Stephen A. S. White (2009)

verdict of guilty, Ms. Roberts spoke with and wrote letters to Attorney White unequivocally represent Elaina Roberts in connection with vatious criminal chatges. Following the jury's In August 2005 Attorney White was appointed by the Strafford County Superior Court to evidence. Panel Report at 4. Those facts ate deemed to have been established by cleat and convincing The Committee voted to accept the Findings of Fact made by the Heating Panel. Hearing I. FINDINGS OF FACT

Februaty 6, 2009. Heating and Sanction Heating, both dated Januaty 12,2009; and the Hearing Panel Report of three Reprimands, one Admonition, and two Public Censures); transcripts of the Hearing Panel's exhibits (including Exhibit A, Attorney White's lengthy disciplinary record: three Warnings, the Respondent's Answer and Amended Answer; the ADO's Memorandum on Sanction and reviewed the record, including, but not limited to: an original and corrected Notice of Chatges; In prepatation for the Oral Argument and subsequent deliberations the Committee Hamel, and James R. Martin. Thomas Connair was absent. Alan J. Cronheim was recused. Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, Susan Chollet, David N. Cole, Richatd H. Datling, Gretchen Rule Committee members were present: Margatet H. Nelson, Chair, Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, the Attorney Discipline Office ("ADO"). The Respondent appeared pro se. The following matter on April 21, 2009. James 1. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, appeated on behalf of The Professional Conduct Committee (the"Committee") heatd Oral Argument in this

Alan 1. 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'

that the Respondent violated Rule 8.4(a). Given the finding of violations of Rule 1.7 (a) - (b) and Rule 1.9, the Committee finds Rule 8.4 (a) Misconduct

client's criminal convictions. The Respondent breached this duty by failing to file a timely notice of appeal of his Rule 1.3 (a): Diligence

failing to abide and act upon her decision to appeal her convictions. The Respondent breached this duty by failing to properly consult with his client and by Rule 1.2 (a): Scope of Representation

her request to file such a notice of appeal. applied to his responsibility to file a timely notice of appeal on behalf of his client, pursuant to The Respondent breached this duty by failing to have specific knowledge of the law as it Rule 1.17 (a)- (c): Competence

Respondent violated the following New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct: Based on the above facts the Committee finds by clear and convincing evidence that the II. RULINGS OF LAW

responsibility to file an appeal under the circumstances. Hearing Panel rejected, and this Committee rejects, that view. The Respondent had an ethical was not triggered because his client only requested but did not demand that he file an appeal, the of her case. Although Attorney White argued to the Hearing Panel that his duty to file an appeal needed to make an informed decision and failed to follow his client's directions as to the defense take an appeal. Therefore, Attorney White effectively deprived her ofthe information she was her decision whether to file an appeal or inform her of any of the bases on which she could stating she wanted him to file an appeal. He failed to do so, yet did not inform his client that it causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client. p. 3 (c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client matters and

4.41 Disbarment is generally appropriate when: provides in pertinent part: guidance in reaching a baseline sanction for the Respondent's failure to file an appeal. It failing to file an appeal on her behalf. Section 4.4 of the Standards, Lack of Diligence, offers Under the first prong of the analysis, the Respondent violated his duty to his client by aggravating or mitigating factors. Id identified, this Committee looks to the fourth and final step in the analysis: the application of any misconduct and identify the appropriate sanction."). After an appropriate baseline sanction is N.H. 710-714 (2005) ("in applying these factors, the first step is to categorize the respondent's characterizing the misconduct and determining a baseline sanction. Wolterbeek's Case, 152 Id (citing Standard 3.0). Consideration of the first three elements creates the framework for caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." sanctions:"(a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury The Standards set forth four elements the Committee must consider when imposing "Standards") for guidance, id at 513. to the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (I 992)(the analysis that"must take into account the severity of the misconduct," id, the Committee looks In determining what constitutes an appropriate sanction for a particular rules violation, an 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 III. ANALYSIS p. 4 Page 4 of7 2"Admonition," as used in the Standards, corresponds to a"Reprimand" in New Hampshire. 1"Reprimand," as used in the Standards, corresponds to a"Public Censure" in New Hampshire.

legal matter, and causes little or no actual or potential itDury to a client. instance of negligence in determining \vhether he or she is competent to handle a 4.54 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated

4.53 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer:

potential itDury to a client. in which the lawyer knows he or she is not competent, and causes injury or 4.52 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an area of practice

to a client. doctrines or procedures, and the lawyer's conduct causes injury or potential injury demonstrates that the lawyer does not understand the most fundamental legal 4.51 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer's course of conduct

provides in pertinent part: the Respondent's failure to understand the law relating to his obligation to file an appeal. It Section 4.5, Lack of Competence, provides guidance in reaching a baseline sanction for

potential injury to a client. with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes little or no actual or 4.44 Admonition2 is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act

injury to a client. with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes injury or potential 4.43 Reprimand I is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act

4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when: p. 5 04-055). communicating about his determination to accept or decline representation (Johnson, Docket No. No. 04-094). The Respondent received another warning in 2008, requiring more care in warned to communicate promptly with his client regarding activity in the case (Rouselle, Docket 2006 disposition involved Respondent's representation of a prison inmate in 2004. He was received warnings in 1993, 2006 and 2007 addressing the issue of client communications. The with various 1992 civil proceedings (Monroe, Docket No. LD-95-01O). The Respondent also associated with his failures to file pleadings, appear in court, and advise his client in connection received a public censure for violations (competency, diligence, and client communications) scheduled for arbitration in 1993 (Mitchell, Docket No. 93-143). In 1996, the Respondent of his client and to communicate with her in connection with a 1988 construction dispute In 1995, the Respondent was reprimanded for failure to diligently represent the interests 904153). performance in a 1987 real estate conveyance and quiet title action (Prudden, Docket No. violations (competency and diligence) in connection with his lack of responsiveness and timely action (Lapierre, Docket No. 904188). In the same year, Attorney White was reprimanded for communications) in connection with his failure in 1986 to undertake timely pursuit of a civil Respondent was reprimanded for violations (competency, diligence, and client Exhibit A to the ADO Memorandum on Sanction and summarized as follows: In 1991, the The lengthy history of disciplinary offenses committed by the Respondent is attached as d. substantial experience in the practice of law. c. vulnerability of the client-victim; and b. refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing; a. prior disciplinary record; Aggravating factors in this case include the following: factors. The fourth step in the analysis calls for consideration of aggravating and mitigating actual or potential harm. public censure or suspension. He committed both negligent and knowing violations and caused Based on the above Standards, the baseline sanction for the Respondent's violations is p. 6 Page 6 of7 the suspension is stayed. Attorney White shall be responsible for reporting to the having been previously approved) throughout the two year period during which specialist acceptable to the Attorney Discipline Office (Attorney Arthur Greene 1. Attorney White shall continue his affiliation with a law office management

years provided Attorney White meets the following conditions: Conduct, and this Committee's discretion to stay imposition of the six month suspension for two with the purpose of the Court's disciplinary power, the goals of the Rules of Professional factors that have led to this and previous complaints, the Committee finds that it is consistent consulting with Attorney Arthur Greene to determine the steps he needs to take to ameliorate the Respondent's having taken the first steps toward rectifying the deficits in his practice by Standards, the appropriate sanction in this matter is a suspension. However, in light of the In summary, taking into consideration the four-part analysis recommended by the IV. CONCLUSION

There appeared to be no mitigating factors. implemented Attorney Greene's recommendations or obtained the additional CLE requirements. has been no correspondence or other evidence from the Respondent establishing that he has Respondent obtained the practice audit and favorable report by Attorney Arthur Greene, there standard yearly requirements. See Order issued in Docket No. 06-009. Although the recommendations. He was also required to complete additional CLE training in addition to the practices by a professional consultant approved by the ADO and to implement the consultant's diversion the Respondent was required to obtain a formal audit of his office management to complete a mandatory diversion under Rule 37 A(I)(g)(1)( 4 )-(8). Pursuant to the mandatory the public censure issued in the referenced Tower matter, the Committee ordered the Respondent responsiveness, poor communication, and lack of diligence. With that in mind, as a condition of Throughout the Respondent's disciplinary history there is a pattern of non­ public censure with conditions. the period 2004 to 2006 (Tower, Docket# 06-009). On June 10, 2008, the Respondent received a incompetence, lack of diligence, and failure to communicate with a prison inmate client during The Respondent's most recent episode of misconduct involved complaints of p. 7 File Elaina Roberts StephenA.S. White, Esquire cc: James L. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel

prosecution of this matter. 4. Attorney White is assessed all costs associated with the investigation and

be entitled to an evidentiary hearing and review by this Committee. in this case. If Disciplinary Counsel makes such a request, Attorney White shall Disciplinary Counsel that the Committee impose the stayed six month suspension that may result from that complaint shall provide a basis for a request by basis. Any final adjudication ofa violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct date of this Order, that complaint shall be processed by the ADO on an expedited period of the two year stay that arises out of events that occurred following the imposed. If the ADO receives a complaint against Attorney White during the the two year period in which the suspension is stayed, the suspension will not be 3. If Attorney White demonstrates his full compliance with the above conditions for

Rules of Professional Conduct. are similarly situated manage their practices effectively and consistent with the opportunity to develop mentoring and gain insights as to how other attorneys who New Hampshire defense attorneys and regularly attend meetings so that he has an 2. Attorney White shall join one or more professional organizations that include

recommendations. making a good faith effort to implement and follow the consultant's previous thirty days that indicates the consultant is satisfied Attorney White is Attorney White's reports shall include a report by the consultant dated within the and December as to his implementation of the consultant's recommendations. Attorney Discipline Office quarterly on the last day of March, June, September, p. 7 p. 8 File Stephen A.S. White, Esquire ElizabethM. Murphy, AssistantDisciplinaryCounsel Distribution:

Upon consideration,the Committee voted toclosethematters.

R. Cholletand Georges J.Roy were absent. Kerouac, Mona T. Movafaghi, David W. Ruoff,Richard D. Sager,and Martha Van Oot. Susan Krans, Vice Chair,ElaineHolden, Vice Chair,PeterG. Beeson, Richard H. Darling,Margaret R. toclosetheabove matters.Members presentincludedDavid M. Rothstein,Chair,Heather E. The Committee met on April 21, 2015, toconsider AssistantDisciplinaryCounsel'sletter

White,Stephen A.S. advs. Richard Shaw & SusanHowarth-Shaw - #10-062

Margaret R. Kerouac Barbara J.Guay, Legal Assistant Richard H. Darling* * non attorneymember Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oot PeterG. Beeson Richard D. Sager Elaine Holden,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 David W. Ruoff Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Georges J. Roy* David M. Rothstein,Chair 4 Chenell Drive,Suite 102 Mona T. Movafaghi