Carl D. Olson (2009)

matter, Mr. Olson practiced law at the Law Office of Carl D. who was admitted to the Bar in 1990. At all times material to this 1. Respondent, Carl D. Olson, Esq., is a New Hampshire attorney A. Summary of the Facts in Docket #08-044

as set forth in the Stipulation are established by clear and convincing evidence: Stipulation, ("Stipulation") as to the facts ofthis matter. Accordingly, the facts described below The Respondent and the ADO have stipulated, and the Committee accepts the 1. FINDINGS OF FACT

voted to accept the Assented-to Motion to Permit Waiver of Formal Proceedings. The Respondent and Disciplinary Counsel ("ADO") assented to, and the Committee Marilyn Billings McNamara. Richard H. Darling was absent. David N. Cole (via telephone); Thomas P. Connair; Gerald A. Daley; James R. Martin, and Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair; Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair; Susan R. Chollet; Alan J. Cronheim; above-captioned matters. Committee members present included: Margaret H. Nelson, Chair; On Jime 17,2009, the Professional Conduct Committee ("Committee") deliberated the

Alan J. Cronheiru 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'

(Emphasis in original).

3. Having received no voluntary response to the grievance from Mr. assistance of counsel. charges. Mr. Santizo claimed that Mr. Olson provided ineffective to Mr. Olson's representation ofhim on multiple felony-level drug 17,2008, Mr. Santizo filed a grievance against Mr. Olson related inmate at the Hillsborough County House of Corrections. On July 2. The Complainant in this matter is Maynor Lopez Santizo, an 03053. Olson, 50 Nashua Road, Suite 201,. Londonderry, New Hampshire p. 3 Page 3 of9

5. On October 15,2008, James L. DeHart, Esq., General Counsel of September 10, 2008, letter. 4. Mr. Olson received, but did not respond to Mr. Trevethick's p. 4 Page 4 of9 follows: 12. On October IS, 2008, Mr. DeHart wrote a letter to Mr. Olson as September 10, 2008, letter. 1 L Nlr. Olson received, but did not respond to !'vir. Treve-&Jck's

(Emphasis in original).

10. Having received no voluntary response to the grievance from Mr. ineffective assistance of counsel. Corrections. Mr. O'Neil claimed that Mr. Olson provided Mr. O'Neil was a resident of the Hillsborough County House of of felony criminal threatening. At the time he filed his grievance, of him on several counts of domestic-related assault and one count p. 5 Page 5 of9

[aj... disciplinary authority: ..." N.H. R. prof. Conduct 8.1 (b). 16. Mr. Olson has an obligation"to respond to a lawful demand for information from

establishes these violations by clear and convincing evidence: Stipulation, as to the Rules of Professional Conduct that were violated. The Stipulation The Respondent and the ADO have stipulated, and the Committee accepts the II. RULINGS OF LAW

Stipulation ~~ 1-15.

Coddington's Case, ISS N.H. 66, 71 (2007). The Committee then considers the effect of any Committee first categorizes the respondent's misconduct, then identifies the appropriate sanction. N.H. 503, 513 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). In applying these factors the (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. Standards, supra § 3.0; Coffiy's Case, 152 lawyer's mental state; (c) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and list the following factors to be considered in imposing sanctions: (a) the duty violated; (b) the adopted the Standards the Court has considered them when imposing sanctions). The Standards e.g., Shillen's Case, 149 N.H. 132, 139 (2003) (noting that although the Court has never formally Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) (Standards), the Committee looks to them for guidance. See, Although New Hampshire has not adopted the American Bar Association's Standards for III. ANALYSIS

Id. ~~ 16-21.

forth herein, My. Olson has necessarily violated Rule 8.4(a). 22. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence ofthe above violation as set

Rule 8.1(b). 21. My. Olson's conduct constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of Discipline Office. his obligation to respond to lawful demands for information from the Attorney 20. My. Olson's failure to respond to those letters constitutes a knowing violation of respond to them. 19. In each instance, Mr. Olson knew of the letters and was aware of his obligation to from the Attorney Discipline Office. DeHart's letter dated October 15,2008, were lawful demands for information 18.. In matter #08-045, Mr. Trevethick's letter dated September 10,2008, and Mr. from the Attorney Discipline Office. DeHart's letter dated October 15,2008, were lawful demands for information 17. In matter #08-044, Mr. Trevethick's letter dated September 10,2008, and Mr. p. 7 Page 7 of9

or public censure. A reprimand is most appropriate in this case once the mitigating and Standards, the parties agree that Mr. Olson's conduct warrants a baseline sanction of reprimand Upon consideration of the initial three-part test and the above-referenced la.'lguage of the he promptly responded to the complaints. harm only to himself, because the matters may have been disposed of earlier in the process had Olson's belated responses to the complaints reveal that his misconduct ultimately caused direct ultimately file responses to the complaints in both matters. Further, in terms of injury, Mr. appropriate baseline sanction in this case. Although his mental state was knowing, Mr. Olson did himself; therefore, disbarment is not an appropriate baseline sanction. Nor is a suspension an While Mr. Olson's mental state was knowing, he did not act with any intent to benefit appropriate where the violation is negligent. Id. §7.3, 7.4. violation of a professional obligation, id. §7.2, and either a public censure or reprimand is himself. Standards §7.1. A suspension from the practice of law is appropliate for a knowing violation of a professional obligation where the lawyer acts with an intent to obtain a benefit for That Standard provides that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for a knowing cooperate charge. Professional," provides some guidance for determining a baseline sanction for a failure to Although not directly applicable, Standard 7.0, entitled"Violations of Duties Owed as a the two complaints at issue here. discipline process by failing to respond in a timely manner to the demands for information about Under the third prong of the analysis, Mr. Olson acknowledges causing harm to the knowing breach of his duty to cooperate with the Attorney Discipline Office. Under the first and second prongs of the analysis in this case, Mr. Olson's violation was a See Wolterbeek's Case, 152 N.H. 710, 714 (2005). existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors and whether they affect the baseline sanction. sanction is determined, the Court then looks to the fourth and fmal step in the analysis: the for characterizing the misconduct and determining a baseline sanction. Once the baseline The first three parts in the analysis recommended in the Standards create the framework aggravating or mitigating factors on the ultimate sanction. Id. p. 8 Page 8 of9 of attorney discipline as described by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See, e.g., Feld's appropriate discipline in this matter is a Reprimand. This sanction is in accord with the purposes Having made the above fmdings and rulings, the Committee concludes that the IV. SANCTION

has no disciplinary record. remorse and acknowledgment of error. Other than this bevy of complaints in 2008, Mr. Olson Further mitigating factors include Mr. Olson's cooperation with Disciplinary Counsel, his complaint. This is both fortunate and mitigating. was able to concede his failure to cooperate and, although belated, file detailed responses to each to cooperate persists well beyond Disciplinary Counsel's prosecution. Here, however, Mr. Olson to respond to a disciplinary complaint for a variety of reasons. Very often, a respondent's failure Disciplinary Counsel has seen many cases where respondents become temporarily unable head in the sand." frustration, anxiety, and ultimately, inaction, that resulted, as Mr. Olson temporarily"buried his which to bring charges. This does not excuse Mr. Olson's behavior, but it helps explain the complaints. In light of Mr. Olson's responses, their complaints do not offer sufficient bases on There is some evidence that the inmates acted in concert with one another in filing the filed his responses to the four docketed complaints around the same time, in February 2009. Complaint Screening Committee that the complaints were without merit. Notably, Mr. Olson In those cases, Mr. Olson's responses were tardy, but he was able to persuade the a warnmg. February 13, 2009. In one matter, #08-033, Mr. DeHart dismissed the complaint without issuing Screening Committee issued the two Warnings in matters #08-057 and #08-059, by letters dated of Corrections. Two of those five grievances are the subject of this stipulation. The Complaint grievances from former clients, each of whom was an inmate at the Hillsborough County House for his failure to cooperate. In the Fall of 2008, Mr. Olson was the subject of five different There is one aggravating factor in this case. Mr. Olson has two prior warnings in 2008 analysis. aggravating factors are considered, pursuant to the fourth prong of the recommended sanction p. 9 Page 9 of9

File Carl D. Olson, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

37(3)(c). appeal this decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See also Supreme Court Rule Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(A)(III)(d)(2)(D)(4)(A), the parties have the right to VII. RIGHT TO APPEAL

N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.l(b): Failure To Cooperate, and 8.4(a): Misconduct. For the above reasons the Committee issues a Reprimand to the Respondent for violating VI. CONCLUSION

Respondent will pay all costs associated with the investigation and prosecution ofthis matter. The Respondent and the ADO have stipulated, and the Committee accepts, that the V. COSTS

Case, 149 NH 19, 28 (2002). This sanction is also in accord with the Standards.