Grenville Clark III (2009)

Panel,were establishedby clearand convincingevidence: The Committee determined that the following factual findings, as described by the Hearing I. FACTUAL FINDINGS

and rulingsas detailedbelow. Panel Report, and the Transcriptofthe May15,2009 hearing, theCommittee made the findings AttorneyRussellHilliard'sMay 12,2009 letter,ArthurG. Green'sMay 28, 2008 letter,Hearing DisciplinaryRecord ofGrenvilleClark,III,AttorneyLawrence Vogelman's May 5,2009 letter, AdditionalExhibits18 and 19,Parties'StipulationofFacts,Parties'StipulatedTime Line, Charges,Respondent'sAnswer, DisciplinaryCounsel'sExhibits1 through 17,Respondent's Subsequent to oralargument, and having reviewed the record,includingtheNotice of Richard H. Darling,and Susan Cholletwere absent.JenniferL. Parentwas recused. Cronheim, Gerald A. Daley, Gretchen Rule Hamel, and James R. Martin. Thomas P. Connair, Pizzimenti,Vice Chair,Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair,David N. Cole (viatelephone),Alan J. The followingCommittee members were present:Margaret H. Nelson, Chair,Benette behalf. Neil Lanteigne alsowas in attendance. for theAttorneyDisciplineOffice.The Respondent,GrenvilleClark,III,appeared on hisown argument in theabove-referencedmatter.Landya B. McCafferty,DisciplinaryCounsel, appeared On August 18,2009, theProfessionalConduct Committee ("Committee") heard oral

FOR TWO YEAR SUSPENSION (WITH PAGE NUMBERING) REISSUED RECOMMENDATION TO PETITION SUPREME COURT Clark, GrenvilleIII advs.Neil Lanteigne #08-015

Alan J.Cronheim Holly B. Fazzino,Admin. Coordinator Thomas P. Connair * non attorneymember David N. Cole JenniferL. Parent 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 RichardH. Darling* Margaret H. Nelson,Chair 4 ChenellDrive, Suite 102 Gerald A. Daley*

Interrogatories")and by NHHEAF ("NHHEAF Interrogatories"). interrogatoriespropounded on Mr. Lanteigneby GraniteState("GraniteState 8. On or about June 29, 2007, Mr. Weaver served discoveryrequestson Mr. Clark,including deadlineofAugust 29, 2007, and a trialdate ofNovember 14, 2007. 7. In a pre-trialschedulingorderin theadversaryproceeding,theCourt set adiscovery Weaver, Esq. ofFord and Weaver, PA representedNHHEAF and GraniteState. 6. AssistantUnited StatesAttorneyDavid L. Broderick,Esq.,representedDOE; Mark F. ("GraniteState"). Department ofEducation ("DOE"), and GraniteStateManagement and Resources Hampshire Higher Education AssistanceFoundation ("NHHEAF"), theUnited States Lanteigne'sstudentloans.The adversarycomplaintnamed as defendantstheNew (#07-01040-WMV) in theBankruptcy Court seekinga declarationofdischargeofMr. 5. On February 26, 2007, Mr. Clark filed on Mr.Lanteigne'sbehalfan adversaryproceeding New Hampshire. Bankruptcy Petition(#06-1596-WMV) in theUnited StatesBankruptcy Court,Districtof 4. On November 20, 2006, Mr. Clark filed on Mr.Lanteigne'sbehalfa Voluntary Chapter 7 representhim inbankruptcyon a Pro Bono basis. Hampshire Pro Bono Lawyer ReferralProgram. Mr. LanteigneretainedMr. Clark,to 3. On or about October 20, 2006, Mr. LanteignereceivedMr. Clark'sname from theNew disabledbecause he was afflictedwith paranoidschizophrenia." bankruptcypetitionon November 20,2006, theplaintiffwas totallyand permanently bankruptcycomplaintat 6, drafted by Mr. Clark states:"At the timeofthe filingofhis and thepayment ofhisstudentloanobligationswas causinghim hardship.Mr. Lanteigne's 2. The Complainant, Neil D.Lanteigne,was diagnosed as permanently and totallydisabled, officeout ofSuite504 atthe above address. Manchester,New Hampshire 03101-2551. Prior to June 2007, Mr.Clark operatedhis law operatedhis lawofficeas Gray, Wendell & Clark, P.C., 650 Elm Street, Suite 303, was admittedtopracticein 1971. At all times material to thisproceeding,Mr. Clark 1. Grenville Clark, III is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Mr. Clark p. 3 Page 3 of13

21. During hisSeptember 14,2007, meeting with Mr. Clark, Mr. Lanteigne provided Mr. Clark Interrogatoriesto Mr.Lanteigne. 20. Mr. Clark had notpreviouslysenteithertheNHHEAF Interrogatoriesor theDOE September 7,2007 letter). documentation,to ameeting scheduledwith Mr. Clark forSeptember 14, 2007. (Copyof Lanteignepreparehandwrittenanswers and notations,and bring financialand other forwarded theNHHEAF Interrogatories.In her letter, Ms.DeSisto recommended that Mr. 19. In aletterto Mr.LanteignedatedSeptember 7,2007, Mr. Clark'sassistant,Kim DeSisto, 18. Mr. Clark did notfilea responseto Mr.Broderick'smotion forsanctions. OutstandingDiscovery Requests. Broderickfiled aMotion forSanctionsor, in theAlternative,toCompel Responses to 17. Having receivedno answers to theDOE Interrogatories,on September 6,2007, Mr. 6, 2007. 16. By Order datedAugust 30, 2007, theCourt extended thediscoverydeadlineto September extend thedeadlinefordiscoverytoSeptember 6,2007. Interrogatoriesto September 6, 2007. On thatdate,Mr. Broderick also fileda motion to Mr. Broderickagreed to furtherextend thedeadlineforresponding to theDOE 15. On August 29, 2007, Mr. Broderick had a furtherconversationwith Mr. Clark,in which the DOE Interrogatoriesby August 31, 2007. Mr. Broderick consented to thatextension. telephonedMr. Clark. Mr. Clark assuredMr. Broderickthathe would provide answers to 14. On August 23, 2007, having receivedno answers to theDOE interrogatories,Mr. Broderick a motion to compelanswers to theNHHEAF and GraniteStateInterrogatories. 13. Having heard noresponsefrom Mr. Clark, on or aboutAugust 28, 2007, Mr.Weaver filed to theGraniteStateInterrogatoriesand NHHEAF Interrogatoriesno laterthanAugust 29. 12. On or aboutAugust 21, 2007, Mr. Weavertelefaxeda letterto Mr.Clark,seekinganswers 11. Answers to theDOE Interrogatorieswere due in 30 days. propounded on Mr. Lanteigneby DOE ("DOE Interrogatories"). 10. On or about July 18,2007, Mr. Broderickforwarded to Mr.Clark interrogatories 9. Answers to theGraniteStateand NHHEAF Interrogatorieswere due in 30 days. p. 4 Page 4 of13

informed Mr. Lanteigne that his bankruptcy had been dismissed. Mr. Lanteigne disagreed was receiving bills while his case was in bankruptcy. An employeeofGranite State On or about December 10,2007, Mr. LanteignetelephonedGraniteStateto inquirewhy he 30. In December 2007, Mr.Lanteignereceived bills fromGraniteStatedemanding payment. dismissed. Mr. Clark inform Mr.Lanteignethat, onOctober 18,hisadversaryproceedinghad been 29. Neitherduringthistelephoneconversation,nor at any timepriortoFebruary11,2008, did been continueduntilFebruary 15,2008. Mr. Lanteignethat he did not need toappear inCourt on November 14, as his trial date had which, priortodismissal,had been scheduledforNovember 14,2007. Mr. Clark informed 28. On November 13, 2007, Mr.LanteignetelephonedMr. Clarktoinquireabouthis trial, 27. Mr. Clark did notsend Mr. LanteignecopiesoftheCourt'sOrders. and Granite State. discoveryrequests,theCourt dismissedtheadversaryproceedingagainstDOE, NHHEAF, 26. In separateOrders dated October 18,2007, as aresultofMr. Clark'sfailuretocomply with or case willbe dismissed." State'smotions tocompel as follows:"Answers to be filed onorbeforeOctober 12,2007 25. On October 3, 2007, the Court issued identicalOrders on both NHHEAF's and Granite follows:"Answers to be filedon or before October 12, 2007 or case willbe dismissed." 24. In an Order dated October 3, 2007, the Court ruledon the DOE motion forsanctionsas 23. On September 27, 2007, theCourt rescheduledthe trialdateto February 14,2008. extensionuntilOctober 12, 2007. Interrogatoriesand needed additionaltime tofinalizethem. Mr. Clark requestedan Mr. Clark statedthat Mr.Lanteignehad prepareddraftanswers to theNHHEAF served on him and that no answers had beenprovided,as allegedin themotion to compel. compel. In hisresponse,Mr. Clark admitted that theNHHEAF Interrogatorieshad been 22. On or about September 25, 2007, Mr. Clark filed aresponseto NHHEAF's motion to documentation. with hishandwrittenanswers to theNHHEAF Interrogatories,as well asresponsive p. 5 Page 5 of13

39. In a letterto Mr.Clark dated February 12,2008, Mr. Lanteignewrote: Lanteignethat hewould exploreotheroptions. Lanteigneexpressedconfusionand frustration.Mr. Clark ended themeeting and toldMr. orderedin his casebecause thedefendantsdid notreceiveanswers tointerrogatories.Mr. 38. At the February11 meeting,Mr. Clark informed Mr.Lanteignethat adismissalwas 11,2008. Lanteigneasked for anin-personmeeting. Mr. Clarkscheduledthemeeting forFebruary updateon his case. Mr.Clark statedthat he did nothave the file in frontofhim. Mr. successfulinspeaking directlyto Mr. Clark. Mr.Lanteigneasked Mr. Clark for astatus 37. On or about February5, 2008, Mr.LanteignetelephonedMr. Clark'sofficeand was telephonedMr. Clark'sofficeand leftanothermessage for Mr.Clark tocontacthim. 36. On or about February 4,2008, having heard nothingfrom Mr. Clark,Mr. Lanteigne own in-personmeetings. Mr. Lanteigne again left amessage for Mr.Clark to contacthim. face-to-facemeeting. Mr. Clark'ssecretarytoldMr. Lanteigne thatMr. Clark scheduleshis 35. On or about January 29,2008, Mr. LanteignetelephonedMr. Clark'sofficeand requesteda Clark did notrespond. telephonedMr. Clark'soffice,and again left amessage for Mr.Clark tocontacthim. Mr. 34. On or about January 22, 2008, havingnot heardback from Mr. Clark,Mr. Lanteigne Lanteigneleft amessage for Mr.Clarktocontacthim. update. Mr.Clark'ssecretaryinformedMr. Lanteignethat Mr.Clark was unavailable.Mr. 33. On or about January 15,2008, Mr. LanteignetelephonedMr. Clark to receivea status informed Mr. Lanteignethat his"case"had notbeen dismissed. October 18,hisadversaryproceedinghad been dismissed;to thecontrary,Mr. Clark 32. During thistelephoneconversation,Mr. Clarkdid notinform Mr. Lanteignethat,on received from hiscreditors. scheduledforFebruary 15,2008, and that heshouldretainallcorrespondencethat he conversationwith GraniteState. Mr. Clark told Mr.Lanteignethat his trial was still 31. Afterthattelephoneconversation,Mr. LanteignetelephonedMr. Clark to inform him ofhis and told theemployee that his trialwas scheduledforFebruary 15,2008. p. 6 Page 6 of13 The above-listedfactshavingbeen found by clear andconvincingevidence,theCommittee II. RULINGS OF LAW

43. On March 4, 2008, Mr.Lanteignefiled aprofessionalconductcomplaintagainstMr. Clark. too much time had elapsedsincethe dateofdismissalfor areversaltooccur. questionsaboutseekinga reversalofthe dismissal. Mr.Clark informed Mr. Lanteignethat 42. On or about February 19,2008, Mr. LanteignetelephonedMr. Clark and asked a seriesof defendants in theadversarycase. 41. On February 15,2008, theBankruptcy Court issueda finaljudgment in favorofthe pleadingsor ordersin his case file. electroniccopiesofmaterialsin his file.This was the firsttime thathe had seen any ofthe 40. On or about February 15,2008, Mr. Lanteignewent to Bankruptcy Court and obtained

copy ofthedismissalorderand allrelateddocuments. Pleasealsoprovideme with acopy ofNHHEAF s motion todismiss,and a

When is my trial and whatotheroptions are youcurrentlyexploring?

bankruptcy and why? Ifnot,what portionofthe loans isunavailableto beincludedin my

bankruptcy? Is all or aportionofmy loans now unavailableto beincludedin my

includedin my bankruptcy? What impact does thedismissalhave on theabilityto have my loans

Is thedismissalwith prejudiceor withoutprejudice?

Why did NHHEAF fail toreceivemy answers to theinterrogatories?

September 14,2007 Iprovidedyou with my answers to theinterrogatories. 2007 you mailed me a copy oftheinterrogatoriesby NHHEAF. On I am very confused and wish to havesome clarification.On September 7,

interrogatoriesand a dismissal has been granted in mybankruptcy. was informed thatNHHEAF did not receiveanswers to their This letter is inresponseto our meeting onFebruary11,2008 inwhich I p. 7 Page 7 of13

againstNHHEAF, DOE, and GraniteStatewas dismissed. or to seekextensionsof time tofilesuchresponses,Mr. Lanteigne'sadversaryproceeding ofthe discovery responses, and then his failure to file responses on Mr.Lanteigne'sbehalf, 9. As a resultofMr. Clark'sfailures to assist Mr. Lanteigne in the preparation and finalization Interrogatoriesand discoveryrequests in a timely fashion. preparation,finalization,and filingofanswers to theNHHEAF, GraniteStateand DOE 8. Mr. Clark failed to comply with this obligation by failing to assist Mr. Lanteigne in the Mr. Lanteigne, and to cause no avoidable harm to Mr.Lanteigne'sinterest. 7. Mr. Clark had an obligation to act with reasonable promptness and diligence in representing

6. Mr. Clark'sconduct constitutes clear and convincing evidenceofa violationofRule 1.1(a). proceeding. incompetence caused avoidable harm to Mr.Lanteigne'sinterests in the adversary 5. Mr. Clark'sfailures in the above regardsconstitutea lackofcompetence. Mr. Clark's againstNHHEAF, DOE, and Granite Statewas dismissed. or to seek extensionsoftime to file such responses, Mr.Lanteigne'sadversary proceeding ofthe discovery responses, and then his failure to file responses on Mr.Lanteigne'sbehalf, 4. As a result ofMr. Clark'sfailure to assist Mr.Lanteignein thepreparationand finalization Interrogatoriesand discoveryrequests. preparing,finalizingand filinganswers to theNHHEAF, GraniteStateand DOE 3. Mr. Clark failed tocomply with thisobligationby failing toassistMr. Lanteignein Mr. Lanteigne'sinterest. assure that Mr.Lanteigne'sadversaryproceedingwas completed with no avoidableharm to 2. Specifically, Mr. Clark was obligated to pay attention to details and schedules necessary to 1. Mr. Clark had an obligation to provide Mr. Lanteigne with competent representation.

1.1(a); 1.3(a);1.4;8.4(c)and 8.4(a). and convincingevidencethat Mr. Clark violated thefollowingRules ofProfessionalConduct: accepted the Hearing Panel'sdeterminationsofrulesviolationsand concluded thatthereisclear p. 8 Page 8 of 13

17. Mr. Clark'sconductconstitutesclear andconvincingevidenceofa violationofRule 1.4(a). permithisclientto make informeddecisionsregardingtherepresentation. practicalaspectsofa matterand alternativecoursesofaction to theextentnecessaryto 16. Mr. Clark'saforementionedconduct furtherconstitutesa failure toexplainthe legal and reasonablerequestsforinformation. informed regardingthestatusofa matterand a failurepromptly tocomply with hisclient's 15. Mr. Clark'saforementionedconduct constitutesa failureto keep hisclientreasonably and February 4, 2008. and (f) torespond promptly to Mr.Lanteigne'smany telephonecallsbetween January 15 that Mr.Lanteignecould considerhisoptions,includinghiringothercounseltoassisthim; respond;(e) toexplainthedismissaloftheadversaryproceeding in atimelymanner such outstandingdiscoveryrequests,and thatdismissalofhiscase would resultfrom a failure to (d) toexplainthedefendants'motions tocompel and the need fortimelyresponsesto the draftofhisanswers to theNHHEAF Interrogatoriesand then forward them toNHHEAF; discoveryresponsesarefinalizedand filed; (c)follow-upwith Mr. Lanteignetofinalizethe adversaryproceeding; (b)explaintheprocessby which answers tointerrogatoriesand Stateand DOE discoveryrequests,as well ascorrespondence,pleadingsand ordersin his with Mr.Lanteignein that he failed to: (a) forward to Mr.LanteignecopiesoftheGranite informeddecisionsregardingtherepresentation.Mr. Clark failed toproperlycommunicate alternativecoursesofactionto the extentnecessarytopermitMr. Lanteigneto make 14. Mr. Clark was furtherobligatedtoexplainthe legal andpracticalaspectsofa matterand requestsforinformation. ofhisadversaryproceedingand promptlytocomply with Mr.Lanteigne'sreasonable 13. Mr. Clark had an obligation to keep Mr. Lanteigne reasonably informed regarding the status

12. Mr. Clark'sconduct constitutes clear and convincing evidenceofa violationofRule 1.3(a). adversaryproceeding. 11. Mr. Clark'slackofdiligence caused avoidable harm to Mr.Lanteigne'sinterests in the promptness and diligence. 10. Mr. Clark'sfailuresin theabove regardsconstitutea failureto actwith reasonable p. 9 Page 9 of 13

25. Mr. Clark'sconduct constitutes clear and convincing evidenceofa violationofRule 8.4(c). conduct involvingdishonesty,fraud deceit ormisrepresentation. 24. Mr. Clark'sfailure to inform Mr. Lanteigneofthe truth regarding his case constitutes towhich Mr. Clark had neglectedhisadversaryproceeding. meeting with Mr.Clark and saw thepleadingsin his case file that helearnedthe full extent 23. However, it was not until Mr. Lanteigne went to the Bankruptcy Court after his in-person inform himofthetruthregardingthe dismissaloftheadversaryproceeding. 22. Mr. Clark waiteduntil hisin-personmeetingwith Mr.Lanteigneon February 11,2008 to ClarkintendedtoinduceMr. Lanteigneintobelievingthat the case was stillongoing. Mr. Lanteigne.By neglectingtoinform Mr. LanteigneofthetruthinNovember 2007, Mr. was furtheraware that thedismissalwas a resultofMr. Clark'sdilatoryrepresentationof Clark was awareoftheOctober 18 Order dismissingtheadversaryproceeding.Mr. Clark 21. At the time that Mr.Clarkmade these falsestatementsand omissionsto Mr.Lanteigne,Mr. pleadings,Mr. Lanteignecould not obtaina dischargeofhisstudentloan debts. remained toadjudicatein thebankruptcycase; and (3) that, thecurrentstateofthe and bankruptcycase; (2) that with the dismissaloftheadversaryproceeding,nothing Clark did not explain to Mr. Lanteigne (1) the distinction between the adversary proceeding "case"had notbeen dismissedand that his trial wasscheduledforFebruary15, 2008. Mr. Court Order issued onOctober 18,2007, Mr. Clark falsely told Mr.Lanteignethat his proceedinghad been dismissed(as to not onlyGraniteState,but all thedefendants)as ofa had beendismissed.Ratherthan inform Mr.Lanteigneofthetruththat hisadversary telephoned Mr. Clark after someone at Granite State had told him that his bankruptcy case 20. Mr. Clark violated this obligation again on December10,2007, when Mr. Lanteigne in anOrder issuedOctober 18,2007, hisadversaryproceedinghad been dismissed. trial date hadbeen continuedtoFebruary15, 2008.However, he did not inform him that, Mr. Clark to inquire about the trial date in his case. Mr. Clark told Mr. Lanteigne that his 19. Mr. Clark violated this obligation on November13,2007, when Mr. Lanteigne telephoned statusupdate on his case. 18. Mr. Clark had an obligation to tell Mr. Lanteignethe truth when Mr. Lanteigne sought a

granted;and (4)The Respondent failedtoinform Mr. Lanteignethat theMotion to Dismiss had been filed; (3)The Respondent failedto inform Mr. Lanteigne thatthe Motion to Dismiss had been Petitionwas stillpending afterit hadbeen dismissed; purposefulmiscommunication allowed Mr.Lanteignetobelievethat hisChapter7 (2) TheRespondent failed to engage orcommunicate with Mr.Lanteigneand through discoverydeadlines; proceeding;particularlyafter theRespondent failed tomeet the Court imposed (1)The Respondent failedtoinform Mr. Lanteigneoftheprecariousnatureofhisadversary The Respondent engaged in apatternofomission when: b. PatternofOmission on Mr. Lanteigne'sstudentloans. Chapter 7 Petitionwas stillpending and that thecreditorswere erroneouslyattemptingtocollect Lanteignethat hiscase had notbeen dismissedand insteadled Mr.Lanteigneto believethat his (3)The Respondent, knowing that theadversaryproceedinghad been dismissed,toldMr. been dismissed;and attendinga hearingin theBankruptcy Court inwhich Mr. Lanteigne'sadversaryproceedinghad collectionand that theautomaticstayprovisionofthebankruptcycode was still inplacedespite (2)The Respondent toldMr. Lanteignethatcreditorsdid nothave a rightto pursue Clark atthatpointin time; scheduledin February 2008, knowing that was amisrepresentationofthe factsknown to Mr. (1) On December 10,2007, theRespondent informed Mr. Lanteignethat he had a trial The Respondent engaged in apatternofaffirmativemisrepresentationwhen: a. AffirmativeMisrepresentation misrepresentationand apatternofomission. were divided into two coursesofconduct committed by the Respondent: affirmative that theRespondent'sactions that formed the basisofa findingofdeceit pursuant to Rule 8.4(c) In reviewing the aforementionedfacts,the Committee accepted the HearingPanel'sfinding

2 "Admonition" under the Standards isequivalentto areprimand as definedin Rule37(2)(i). 1 "Reprimand" under the Standards isequivalentto a public censure as defined in Rule37(2)(g).

causesinjuryor potentialinjuryto theclient. Standard 4.64. instanceofnegligencein failingtoprovidea clientwith accurateor complete information,and theclient. Standard 4.63. Admonition isappropriatewhen an attorneyengages in anisolated toprovidea clientwith accurateor complete information,and causes injuryor potentialinjuryto injurytotheclient. Standard 4.62.Reprimand1isappropriatewhen an attorneynegligentlyfails to be appropriatewhen theattorneyknowingly deceives theclient,and causesinjury orpotential causesseriousinjuryorpotentialseriousinjuryto aclient. Standard 4.61. Suspension isdeemed attorneyknowingly deceivestheclientwith theintenttobenefittheattorneyor another,and Under Standard 4.6, LackofCandor, disbarmentisdeemed to beappropriatewhen the Standards,the Court has consideredthem when imposing sanctions). 149 N.H. 132, 139 (2003) (notingthat,althoughthe Court hasnever formally adopted these caused by themisconduct;and (d)aggravatingand mitigatingfactors. See, e.g.,Shillen's Case, considered:(a) theduty violated;(b) theattorney'smental state; (c) thepotentialor actualinjury {"Standards"), when imposing a sanctionforattorneymisconduct the followingfactorsare Under theAmerican Bar Association's StandardsforImposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992) "The sanctionmust take intoaccounttheseverityofthemisconduct." Id. in thefuture." E.g., Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513(2005) (internalquotationmarks omitted). confidencein the bar,preservetheintegrityofthe legalprofession,and preventsimilarconduct The purposeoftheCourt'sdisciplinarypower "is toprotectthepublic,maintainpublic III. ANALYSIS

also isclearand convincing evidencethat Mr.Clark violatedRule 8.4(a). 26. Based on theforegoingrulesviolationsbeing found byclearand convincing evidence,there

dismissed. (5) TheRespondent failed to inform Mr.Lanteignethat theadversaryproceedinghad been p. 12 Page 12 of13

c. A priordisciplinaryrecordfor thesame or similarviolations;and b. The vulnerabilityofthe client; a. Mr. Clark'sextensiveexperiencein thepracticeoflaw; The Committee alsoviewed the followingas aggravatingfactors: number ofchallengesthatwould involvea significantcommitment ofMr. Clark'stime. contestedChapter 7 bankruptcyon a pro bono basis,knowing fullwell that thiscase presenteda As a mitigatingfactor, theCommittee acknowledgesthat Mr.Clark took on Mr.Lanteigne's Aggravating and MitigatingFactors doubt it cast on thecredibilityofattorneysingeneral. theclientand the legalprofessionas awhole were injuredby Mr. Clark'sdeceit,based on the Arguably, then, thepotentialor actualeconomic injury to theclientwas minimal. However, both anotherattemptto have hisstudentloansdischargedin bankruptcy. (Transcript,p. 22) At oralargument, Mr. Clark assertedthat Mr.Lanteigne was not precluded from making The Potentialor Actual InjuryCaused by the Misconduct he knowingly deceived Mr. Lanteigne. interpretMr. Clark'sactionsas having a selfishmotive (as did theHearing Panel),it isclearthat Chapter 7 Petitionwas stillpending afterit hadbeen dismissed. While the Committee did not (Transcript,p. 16) Nevertheless,Mr. Clark purposefullyled Mr.Lanteigne to believethathis "justdid not find theblock oftime to review them carefully"beforesending them out. promptly" once Mr. Clark finallyforwarded theinterrogatoriesto him, but that he (Mr.Clark) explanation"as towhy theinterrogatorieswere not filed; that Mr.Lanteigne"respondedvery was not fulfillinghisobligations.At oralargument,Mr. Clark saidthathe had "no real Mr. Clark was fullyaware oftherequirementsofthebankruptcy proceeding and thathe The Attorney'sMental State practicein thisstate). do no falsehood" (see RSA 311:6,containingthe oathrequiredofallattorneysadmittedto Indeed,thevery firstcommitment made by everyNew Hampshire attorneyis that heor she "will regarding the statusofhis case. This duty is at the very coreoftheattorney-clientrelationship. Mr. Clark owed Mr. Lanteignea duty tohonestlyand promptly communicate with him The Duty Violated p. 13 Page 13 of13 File GrenvilleClark,III,Esquire c.c. Landya B. McCafferty, DisciplinaryCounsel Chair

matter. See N.H. Sup. Ct. R.37(19). Mr. Clark isassessedallcostsassociatedwith theinvestigationand prosecutionofthis V. COSTS

Court'sorder. suspensionfrom thepracticeoflaw for theperiodoftwo years,commencing as ofthe dateofthe The Committee directsDisciplinaryCounsel to petitionthe Supreme Court forMr. Clark's Sanctions (1991). inaccord with theABA Center forProfessionalResponsibility, Standardsfor Imposing Lawyer Hampshire Supreme Court See, e.g.,Feld'sCase, 149 N.H. 19,28 (2002). This sanctionis also This sanctionis in accord with the purposesofattorneydisciplineas describedby the New Mr. Clark'ssuspension. the bar can bemaintained,and theintegrityofthe legalprofessioncan bepreservedonly through thedismissalwarrantsa suspension.Further,thepubliccan beprotected,publicconfidencein communicate honestlywith Mr. Lanteigne regardingthe dismissalofhiscase and the reasons for case and when viewed in thecontextofhispriordisciplinarymatters. Mr. Clark'sfailureto The Committee views Mr. Clark'sconduct as egregiousboth when viewed as anindividual IV. CONCLUSION AND SANCTION

he would be eligibletoretireon fullSocialSecuritybenefits. Panel'srecommendation but asked that thesuspensionnot commence untilOctober 2010, when priordisciplinefor the same orsimilarconduct. Mr. Clark stated that heacceptedtheHearing suspension,whether based on Standard 4.6relativetolackofcandor or Standard 8.2relativeto At oralargument,DisciplinaryCounsel emphasized that thebaselinesanctionshould be d. A propensitytominimize or dismisstheegregiousnessofhisconduct.