Ruth A. Hall (2005)

Represented by Counsel; Rule 8.4(a): Catch-all Rule. A. Hall violated the Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 4.2: Communication With Person the Professional Conduct Committee concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence that Ruth The attached Stipulation of Facts and Sanction, having been found by clear and convincing evidence,

made part thereof. and convincing evidence as outlined in the Stipulation of Facts and Sanction enclosed herewith and The Professional Conduct Committee determined that the record supports the Findings of Fact by clear

ofthe Hearings Committee Process. After deliberation, the Com.luittee voted to GRANT Disciplinary Counsel's Motion to Permit Waiver

were absent from the meeting. Cole, Nancy R. Hacking, Gretchen Rule Hamel. Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, and Stephen B. Stepanek Connair, Reporter, James R. Martin, Richard B. McNamara, David N. Page, Alan Cronheim, David N. Members present included: Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, ToniM. Gray, Vice Chair, Thomas C.

and Stipulation as to Facts and Sanction. Disciplinary Counsel, dated May 27,2005, Motion to Permit Waiver of Hearings Committee Process matter was presented pursuant to NH Sup. Ct. R. 37(A)(lII) by letter from Landya B. McCafferty, On June 21, 2005, Professional Conduct Committee considered the above-captioned matter. The

Hall, Ruth A. advs. Professional Conduct Committee #03-087

File Ruth A. Hall, Esquire cc: Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel

Date: (p/9-~(/0 5~' By:';, f i

for violating N.H. Prof. Conduct Rules 4. p. 2 2 and 8.4(a). For the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee issued a Public Censure to Ruth A. Hall

Standards, the Court has considered them when imposing sanctions). Case, 149 N.H. 13 p. 2 2, 139 (2003) (noting that although the Court has never formally adopted these Professional Responsibility, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991). See, e.g., Shillen's attorney discipline as described by the New Hampshire Supreme Court and with the ABA Center for appropriate discipline in this matter is a Public Censure. This sanction is in accord with the purpose of Having made the above findings and rulings, the Professional Conduct Committee concludes that the

"Stipulation of Facts and Sanction" is attached as Exhibit 2.)

Facts and Sanction" dated May 25, 2005. (A copy of the

2. Disciplinary Counsel and Ms. Hall have executed a"Stipulation of

as Exhibit p. 3 1.)

in this matter. (A copy of the Notice of Charges is attached hereto

p. 3 1. On May 20,2005, Disciplinary Counsel issued a Notice of Charges

In support, Disciplinary Counsel states as follows:

from the Professional Conduct Committee in this matter.

parties to waive the process before the Hearings Committee and seek a ruling

respectfully requests that the Professional Conduct Committee permit all

NOW COMES Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel, and

waive oral argument before the Committee.

8. In the event the Committee grants this request, all parties agree to

more expeditious result while preserving scarce judicial resources.

7. All parties agree that this request is made in an effort to seek a

pleadings.

Committee process and seek the Committee's ruling on the

there is"good cause" to permit the parties to waive the Hearings

Counsel have entered into a stipulation on both facts and sanction,

6. Where, as is the case here, the Respondent and Disciplinary

rule under this section."

professional conduct committee may waive the application of any

states:"As good cause appears and as justice may require, the

Committee in the"Preface" to N.H. Sup. ct. R. 37A(III). That Rule

parties can seek a waiver of the process before the Hearings

S. Disciplinary Counsel finds support for the proposition that the

Committee.

more expeditious result directly from the Professional Conduct

waiving the hearing before the Hearings Committee and seeking a

4. Disciplinary Counsel discussed with Ms. Hall the possibility of

Public Censure was the appropriate sanction.

allegations contained in the Notice of Charges and agreed that a

p. 5 3. In that"Stipulation of Facts and Sanction," Ms. Hall conceded all 3

Hampshire 0 p. 5 3887, by regular mail po tage prepaid. day of May, 2005 to Ruth A. Hall, Esquir . Street, Union, New To Permit Waiver Of Hearings Committee Process" is being sent on this 27th Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office, certify that a copy aforesaid"Motion I, Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel of the New Hampshire

C. Grant such other relief as is fair and in the public interest.

"Stipulation of Facts and Sanction"; and

B. Issue a Ruling on the basis of the Notice of Charges and

Process";

A. Grant this"Motion To Permit Waiver Of Hearings Committee

Honorable Committee:

WHEREFORE, Disciplinary Counsel respectfully requests that this p. 6 1

Middleton, Massachusetts to visit Mr. Carew. Shortly before that visit,

4. On or about August 2 p. 6 1,2003, you went to Essex County Jail in

States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

3. Mr. Carew's trial was scheduled for September 23, 2003, at the United

Mr. Stewart.

nos. 03c78-0 p. 6 1, 02-M). James D. Gleason represented the co-defendant,

United States of America v. Stanley Stewart and Heathcliff Carew (Docket

2. In 2003, you represented Heathcliff Carew ina criminal case entitled

well as the disciplinary rules alleged to have been violated.

Charges sets forth both the allegations of misconduct against you, as.

Court Rule 37A(III)(b)(2). In accordance with that Rule, this Notice of

p. 6 1. This Notice of Charges is issued pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme

witness" who'Just happened to be a codefendant;"

You stated something to the effect that you were simply"interviewing a

conduct implicated New Hampshire Rule of Professional Conduct4. p. 7 2.

8. Moments before the hearing, you informed Mr. Gleason that you had met

sentencing hearing for November p. 7 24, 2003.

"guilty," and the Court accepted his change of plea and scheduled a

hearing. On that date, Mr. Stewart changed his plea from"not guilty" to

7. On August p. 7 25, 2003, you attended Mr. Stewart's"change of plea"

name and address of a witness in the case.

underlying criminal activity. Mr. Stewart also provided you with the

Stewart was willing to testifY that Mr. Carew had no knowledge of the

Stewart. Mr. Stewart agreed to speak with you. You learned that Mr.

6. After visiting with Mr. Carew at the jail, you requested to speak with Mr.

same facility.

speaking with Mr. Carew, you were reminded that Mr. Stewart was in the

other information relevant to your client's defense. While at the jail

Carew had no involvement in the underlying criminal matter and had

you understood that Mr. Stewart had"emphatically asserted" that Mr.

5. At the time of your meeting with Mr. Carew on or about August p. 7 21, 2003,

Stewart.

therefore aware at the time that Mr.Gleason was representing Mr.

you had had a meeting with Mr. Gleason about the case. You were p. 8 3

p. 8 37A(III)(b)(3)(A). Your answer must be in writing, must respond

days of the date of your receipt of this Notice of Charges. See Sup. Ct.R.

14. You are advised that you must answer th.is Notice of Charges within p. 8 30

8A(a).

convincing evidence, this would necessarily constitute a violation of Rule

1 p. 8 3. In the event that anyone of the above allegations is proven by clear and

would constitute a violation of Rule 4.2.

12. If proven by clear and convincing evidence, you conduct in this regard

to speak with him.

consent to speak with Mr. Stewart, and you were not authorized by law

about the subject of the representation. You did not have Mr. Gleason's

Stewart), whom you knew to be represented by counsel (Mr. Gleason),

11. On or about August 21, 200 p. 8 3, you spoke with a co-defendant (Mr.

Rule 4.2: Communication with Person Represented by Counsel

of Professional Conduct 4.2 and 8.4(a).

10. Your conduct in this case raises questions under New Hampshire Rules

Alleged Disciplinary Rules Violated

the Professional Conduct Committee dated September 2,200 p. 8 3.

9. After reviewing Rule p. 9 4.2, you self-reported your misconduct by letter to 4

"good cause," such pre-hearing conference must be requested within:30

Rule, which provides for a pre-hearing conference. In the absence of

which governs discovery in this matter, as well as subsection (6) of that

19. Your attention is also directed to Supreme Court Rule:37A(III)(b)(5),

See Sup. Ct. R. 37(~0)(b)(~).

product, internal memoranda, and deliberations) of both, shall be public.

Conduct Committee, as well as the written decisions (other than work

Charges that take place before the Hearings Committee and Professional

is now a public file. Further, the proceedings related to this Notice of

work product and internal memoranda of the Attorney Discipline Office)

18. This Notice of Charges and the file of Disciplinary Counsel (other than

:37A(III)(b)(~).

and to testifY and present evidence on your own behalf. See Sup. Ct.· R.

17. You are advised that you have the right to be represented by counsel,

period for you to file an answer. See Sup. Ct. R. 37 A(III)(b)( p. 9 4).

receiving an answer from you, or upon the expiration of the 30-day

Hearings Committee appoint a hearing panel in this matter either upon

16. I t is the duty of Disciplinary Counsel to request that the chair of the

Ct. R. 37A(IU)(b)(3)(A).

this Notice of Charges"shall be deemed to be admitted." See Sup.

15. In the event you fail to file an answer, the allegations set forth in

all affirmative defenses. See Sup. Ct. R. 37 A(III)(b)(3)(B).

specifically to each allegation of this Notice of Charges, and must assert p. 10 5

and a copy by regular mail postage prepaid. 03887, by certified mail #700231 p. 10 500001 53855696, return receipt requested A. Hall, Esquire, Attorney at Law, 112 Main Street, Union, New Hampshire aforesaid Notice of Charges is being sent on this 20 day of May, 2005 to Ruth th Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office, certifY that the original of the I, Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel of the New Hampshire

Date: May 20, 200 p. 10 5 BY: __ -V-f..-+-~-I-- __ -'-- __

R. 37 A(III)(b)(6)(A).

days of the appointment of a hearing panel in this matter. See Sup. Ct. p. 11 1

Ms. Hall had had a telephone conversation with Mr. Gleason about the

Middleton, Massachusetts to visit Mr. Carew. Shortly before that visit,

3. On or about August 2 p. 11 1,2003, Ms. Hall went to Essex County Jail in

States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

2. Mr. Carew's trial was scheduled for September 23, 2003, at the United

defendant, Mr. Stewart.

(Docket nos. 03-78-0 p. 11 1, 02-M). James D. Gleason represented the co-

entitled United States of America v. Stanley Stewart and Heathcliff Carew

p. 11 1. In 2003, Ruth A. Hall represented Heathcliff Carew in a criminal case

I. Stipulation of Facts

Hall, hereby submit this Stipulation in the above-referenced case.

Disciplinary Counsel, Landya B. McCafferty, and Respondent, Ruth A.

to the Professional Conduct Committee dated September p. 12 2,2003.

8. After reviewing Rule 4. p. 12 2, Ms. Hall self-reported her misconduct by letter

Conduct 4. p. 12 2.

Hall that her conduct implicated New Hampshire Rule of Professional

had met with Mr. Stewart the previous week Mr. Gleason alerted Ms.

7. Shortly before the hearing, Ms. Hall informed Mr. Gleason that Ms. Hall

sentencing hearing for November p. 12 24, 2003.

"guilty," and the Court accepted his change of plea and scheduled a

hearing. On that date, Mr. Stewart changed his plea from"not guilty" to

6. On August p. 12 25, 2003, Ms. Hall attended Mr. Stewart's"change of plea"

Ms. Hall with the name and address of a witness in the case.

knowledge of the underlying criminal activity. Mr. Stewart also provided

learned that Mr. Stewart was willing to testify that Mr. Carew had no

Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart agreed to speak with Ms. Hall. Ms. Hall

5. After visiting with Mr. Carew at the jail, Ms. Hall requested to speak with

Stewart was in the same facility.

at the jail speaking with Mr. Carew, Ms. Hall was reminded that Mr.

and had other information relevant to Ms_ Hall's client's defense. While

that Mr. Carew had no involvement in the underlying criminal matter

p. 12 2003, Ms. Hall understood that Mr. Stewart had "emphatically asserted"

4. At the time of Ms. Hall's meeting with Mr. Carew on or about August p. 12 21,

Mr. Stewart..

case. Ms. Hall was aware at the time that Mr. Gleason was representing p. 13 3

bar, preserving the integrity of the legal profession, al'ld preventing

discipline: protection of the public, maintaining public confidence in the

14. A Pl..Lblic Censure in this matter will satisfy all four goals of attorney

(1992) (listing"prior disciplinary offenSeS" as an aggravating factor).

hereto. See ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions § 9.22(a)

1 p. 13 3. Ms. Hall has a prior disciplinary history, a copy of which is attached

discipline in this matter.

12. The parties agree that a sanction of Public Censure is the appropriate

III. Stipulation as to Sanction

violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a).

the above rule, there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence of a

11. Because there exists dear and convincing evidence that Ms. Hall violated

Rule 4.2.

and convincing evidence that Ms. Hall violated N.H. R. Prof. Conduct

10. Because of the aforesaid conversation with Mr. Stewart, there exists clear

law to speak with him.

consent to speak with Mr. Stewart, and Ms. Hall was not authorized by

about the underlying criminal case. Ms. Hall did not have Mr. Gleason's

Stewart), whom she knew to be represented by counsel (Mr. Gleason),

9. On or about August 21,200 p. 13 3, Ms. Hall spoke with a co-defendant (Mr.

Rule 4.2: Communication with Person Represented by Counsel

II. Stipulation as to Rules Violated p. 14 4

I Landy B. Mc hlkerty, Disciplinary Counsel

Dated: oS /1'),2005 \

Dated: ~,2005

LD-2003-001, slip op. at 3 (N.H. May 6, 2005).

similar conduct in the future. See,~, Richmond's Case, No. p. 15 New'H?lllpshire Supreme Court. Hampshire Supreme Court, including a Reprimand or referral to the authorized by the Rules of the,Committee or the Rules of the New bound by its terms, but may take any appropriate action Admoni t;L0:n shall be v""cated and the hearing panel shalJ. not be the date of this Admonition. In the event of such demand, the writing and shall be filed with the Committee within 30 days of proceedings before a hearing pane],. Sucp a demand s,hall 'be in you have the right to demand that the Committee insq.tute'formitl ,Pursuant to § 2.8 of the Committee's Rules and Proc,edures.

, 5.3, (a) , 5.3 (b) and 8.4 ( a) . are guilty of professional misconduct and in violation of Rules The'Committee finds that because of the above conduct you

were nOt in your office. trust account records; and that most of the trust account records tI:'aining-or system used, there was no reasonable oversight of the the activity or revi,ew the work of Ms. Lehmani that no inatter the actions of your employee, Sharon Lehmani that you did not monitor finds that you had a trust account shortage attributed'to the After giving due consideration to this record the Committee

record of the above entitled matter. Professional Conduct Committee thoroughly reviewed the entire At'its regular meeting held on Wednesday,.:Tune 16,1993, the

Dear J.ls. Hall:

Re: Hall, Ruth A. advs. Professional Conduct COIT~ittee - *92-160

Dover, New HampShire 03820 10 Second Street, Suite J Ruth A. Hall, Esquire

The State if New Hampshire Supreme Court p. 16 PFK/bjl

subsequently brought against you. Committee in the event other charges of misconduct are file. The record of the Admonition may be considered by this A copy of this Admonition will be placed in your permanent

Re: #92-160 Ruth A. Ha}l, Esquire Page Two p. 17 ' ,

undetlymg case. . distract you and the court from the P6lice Department's failure to pursue the c~mplai1!ct and suggests that amotrve f9tMr.Sullivan's c0!llplaiutI1i1ght beto, and foVow-up letter. The compl~t denies the ~egations in JI4:r. Su}livan's ated letter, later attested to (on Au"oust 6, 2001) WIth a notanzed' slgnature ,:w:operly.,executed and delivered subpoena. You fi\ed a cross~coID£laint in an al;msiv" beh,avior and your attempt to coIIi.pel prodllction of recordS through an . " Mr. Sullivan filed this complaint against you on July 3, 200l,allegi:ng

June 15,2001. The C(j1Lrt granted the llliltmn.on June 18, 200l. Mr. Blaszka filed a Motion to Quas~ Subpoena the day he was served:.

illvplved an'd aSk&dyouto ietunl the call to discuss J,'esolution. You did not . , - . retlim t;b.at call. ,.., ' June 18;:2001 and mdicated ·that there illlght be; a matter of profeSSIOnal conduct CalJ. POf!:s:mOiItp.C,lty.AttoTIley Robert P: Sullivan: t~lepl1011ed ~ou.oil Mon(iay, Russ telyphQ.IJ.ed yO,ll in IUl attempt to resolve t]ie matter. You <lie! not J:~hlrri. tl;J.e p. 17 ' ,-C?I:[l#o~~D:ak[~£f~~~~oll~~rfu! :~~~To~!~~t.

~th(mne McGauflin. You bro1J,ght-a sulzH'gena Wlt;b. you and sought the - -se#z to obtain:file ~ilifo:i::mittion.related to the Illll;tter of K:iID.berly:Phillips v.' June 15, 2001 you went to the Portsmouth Police Department Office of Records . After givirlg' due consideration to this re~;ord the Committee fuids that on - , aboVe <;ntitled matter., " , , . p. 17 ' ,.' . Profesiliop.at Conduct Co'mmittee thoroughly reviewed the entire record of the .' "Atitsregularmeetinghcld,on Wedy,esday;May21,2003, the, '

, Dear Ms; Hall:

#01~071 Sullivan, Robert P. advs.,Ruth A. Han Re: • Hall; Ruth A., advs. Robert P. Sulliva.-i

Umon, New Hampshire 03887. 112 Main Street' ", Ruth A- Hall, ,Esquire,

, ,The State of New Hampshire Supreme Court

\l,pccsVrl'Data\DOCS\CONCLUSN\03CLOSEti\Ol-071Ih.~d:wpd Robert P _ Su1livB11, Esquire - cc: Stan Hawthorne, Esquire <> MRNlbo-

part of MI. SUllivan. ,- _ '.". d~smissed tb,e' c,?mplaint with a:findfug of no professional misconduct on the - _ : with regard to your cross-complaint against Mr. Scln.van,the'Committee, C 4.4,4 .." 8.L(a) and: 8.4(0).. - _ - , ' , .... ~in~y, the Co~tte~ made' no :findings with regard· to Rcles 33(a)(i);,

appeal m accordanoe WltlI the Rcles of the NewHampslrire Supreme Court -' you are entitled y:o app~ a Repriman!ilJy:fi1!Rg ll;written notice of vio~ati<in. . conSIdered m detenmnmg the seventy of disCIpline lm,posedfor any,further· ,will ~e plac::d in yOll! periminimt ill.e. The.fj~~gs}nthisID<Ltter may be,-- -' - Reprimand is isSued because of this misconduct and a copy

. -uofessioDlll Conduct .' - " ... ~ofessional mi~conduct;md in violation of Rules 3.1 and 8ACa) of the Rules of -. The Committee finds that because of the above conduct you are guilty of froth factual basIs. ,. .. df3:!artmentWl~ respect to therr handling of the underlymg case WIthout a good untruths VIilth,?ut eVl.dence, :unpugued ~e lIltegnty ofth~members.of that' , . frivolous f!liD-g. It {OlWd t¥t,youa:ccuse~ me~bers of the ?olice De p. iirt!D,ent of the ·filiug of your cioss-coIIlplamt was withQut a factual basis lind coPstituted a -, The Committee fourid that there was c1eanll~d convincing evidenoe that . --

, May 27, 2003 "Re: #01-071 Ruth AHall,Esquire ' 'Page2