Request, received October 12,2005, that

Disciplinary Counsel, representing the Professional Conduct Committee. was present with his attorney, David A. Horan, Esquire, as was Landya B. McCafferty, were recused. Not present were Nancy Hacking and Stephen Stepanek. Attorney Martin Glennon Gretchen Rule Hamel and Toni M. Gray, Reporter. Margaret H. Nelson and James R. Martin Alan J. Cronheim; David N. Page; Eleanor Wm. Dahar; David N. Cole; Thomas P. Connair; matter. The Committee members hearing the matter included: Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair; On October 18, 2005, the Professional Conduct Committee considered the above-referenced

Glennon, Martin K. advs. Professional Conduct Committee #03-065

Compel. The Court issued an Order that same date giving Auto Fair until November 30, 4. On October p. 2 29,2002, the Court (Abramson, J.) held a hearing on Mr. Hirsch's Motion to

to respond properly and fully to interrogatories and request for documents. 3. On August 5, p. 2 2002, Mr. Hirsch filed a Motion to Compel as a result of Auto Fair's failure

Trial was scheduled for November 18, p. 2 2002. complete discovery on October 1, 2002, and file pretrial statements by October 15,2002. and produce them for depositions on or before October 1,2002. The parties were to discovery schedule, giving Auto Fair until August 1,2002, to disclose all of its experts 2. On February 5, 2002, the Court (Lewis, J.) held a structuring conference. The Court set a

appearance in these cases on August p. 2 23, 2001. consolidated the two lawsuits (docket nos. 01-E- 438 and 02-C-97) for trial. He filed his brought against it by J effi'ey Hirsch. The Rockingham County Superior Court 1. Attorney Glennon represented Auto Fair Ford, Inc. ("Auto Fair") in two separate lawsuits

following Findings of Fact by clear and convincing evidence. After due consideration the Professional Conduct Committee determined the record supports the

December 15, 199 p. 3 3, and #94-100 dated March 19, 1995. records of two prior disciplinary actions involving Attorney Glennon, LD-93-00 p. 2 2 dated September 7,2005, an addendum to the Hearing Panel Report dated September 16,2005, and the the Hearing before the Hearing Panel dated August 29, 2005, the Hearing Panel Report dated the Stipulation dated August 8, 2005, exhibits presented to the Hearing Panel, the transcript of The Committee then deliberated, reviewing the Notice of Charges, the pleadings of the parties, 3

Liability and directed a verdict in his favor on liability. In that Order, the Court also Auto Fair, the Court (McHugh, J.) granted Mr. Hirsch's Motion for Default Judgment on 10. By order dated February p. 3 3, 2003, and as a result of his dilatory actions as counsel for

Motion. and would be filing an immediate Motion to Withdraw. After the TMC he did not file that documents. He told the Court that he was unable to participate in the litigation any further counsel for not having complied with past Court orders concerning the production of 9. Attorney Glennon appeared at the TMC and apologized to the Court and Mr. Hirsch's

("TMC"). 8. On January 16, 200 p. 3 3, the Court (McHugh, J.) held a Trial Management Conference

200 p. 3 3. 7. In the meantime, the Court had continued the November, 2002, trial date to January 27,

file a pretrial statement containing its witness list. testifYing at trial on Auto Fair's behalf. This request was based on Auto Fair's failure to documents. In the latter, Mr. Hirsch requested the Court to preclude any witnesses from requested a default as to liability for Auto Fair's failure to produce the above-referenced Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony. In the former, Mr. Hirsch 6. On January 6, 200 p. 3 3, Mr. Hirsch filed a Renewed Motion for Default Judgment and a

December p. 3 31, 2002. Auto Fair failed to produce the docwnents. 2002, conditionally granting the Motion unless Auto Fair produced the docwnents by 5. In response to that Motion, the Court (Abramson, J.) issued an Order dated December 24,

producing the docwnents, Mr. Hirsch filed a Motion for Default Judgment on Liability. 2002, to produce the required docwnents. When that deadline passed without Auto Fair p. 4 4

the interests of Auto Fair, Rules 1.1(b)(5); 1.1(c)( p. 4 4). schedule necessary to assure that the litigation was completed with no avoidable harm to failing to prepare the case for trial, Rule 1.1 (b)( 4); and failing to attend to details and personal shortcomings and bring those to the attention of Auto Fair, Rule 1.l(b)(3); to perform the techniques of practice with skill, Rule 1.1(b)(2); failing to identifY his directed a verdict on liability in favor of Mr. Hirsch. This incompetence included failing competent representation to Auto Fair. Due to his dilatory representation, Judge McHugh 13. Throughout the litigation involving Mr. Hirsch, Attorney Glennon failed to provide

Rules 1.1: Competence

Violations occurred: The Professional Conduct Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that the following

Exhibit 3 in the Exhibits presented to the Hearing Panel). (McHugh, J.) granted Mr. Holmes' Motion. (A copy of this Order was included as to Strike Default Judgment on Liability. By Order dated April I, 2003, the Court 12. Thereafter, Auto Fair hired new counsel, Gregory A. Holmes. Mr. Holmes filed a Motion

damages trial with a time buffer to permit Auto Fair the ability to retain new counsel. business address in Manchester. In its Order, the Court noted that it was scheduling the 11. The Court forwarded a copy of its February 3, 2003, Order, directly to Auto Fair at its

2003. discovery in the case and set a trial date for damages for April 17, 2003 and April 18, granted Mr. Hirsch's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony, closed p. 5 5

discovery, he repeatedly disobeyed these Rules by igooring discovery deadlines and 17. Despite Attorney Glennon's awareness of Superior Court Rules 3 p. 5 5 and 36 governing

Rule 3.4(c): Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

withdrew from the matter. notified by the Court of the default judgment against them that Attorney Glennon finally materially impeded his ability to represent Auto Fair. It was not until Auto Fair had been 16,2003, that he planned to do so, having now recogllized that his"personal issues" 16, Attorney Glennon failed to withdraw from the case despite telling the Court on January

Rule 1.16(a)(2): Withdrawal

filed on January 6, 2003. Default Judgment and his Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony, both Order on that Motion dated December 24, 2002, and Mr. Hirsch's Renewed Motion for 2002, Mr. Hirsch's first Motion for Default Judgment on Liability, Judge Abramson's August p. 5 5, 2002, Judge Abramson's Order on the Motion to Compel dated October 29, Motion for Conditional Default filed on June 6, 2002, Hirsch's Motion to Compel filed on February 3, 2003, Order. Attorney Glennon also failed to inform him of Mr. Hirsch's conduct in the litigation until'the Court forwarded to him a copy of Judge McHugh's 15. Auto Fair's principal, Daniel Prior, had no knowledge of Attorney Glennon's dilatory

Rule 1.4: Communication

reasonable promptness and diligence in representing Auto Fair. 14. Throughout the litigation involving Mr. Hirsch, Attorney Glennon failed to act with

Rule 1.3(a): Diligeuce p. 6 6

particularly troubling when contained in a sworn statement presented to the Court. best light, this inattention to detail demonstrated Attorney Glennon's shortcomings and was overlooked it, concentrating instead on the major facts detailed in the affidavit. Viewed in the Attorney Glennon, through his attorney, excused this misstatement by claiming to have

period of 90 days in 1994. in good standing since 197 p. 6 6 when, in fact, he had been suspended from the practice of law for a Motion to Strike Default Judgment on Liability. In it, Attorney Glennon claimed to be a lawyer Attorney Glennon. This affidavit was submitted to Judge McHugh in support of Auto Fair's Professional Conduct Committee, was a misstatement contained in an affidavit sworn to by A further area of concern, expressed in the Hearing Panel Report and considered by the

Conduct Committee in 1995. The Committee found these to be aggravating factors. by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1993, and a Reprimand issued by the Professional chronicled a failure to adequately represent clients, one resulting in a 90-day suspension imposed This matter did not appear to be an isolated instance. Two previous disciplinary actions

Committee considered aggravating and mitigating facts before reaching a decision on sanction. Since Attorney Glennon had stipulated to the Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law, the

18. By violating all the above-referenced Rules, Attorney Glennon has also violated 8.4(a).

Rule 8.4(a): Misconduct

documents. requests for simple discovery, such as expert witness disclosures and the production of p. 7 7

upon receipt by the Committee before that date of: Rule 3 p. 7 7 A(II)( d)(2) on July 1, 2006, without further hearing before this Committee conditioned Attorney Glennon may apply for Reinstatement to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, subject to

promptly obtained. Supreme Court Rule 3 p. 7 7(13). suspension date. The notice to be given to his clients shall advise that alternate counsel should be matters or proceedings of his suspension and consequent inability to act as an attorney as of the matters or administrative proceedings and the attorney or attorneys for each adverse party in such registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, each client who is involved in litigated 2006, or has not arranged for substitute counsel for his clients by that date, he shall notifY by To the extent that Attorney Glennon has not filed withdrawals in pending cases by January 1,

them when imposing sanction). that although the Court has never formally adopted these Standards, the Court has considered Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991). See, e.g., Shillen's Case, 149 N.H. 132, 139 (2003) (noting case is also in accord with the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Standards for described by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See, Feld's Case, 149 N.H. 19,28 (2002). This effect on January 1,2006. The sanction is in accord with the purposes of attorney discipline as prosecution of this matter. New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 3 p. 7 7(3). The suspension shall take months and directed to reimburse the Committee for its expenses in the investigation and suspension. Attorney Glennon is therefore suspended from the practice of law for a period of six The Committee found that an appropriate sanction for all the violations enumerated above was a

before reaching a decision on sanction. time of the violations and his clean record since that time. The Committee considered these facts In mitigation, Attorney Glennon asked the Committee to consider his compromised health at the p. 8 8

to compliance with the physician's treatment recommendations. b) A letter from his treating physician at the conclusion of the period of suspension, attesting Examination after the date of this Order. a) Verification that he has successfully completed the Multistate Professional Responsibility p. 9 157 (2003) and in Morgan's Case, 143 N.H. 475 (1999) laid out the law to be

3. The New Hampshire Supreme Court in O'Meara's Case, 150 N.H.

2005 as well as during oral arguments on October 18, 2005.

Opposition to Hearing Panel's Recommendation submitted on September 30,

to the attention of the Committee in the respondent's Memorandum in

considering all of the mitigating factors present in this case which were brought

misapprehended the law with respect to lawyer disciplinary cases by not

respondent asserts that the Professional Conduct Committee overlooked or

month suspension pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37A(VI)(a). The

2. The respondent herein is requesting reconsideration of this six

suspended from the practice of law for six months effective January 1, 2006.

issued a final decision in the above-captioned case and ordered the respondent

1. On December 1, 2005, the Professional Conduct Committee

says as follows:

attorney, David Horan, with this Motion to Reconsider and in support thereof

NOW COMES the respondent, Martin K. Glennon, by and through his

behavior

- There was no selfish or dishonest motive prompting the respondent's

in this case:

for six months appears to have overlooked the following mitigating facts present

6. The Committee in entering its decision suspending the respondent

respondent.

the significance or lack thereof of the mitigating factors offered by the

conduct broken by the respondent. No rulings of law were made with respect to

separate rulings of law. All of these rulings dealt with the rules of professional

5. The Committee in its December 1, p. 10 2005 decision made six

his memorandum or argument.

other with respect to any of the mitigating factors offered by the respondent in

admitted by the respondent. No factual findings were made one way or the

misconduct alleged in the notice of charges and all of which were ultimately

separate findings of fact, all of which dealt with various aspects of the

4. The Committee in its December 1, p. 10 2005 decision made twelve

disclosed by the record".

account the severity of the miscond uct and any mitigating circumstances

sanction imposed must be sufficient to achieve those goals and must take into

of the legal profession and prevent similar conduct in the future ... The

protect the public, maintain public confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity

as a mode of inflicting punishment for an offense ... rather its purpose is to

applied in lawyer disciplinary cases as follows: "... Discipline is not intended p. 11 3

and

A. That the Committee reconsider its December 1, 2005 decision;

grant the following relief:

WHEREFORE, the respondent respectfully requests that the Committee

Committee's eight page decision.

time, no actual discussion of these two mitigating factors is present in the

compromised health at the time of the violations and his clear record since that

note of the fact that Attorney Glennon asked the Committee to consider his

7. Although the Committee in its December 1, 2005 decision makes

December 1, 2005 decision.

None of these mitigating factors were discussed in the Committee's

brought to the Committee's attention.

of other clients during the past 2 Y, years since the allegations here were first

-The respondent has performed competent legal services for a number

-The respondent repeatedly expressed remorse for his misconduct.

-The respondent accepted full responsibility for his misconduct.

investigation of this matter.

-The respondent cooperated completely with the Committee's

time of the misconduct but have since been treated.

-Both the acute depression and sleep apnea were undiagnosed atthe

at the time of his misconduct.

-The respondent was suffering from acute depression and sleep apnea p. 12 4

first-class mail. sent to Landya McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel by both e-mail and regular I hereby certify that a copy of the within Motion to Reconsider was today

concerning this matter.

D. That the Committee take any and all other appropriate action

Hampshire Supreme Court will run; and

decision until the timeframe during which an appeal can be taken to the New

C. That the Committee stay the January 1, 2006 effective date of its

recommendations: and

doctors certifying that he has been following their treatment and medication

respondent remain of good behavior and submit quarterly reports from his

holding the six month suspension in abeyance subject to the conditions that the

B. That the Committee amend its December 1, 2005 decision by p. 13 File

David Horan, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

limited to, those mitigating factors included in the instant motion. Conduct Committee considered all ofthe mitigating factors present in this case, including, but not Respondent's Motion to Reconsider, dated December 12, 2005, on the basis that the Professional On December 13, 2005, the Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration, denied

Glennon, Martin K. advs. Professional Conduct Committee # 03-065

Eleanor Wm. Dahar Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Alan J. Cronheim Thomas P. Connair * non attorney member David N. Cole Stephen B. Stepanek * Toni M. Gray,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828. Fax 228-9511 David N. Page* Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 James R. Martin Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Park Street, Suite 304 Gretchen Rule Hamel

Landya B. McCafferty, Esquire David A. Horan, Esquire Distribution:

appeal shall stay the suspension, pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37 A(III)( d)( 4)(B) . Glennon files an appeal witb the New Hampshire Supreme Court prior to that date. The filing of an for Reconsideration, tbe six montb suspension shall become effective on January 18, 2006, unless MT. In consideration of this Committee's vote of December 15,2005 to deny Martin J. Glennon's Request

Glennon, Martin K advs. Professional Conduct Committee # 03-065

Eleanor Wm. Dahar Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Alan J. Cronheirn Thomas P. Connair * non attorney member David N. Cole Stephen B. Stepanek' Toni M. Gray,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 + Fax 228-9511 David N. Page' Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 James R. Martin Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Park Street, Suite 304 Gretchen Rule Hamel

Attached hereto are copies of the following documents:

Street, Concord, NH 03301.

Street, Concord, NH 03301 and whose attorney is Landya McCafferty of 4 Park

opposing party is the Professional Conduct Committee whose address is 4 Park

Horan whose address is 108 Bay Street, Manchester, NH 03104. The

address is 108 Bay Street, Manchester, NH 03104 and whose attorney is David

This appeal is being brought by the respondent Martin K. Glennon whose

law for six months.

Conduct Committee on December 1, 2005 suspending him from the practice of

Supreme Court to reverse a decision entered against him by the Professional

Horan with this Rule 10 Notice of Appeal and appeals to the New Hampshire

NOW COMES Martin K. Glennon by and through his attorney, David

the admitted misconduct?

initial grievances were filed and then imposing discipline almost three years after

Professional Conduct Committee filing a notice of charges two years after the

the legal profession, and prevent similar conduct in the future, served by the

protect the public, maintain public confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity of

p. 16 2: Are the four purposes of lawyer discipline proceedings, to wit: to

case?

Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions are present in his

attorney where eleven of the fourteen mitigating factors identified in the American

1: Is a six-month suspension the appropriate sanction to impose upon an

exercises of discretion.

Committee and shall be limited to issues of errors of law and unsustainable

an appeal shall be based on the record before the Professional Conduct

answered with an eye towards Supreme Court Rule 37(a)( p. 16 2) which provides that

review by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. These questions are to be

The respondent Martin K. Glennon presents the following questions for

refile his appeal as an appeal from an administrative agency pursuant to Rule 10 -- This court's order of February p. 16 22, 2006 requiring the Respondent to

clarifying the effective day of suspension -- December p. 16 22, 2005 order from the Professional Conduct Committee

denying the Motion to Reconsider -- December 15, p. 16 2005 order from the Professional Conduct Committee

- Respondent Glennon's Motion to Reconsider dated December 1 p. 16 2, 2005 p. 17 3

1, 2005 decision made twelve findings of fact describing this misconduct

County Superior Court. The Professional Conduct Committee in its December

mishandling his representation of Auto Fair in litigation before the Rockingham

The respondent Martin K. Glennon committed professional misconduct by

Rule 8.4(a) : Misconduct

Rule p. 17 3.4(c) : Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

Rule 1.16(a)(2) : Declining or Terminating Representation

Rule 1.4 : Client Communications

Rule 1. p. 17 3(a) : Diligence

Rule 1.1 : Competence

Conduct Committee which in this case are:

Attached hereto are copies of the applicable Rules of Professional

Professional Conduct Committee quarterly reports documenting this?

subject to the condition that he continue his ongoing treatment and provide the

a suspension for his misconduct but then have the suspension held in abeyance

4: Would not the public be protected if Attorney Glennon were to receive

period of meaningful and successful rehabilitation?

misconduct but who, long before discipline is imposed, engages in a sustained

suffering from undiagnosed sleep apnea and depression at the time of his

misconduct, the appropriate sanction to impose upon an attorney who was

p. 17 3: Is a six-month suspension, imposed three years after the admitted p. 18 4

Reconsider.

suspension and subsequently denied without hearing a timely filed Motion to

without further difficulties. The Committee decided to impose a six month

properly treated and he had provided competent legal services to his clients

depression and sleep apnea, which contributed towards his misconduct, were

three years after his misconduct where during those three years his acute

his case and argued that he should not be suspended from the practice of law

Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions which were present in

Attorney Glennon identified eleven mitigating factors from the American

was considered by the full Committee in oral arguments on October 18, 2005.

Hearing Panel filed a report and recommendation on September 7, 2005 which

1.3(a), 1. p. 18 4, 1.16(a)(2), 3.4(c) and 8.4(a). The Professional Conduct Committee

allegations made against him and subsequently stipulated to violating rules 1.1,

Notice of Charges. Attorney Glennon filed an answer admitting all of the factual

Two years later on May 27, 2005 the Attorney Discipline Office filed its

clear and he was attentive to all of his current clients.

situation and that after seeking medical care for acute depression, his mind was

Committee advising it that he had done everything within his power to rectify the

representation of Auto Fair. Attomey Glennon promptly responded to the

Committee alerting it to substantial ethical questions raised by the respondent's

February 3, 2003. On June 20, 2003 and July1 p. 18 4, 2003 letters were sent to the

committed by the respondent during the timeframe of August p. 19 5, 2002 through 5

the Professional Conduct Committee below and has been properly preserved for

I certify that every issue specifically raised above has been presented to

opinion exists as to what constitutes appropriate discipline in this case.

admitted misconduct and the imposition of sanctions, a substantial difference of

for lawyer disciplinary proceedings. Given the three year delay between the

opportunity to decide a case for the first time using the new administrative rules

Acceptance of the respondent's appeal would provide the Supreme Court an

when the suspension ends, will be tantamount to termination of his legal career.

given his age and the difficulties he will have attempting to revive his practice

Attomey Glennon will be suspended from the practice of for six months, which

Professional Conduct Committee's decision be reversed because otherwise

The respondent Martin Glennon's appeal should be accepted and the

unsustainable exercises of discretion.

Supreme Court Rule 37(2)(a) shall be limited to issues of errors of law and

upon the record before the Professional Conduct Committee and pursuant to

accordance with the rules of the Supreme Court. This appeal shall be based

of professional misconduct or a sanction by filing a written Notice of Appeal in

respondent in lawyer disciplinary proceedings shall be entitled to appeal a finding

that the explicit language of Supreme Court Rule 37A (4)(A) states that the

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear this appeal in

the Court from which the appeal is taken in accordance with Rule 2 p. 20 6(2).

have been served on all parties to the case and have been filed with the Clerk of

I certify that on or before the date below, copies of this Notice of Appeal

properly filed pleading.

appellate review by a contemporaneous objection or, where appropriate, by a p. 21 1

reached.

2. While the appeal was pending a negotiated Agreement was

argument is currently scheduled for April 5, 2007.

decision. Briefs have been filed by both parties and oral

January p. 21 17, 2006, Mr. Glennon filed an appeal from that

suspended from the practice of law for six months. On

Conduct Committee concluded that Mr. Glennon should be

p. 21 1. In a report dated December 1, 2005, the Professional

hereby enter into this Agreement.

Committee, by and through counsel, Landya B. McCafferty, Esq.,

attorney, David A. Horan, Esq., and the Professional Conduct

Respondent Martin K. Glennon, Esq., by and through his

(a) Mr. Glennon agrees that he shall remain of good

p. 22 2007, subj ect to the following terms and conditions:

years from the effective date of this Agreement, March p. 22 20,

for six months. The suspension shall be stayed for two

7. Mr. Glennon should be suspended from the practice of law

6. The terms of the Agreement follow.

rules. N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 37 & 37A.

discipline of attorneys and with his rights under those

Hampshire Supreme Court regarding the procedures for

5. The Respondent is familiar with the rules of the New

connection with this matter.

Respondent has had the assistance of competent counsel in

by any person or agency concerning this matter.

subjected to no coercion, duress or other intimidating acts

decjsion, and the Respondent affirms that he has been

4. This Agreement is a product of the Respondent's personal

consequences of this Agreement.

intelligently and voluntarily, and understands the

p. 23 3. The Respondent enters into this Agreement freely, 3

(c) Mr. Glennon agrees that within two months of the

(b) Mr. Glennon agrees that he will continue to abide by

(e) In the event that Mr. Glennon resigns from the

(d) Mr. Glennon agrees to audit a full course on

six month suspension or other conditions should be

determine whether the motion requesting imposition of the

of a request for such hearing, the Committee shall

evidentiary hearing (if requested and granted), or the denial

request an evidentiary hearing thereon. Following an

writing to the Attorney Discipline Office's motion and to

violation. Mr. Glennon shall have the right to respond in

. suspension and any other conditions warranted by the

requesting that the Committee impose the stayed six month

shall file a motion with the Professional Conduct Committee

event is a material violation, the Attorney Discipline Office

9. If the Attorney Discipline Office concludes that the reported

the potential violation.

Discipline Office with any additional information regarding

Mr. Glennon shall have the right to provide the Attorney

the Attorney Discipline Office in any such investigation.

potential violation. Mr. Glennon shall cooperate fully with

Discipline Office shall have the right to investigate the

material violation of the above terms, the Attorney

8. Should the Attorney Discipline Office learn of any potential

suspension in this case.

complaint will not be a basis for imposition of the six month

of Professional Conduct that may result from that

course of business. Any finding of a violation of the Rules

Committee, that complaint will be processed in the ordinary

adoption of this Agreement by the Professional Conduct

against Mr. Glennon that arises out of events that predate

11. If the Attorney Discipline Office receives a complaint

stayed suspension and any other conditions is warranted.

Rules of Professional Conduct, and that imposition of the

of this Agreement or constitutes a violation of the N.H.

Glennon's conduct is either a material breach of the terms

establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr.

must meet is as follows: Disciplinary Counsel must

conditions, the burden of proof that Disciplinary Counsel

impose the stayed six month suspension or other

10. In any proceeding under paragraph 9 of this Agreement to

final.

Disciplinary Counsel. The Committee's decision shall be

the stayed suspension and other conditions requested by

ten (10) minutes each to address the issue of imposition of

conducted to allow Disciplinary Counsel and Mr. Glennon

granted or denied. Unless waived, oral arguments will be p. 27 7

Agreement. If such complaints or motions are filed during

or motions pending pursuant to paragraphs 9 or 12 of this

permanently stayed provided that there are no complaints

paragraph 4 hereof, the six month suspension shall be

14. At the conclusion of the two year period described in

occurring during the referenced 2 Year Period

any new complaint involving conduct of Respondent

13. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit prosecution of

Professional Conduct Committee.

entitled to an evidentiary hearing and review by the

Counsel makes such a request, Mr. Glennon shall be

suspension in this case on other conditions. If Disciplinary

Conduct Committee impose the stayed six month

request by Disciplinary Counsel that the Professional

result from that complaint may provide a basis for a

violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that may

Office on an expedited basis. Any final adjudication of a

complaint will be processed by the Attorney Discipline

the events occur within the period of the two year stay, that

Agreement by the Professional Conduct Committee, and if

that arises out of events that post date adoption of this

against Mr. Glennon during the period of the two year stay

12. If the Attorney Discipline Office receives a complaint p. 28 8

condi tions of this Agreement.

with compliance and enforcement of the terms and

16. Mr. Glennon agrees that he shall bear all costs associated

lesser suspension is appropriate under the facts presented.

15. In any proceeding to impose the six month stayed

Dated: MarchZZ., 2007

Dated: March 21, 2007

conditions of this Agreement.

this Agreement that he understands and accepts all of the terms and

The Respondent, Martin K. Glennon, acknowledges by signing p. 30 2007.

pursuant to paragraph 7(b) of the Agreement dated March 20,

permanent basis those records received by Mr. Glennon

Attorney Discipline Office to maintain under seal on a

2. The Committee hereby grants a protective order, requiring the

effective date of the Agreement.

Discipline Office for a time-period of two years from the

private and confidential medical records to the Attorney

March 20, 2007, Mr. Glennon is required to submit otherwise

1. In accordance with paragraph 7(b) of the Agreement dated

Date: March p. 31 20, 2007

37 A(IV)(a)( p. 31 2){E).

3. The Committee issues this Order pursuant to Rule

If remanded to the Professional Conduct Committee.

p. 32 this motion to withdraw appeal and joins the request that the case be

4. Disciplinary Counsel Landya McCafferty has no objection to

imposition of the agreed upon sanctions.

that his case be remanded to the Professional Conduct Committee for

3. The appellant now requests that his appeal be withdrawn and

regular monthly meeting of March 20, 2007.

authorized and approved by the full Professional Conduct Committee at its

McCafferty, have negotiated a settlement agreement which has been

2. The parties through their counsel, David Horan and Landya

argument on April 5, 2007.

1. This case now on appeal to this Court is scheduled for oral

thereof says as follows:

attorney, David Horan. with this Motion to Withdraw Appeal and in support

NOW COMES the appellant, Martin Glennon, by and through his

was this day forwarded to Landya McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel. I hereby certify that a copy of the within Motion to Withdraw Appeal

Dated: March p. 33 26, 2007 By: ____________________ __

just and proper.

C. That the Court grant such other and further relief as may be

Professional Conduct Committee; and

B. That the Court remand the appellant's case back to the

hearing; and

A. That the Court grant this Motion to Withdraw Appeal without a

requests that the Court grant the following relief:.

WHEREFORE, the Respondent, Martin K. Glennon, respectfully

..T.._ p. 34 File Claire Lavertu, Supreme Court Irene Dalbec, Supreme Court

Donna Craig, Supreme Court Martin K. Glennon, Esquire David A. Horan, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Esquire &/james L. DeHart, Esquire Distribution:

This order is entered by a single justice (Broderick, C.J.). See Rule 21(7).

Attorney Glennon's motion to withdraw appeal is granted.

Glennon, the court on April 2, 2007, issued the following order: In Case No. LD-2006-0001, In the Matter of Martin K.

Massachusetts School of Law are eligible to take the bar exam in

Association of Schools and Colleges. Individuals who graduate from the

The Massachusetts School of Law is accredited by the New England

responsibility at the Massachusetts School of Law in Andover, Massachusetts.

3. The respondent is currently auditing a course on professional

within the first year of the agreement ... 11

audit a full course on professional responsibility at an accredited law school

2. The terms of paragraph 7(d) provide that,"Mr. Glennon agrees to

conditions.

suspension in abeyance for two years subject to a variety of terms and

the respondent from the practice of law for six months but then holding that

1. On March 20, 2007 the parties reached an agreement suspending

ther~of says as follows:

attorney, David Horan, with this Motion to Clarify Agreement and in support

NOW COMES the respondent, Martin K. Glennon, by and through his

grant the following relief be granted:

WHEREFORE, the respondent respectfully requests that the Committee

chairman of the committee.

merits of this motion but has agreed to let the motion be acted upon by the

7. Disciplinary Counsel Landya McCafferty takes no position on the

resulted in the respondent being disciplined here.

the individual who filed the initial complaint against the respondent which

Hilliard teaches that course at Franklin Pierce Law Center. Russell Hilliard was

professional responsibility at Franklin Pierce Law Center because Russell

6, The respondent was reluctant to take the required course on

accredited by the American Bar Association.

counsel and informed him that the Massachusetts School of Law is not

respondent's disciplinary record. Disciplinary Counsel then called undersigned

of Law called the Professional Conduct Committee to ascertain the status of the

responsibility at Massachusetts School of Law that the Massachusetts School

shortly after the respondent registered to take the course on professional

5. Undersigned counsel was informed by Disciplinary Counsel that

Association.

Massachusetts School of Law and is now a member of the New Hampshire Bar

4. The respondent's brother, Barry Glennon, graduated from the

Documentation to this effect is attached hereto.

individuals are immediately eligible to take the bar exam in New Hampshire. p. 37 3

mail. today sent to Landya McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel by regular first-class I hereby certify that a copy of the within Motion to Clarify Agreement was

Dated: January p. 37 31,2008

granted. D. That any and other further relief that might be just and proper be

agreement; and

Colleges would be deemed"an accredited law school" within the meaning of the

that a law school accredited by the New England Association of Schools and

C. That the agreement be clarified by adding language to the effect

B. That the Motion to Clarify be granted without a hearing; and

Chairman of the Professional Conduct Committee; and

A. That this motion be acted upon by the Chairman or the Vice

p. 38 Copyright I?.' I>tassachusetts School of Law, 2007.1 500 Federal Street i Andover, fvlA 01810 i 978.681.0800 1

Interest to you in order to receive the most up-to date rules. requirements to the bar, you should contact the bar authorities In the jurisdiction that is of This list is not exhaustive and, because states sometimes change rules regarding admission • Wisconsin: Immediately after passing bar of primary jurisdiction • West Virginia: Immediately after passing bar of primary jurisdiction • Washington: 3 Years • Vermont: Immediately • Texas: 3 Years • Rhode Island: 5 Years • Pennsylvania: 5 Years • Oregon: 3 Years • New York: 5 Years • New Mexico: 4 Years • New Hampshire: Immediately after passing bar of primary jurisdiction • Nevada: By Individual petition to the "Substantially equivalent commlttee n • Missouri: 5 Years Massachusetts Immediately • Maryland: MSLAW students have received Individual permission after admission In MA • Maine: Immediately after passing bar of primary jurisdiction • Kentucky: 3 Years • Hawaii: 5 Years • Florida: 10 Years • Connecticut: Immediately • Colorado: 5 Years • California: Immediately after passing bar of primary jurisdiction • Arizona: 5 years • Alaska: 5 years • Alabama: By petition to the Alabama Supreme Court Jurisdictions where MSLAW graduates may be admitted to the bar: bar after practicing for the period of time listed below. addition, there are a number of jurisdictions where MSLAW graduates are eligible to take the In New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Wisconsin, California, West Virginia and Maryland. In In Connecticut. After passing Massachusetts they are immediately eligible to take the bar exam ~ Board of Trustees MSLAW students are eligible to take the Bar Immediately upon graduation In Massachusetts and ~ Student &. Alumni SI20tllgbt ~ MSLAW News &. Media Colleges (NEAS&'C) awarded accreditation to the Massachusetts School of Law. the bar In Massachusetts. In December, 1997, the New England Association of Schools &. ~ A!;!;reditatIQO &. Bac J;liglblllt¥ graduates are eligible to take the state bar examination and, upon passage, to be admitted to 30 Minutes North of Boston Massachusetts School of Law opened Its doors. Because of the Regents' approval, MSLAW AffQrdabl~ School of law to grant the degree of Juris Doctor in May, 1990, only twenty-one months after approval from the Massachusetts Board of Regents. The Regents authorized Massachusetts ~ The Dean's Message After It began operation In August, 1988, Massachusetts School of Law at Andover sought ~ UI2CQrnlng Even~ Virtual Tour ACCREDITATION 8t BAR ELIGIBILITY ABOUT MSLAW

Search MSLAW Student Quick Links: Search

Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel David Horan, Esquire Distribution:

the terms of the Agreement dated March 20,2007. auditing of a course on Professional Responsibility at Massachusetts School of Law shall satisfy Clarify dated January 31,2008. The Comn1ittec voted to approve Respondent's request that the On February 19, 2008, the Professional Conduct ComJllittee deliberated Respondent's Motion to

Glennon, Martin K. advs. Professional Conduct Committee # 03-065

Gerald A. Daley* Holly S. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Alan J. Cronheim • non attorney member Thomas P. Connair James J. Tenn, Jr. David N. Cole David N. Page* Toni M. Gray, * Vice Chair 603-224-5828. Fax 228-951 I James R. Martin Senette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord. New Hampshire 0330 I Gretchen Rule Hamel Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Richard H. Darling*