Lenora E. Boehm (2010)

admitted to practice in 1990. Until November 1,2008, Ms. Boehm operated her law

1. Ms. Boehm is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Ms. Boehm was

the following facts:

The parties stipulated to, and the Committee thus finds, by clear and convincing evidence,

Hearing Panel Report, the Committee makes factual findings and rulings as detailed below:

Facts and Violations, Ms. Boehm's Memorandum in Support of Proposed Sanction, and the

Having reviewed the record, including the Notice of Charges, Answer, Stipulation as to

were absent. Oral Argument was not requested by the parties.

Richard H. Darling, and James R. Martin. Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, and Jennifer L. Parent

Chair, Susan R. Chollet, David N. Cole, Thomas P. Connair, Alan J. Cronheim, Gerald A. Daley,

above captioned matter. Members present were: Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, Toni M. Gray, Vice

On January 19,2010, the Professional Conduct Committee ("Committee") deliberated the

Boehm, Lenora E. advs. Kimberly Frederickson # 08-055

Gerald A. Daley* Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Alan J. Cronheim * non attorney member Thomas P. Connair David N. Cole Toni M. Gray,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 • Fax 228-9511 Jennifer L. Parent Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 James R. Martin Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Richard H. Darling*

the basis of Ms. Frederickson's grievance. Mr. Trevethick's December 11 letter states:

and informed her that the ADO was docketing a formal complaint against Ms. Boehm on

General Counsel, enclosed a copy of Ms. Frederickson's grievance against Ms. Boehm

S. In a letter to Ms. Boehm dated December 11,2008, Thomas V. Trevethick, Deputy

27, 2008, letter.

investigation of the matter. Ms. Boehm did not elect to respond to Ms. DeVito's October

opportunity to respond (on a voluntary basis) at the earliest stage of the ADO's

a copy of Ms. Frederickson's grievance to Ms. Boehm, offering Ms. Boehm the

4. In a letter dated October 27,2008, Janet F. DeVito, Assistant General Counsel, forwarded

professional misconduct stemming from Ms. Boehm's representation of Mr. Gagne.

complaint against Ms. Boehm to the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO), alleging

3. On or about October 24, 2008, Ms. Frederickson hand-delivered an undated letter of

Boehm continues to represent Mr. Gagne in that matter.

December 7,2007, Ms. Boehm filed her Appearance on behalf of Mr. Gagne. Ms.

Kimberly Frederickson and David Gagne, docket no. 2007-DM-630. On

Her case was filed in Concord Family Division, and was entitled, In the Matter of

from her then-husband, David Gagne, on grounds of adultery and injurious treatment.

2. In 2007, Kimberly Frederickson filed a Petition for Legal Separation, seeking a divorce

PLLC, 1 Capitol Street, 2nd Floor, Concord, New Hampshire 03301.

all times after November 1, 2008, Ms. Boehm has practiced law at Boehm & Wright,

office as Barnes, Boehm & Wright, 8 Court Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. At p. 3 Page 3 of 17

wrote:

7. In a letter to Ms. Boehm dated January 13, 2009, James L. DeHart, General Counsel,

6. Ms. Boehm did not respond to Mr. Trevethick's December 11,2008, letter.

(Emphasis in original.)

and Procedures of Attorney Discipline System. is a complete copy of Rule 37 as well as a copy of Rule 37A entitled Rules Pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37(22), enclosed Rule 37(20). by the Rules of the Supreme Court. See New Hampshire Supreme Court Screening Committee, shall be kept confidential until otherwise provided to this Office, and any action taken by this Office or the Complaint Please be advised that all matters relating to complaints submitted considers appropriate. complainant, the Attorney Discipline Office will take any further action it Following receipt of your reply and the response from the that must be attached to any letters you file. information and comment. Also enclosed is a Certification of Copies form A copy of your reply must be forwarded to the complainant for her VIOLATED. RULE 8.I(b). THAT THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT HAVE BEEN IN THE SCHEDULING OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND IN A FINDING COOPERATE WITH A DISCIPLINARY AGENCY COULD RESULT TO THE REQUESTS OF THIS OFFICE. THE FAILURE TO IT IS EXPECTED THAT YOU WILL PROMPTLY RESPOND New Hampshire 03301. See Supreme Court Rule 37 A(II)(a)(5)(C). Counsel, Attorney Discipline Office, 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102, Concord, within 30 days of the date of this letter to James L. DeHart, General You are required to submit an original and two copies of your reply matter for further review. complaint filed by Kimberly S. Frederickson. We have docketed this I am forwarding herewith a copy of a professional conduct Dear Ms. Boehm: p. 4 Page 4 of 17

would testify that she received this letter.

to respond to a disciplinary authority and on the merits of the complaint." Ms. Boehm

Frederickson's complaint to Disciplinary Counsel "for further action on both the failure

Complaint Screening Committee informed Ms. Boehm that it was referring Ms.

10. In a l~tter to Ms .. Boehm dated February 13,2009, Martha Van Oot, Chair of the

office, they had experienced other problems receiving mail.

described above, and that for a number of weeks following the relocation of the law

9. Ms. Boehm and her staff would testify that she did not receive either of the letters,

New Hampshire 03301).

Boehm's correct address (Boehm & Wright, PLLC, 1 Capitol Street, 2 Floor, Concord, nd 8. It is undisputed that the ADO mailed the December 11 and January 13 letters to Ms.

(Emphasis in original.)

A copy of my letter to you dated December 11, 2008 is enclosed.

public. Conduct. In the event a Notice of Charges is issued, the file will become of your failure to cooperate. See Rule 8.1 (b) of the Rules of Professional for the issuance of a Notice of Charges for a public hearing on the issue Office will recommend that the matter be referred to Disciplinary Counsel If you fail to immediately file your answer to the complaint this

immediate attention. which was due on January 12,2009. Please give this matter your filed by Kimberly S. Fredrickson. We have not received your reply, On December 11, 2008, you were mailed a copy of a complaint

Dear Ms. Boehm: p. 5 Page 5 of 17

letters constitute a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.I(b).

16. Ms. Boehm's failure to respond to the ADO's December 11,2008, and January 13,2009,

failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority.

15. Ms. Boehm's failure to respond to the ADO's correspondence represents a knowing

14. Not until July 13,2009, did Ms. Boehm respond to the ADO's correspondence.

respond.

that pursuant to N.H. Supreme Court Rule 37 A(II)(a)(5)(C), Ms. Boehm was obligated to

the ADO correspondence on March 6, 2009. Both of those letters informed Ms. Boehm

13. Ms. Boehm received copies of the December 11,2008 and January 13, 2009 letters from

violations by clear and convincing evidence as follows:

as to the Rules of Professional Conduct that were violated. The Stipulation establishes these

The Respondent and the ADO have stipulated, and the Committee accepts the Stipulation

2008, or January 13,2009.

date, Ms. Boehm has never formally responded to the ADO's letters of December 11,

12. Except as set forth in Ms. Boehm's Answer to the Notice of Charges in this matter, to

time she saw either letter.

January 13,2009 (from Mr. DeHart). Ms. Boehm would testify that this was the first

a copy of the letter dated December 11, 2008 (from Mr. Trevethick), and the letter dated

date, and per Ms. Boehm's request, Mr. Trevethick forwarded to Ms. Boehm via telefax

11. On March 6, 2009, Mr. Trevethick spoke with Ms. Boehm on the telephone. On that p. 6 Page 6 of17

the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors and whether they affect the baseline sanction.

baseline sanction is determined, the Court then looks to the fourth and final part of the analysis:

misconduct and determining the baseline sanction. See Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303. Once the

The first three parts of the analysis create the framework for characterizing the

in reaching the ultimate sanction. Id.

Case, 155 N.H. at 66 (2007). We then consider the effect of any aggravating or mitigating factors

categorize the respondent's misconduct and then identify the appropriate sanction. Coddington's

aggravating or mitigating factors. Standards, supra, § 3.0. In applying these factors, we first

the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of

consideration when iInposing sanctions: (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c)

("Standards"), we look to them for guidance. The Standards list the following factors for

adopted the American Bar Association's Standards/or Imposing Sanctions (2002),

now tum to a determination of the appropriate sanction. Although New Hampshire has not

Having found the foregoing facts and Rule violations by clear and convincing evidence, we

account the severity of the misconduct." Coffey'S Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005).

in the future." E.g. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). "The sanction must take into

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

herein, Ms. Boehm has violated Rule 8.4(a).

17. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence of the above violation as set forth

Ms. Boehm explained that as a result of a prior disciplinary complaint in the Marble

wrong." Tr. at 35.

2009. Tr. at 30. As to her failure to respond promptly Ms. Boehm stated:"I understand that was

Counsel she took no action until she filed her response to the Frederickson complaint on July 13,

March .... " Tr. at 33-34. Nevertheless, following her March 6, 2009, contact with Disciplinary

tim~ [she] learned that the complaint needed a response was when [she] contacted the ADO in

admitted she was aware of the Frederickson complaint, "early on," but claimed that"the first

office experienced with mail not being forwarded from her former office. Tr. at 31-33. She

from Mr. DeHart. Tr. at 34 and 45. Ms. Boehm described the substantial problems her new law

correspondence dated December 11,2008, from Mr. Trevethick, or that dated January 13,2009,

she first contacted the ADO. Tr. at 30-31 and 45-46. She stated that she never received the

February 13,2009, from the Complaint Screening Committee on March 6,2009, and that is when

Regarding the matter at issue, Ms. Boehm testified that she received the letter dated

a few juvenile and bankruptcy matters. Tr. at 29.

divorce litigation," with a current caseload of 16 divorce cases, ten Guardian ad Litem cases, and

and began practicing law in 1991. Tr. at 27. Ms. Boehm described her law practice as "mostly

from Franklin Pierce Law School in 1989, became a member of the New Hampshire Bar in 1990,

Wright, Esq., at the firm of Boehm and Wright in Concord. Tr. at 26. Ms. Boehm graduated

Ms. Boehm testified that she is currently practicing law with her partner, Shayna M.

made significant admissions.

Ms. Boehm testified before the Hearing Panel and herself characterized her conduct and

See id p. 8 Page 8 of 17

until July 13, 2009, that Ms. Boehm filed an answer to the charges.

notice of the pending charges and her obligation to respond at least by March 6, 2009, it was not

with the ADO for an extended period of time. Although Ms. Boehm admits that she received

Under the first prong of the analysis, it is uncontested that Ms. Boehm failed to cooperate

30 letter to Disciplinary Counsel. Tr. at 57-59. Hearing Panel Report, Tab 15, pp. 5-7.

her about her need to report on the changes, and a motion to show cause, did she send the March

to meet t~is extended deadline, and only after three letters from Disciplinary Counsel to remind

pursuant to Mr. Greene's recommendations to January 5, 2009. Tr. at 57-58. Ms.y Boehm failed

admitted that the Committee had granted her an extension to file her report on changes made

Disciplinary Counsel in correspondence dated March 30, 2009. Tr. at 47-48 and 54-56. She

changes resulting from the Marble matter, and she reported changes she implemented to

December 10, 2008, she received Mr. Greene's audit of her law practice and recommended

and a new case file system. Tr. at 36-39. On cross-examination, Ms. Boehm stated that on

attorney having a paralegal dedicated solely to the attorney, a telephone and correspondence log,

firm practices, as part of the diversion contract." Tr. at 36. Improvements included each

part ofa diversion, and also knew that we were being audited by Mr. Greene as part of the law

were restructuring it differently. I was coming off of the heels of the Marble matter, which was

we moved to the new location, I looked at it as a fresh start. We were taking our staff, but we

to address Ms. Boehm's law practice management deficiencies. Tr. at 35-36. She stated: "When

matter, she and Ms. Wright had already begun to make changes in their practice at their new firm

21,2008), and an audit of their practice by Arthur G. Greene, Esq. under the sanction in that

matter (Public Censure with Mandatory Diversion for violating Rules 1.4, 8.1 (b), and 8.4(a), July p. 9 Page 9 of17

very basis of our professionalism erodes." discipline seriously, we cannot expect the public to do so and the the members of our profession do not take the process of internal fails and public confidence in the legal profession is undermined. If fit. Obviously, unless attorneys cooperate in the process, the system whether the lawyer should continue to be certified to the public as Association is deprived of information necessary to determine individual attorney's cooperation. Without that cooperation, the Bar of investigating complaints depends to a great extent upon an misconduct, require prompt, complete investigations. The process confidence in the legal profession, and the deterrence of the attorneys admitted to practice before this court. Public machinery for handling charges regarding the ethics and conduct of Association's investigation of a complaint is an integral part of the profession, as distinguished from a trade or business. The Bar 'Internal investigation and self-discipline are at the very heart of a been expressed in clear terms by the Washington Supreme Court: "The importance of ensuring cooperation with the committee has

In Clark's Case, 136 N.H. 497,498 (1992), the New Hampshire Supreme Court stated:

matters or clients.

it is clear that Ms. Boehm has a clear and continuing issue with respect to responding to difficult

her mail. Based on the evidence of record and the testimony and arguments made at the Hearing,

or the existence of an innocent mistake causing her failure to respond, other than the issues with

She did not claim any mental or other disability which may have contributed to her misconduct,

to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disCiplinary authority." (emphasis added).

Facts and Violations, Ms. Boehm's failure to respond to the ADO"represents a knowing failure

Ms. Boehm's mental state is relevant in this matter. As stated in the Stipulation as to

Tab 11, Stipulation, par. 17.

knowing failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority.

Boehm has stipulated that her "failure to respond" the ADO's correspondence represents a

The second prong of the three-part test requires analysis of Ms. Boehm's mental state. Ms. p. 10 Page 10 of 17 In addition, we find that Ms. Boehm's lengthy and recent disciplinary record provides

complaint by March 6, 2009, but failed to do so until July 13,2009.

disciplinary process. She testified that she knew of the need to respond to the Frederickson

On the other side of the coin, it is undisputed that Ms. Boehm failed to cooperate with the

Hearing Panel Report, Tab 15 pp. 10-11. There are no mitigating factors.

made might be used against her client in the underlying action, did not evidence genuine remorse.

that she felt that the complaint against her might ultimately be dismissed, and that any response she

to the ADO because: the Office did not continually repeat her obligation to respond after March 6, 2009;

the Hearing Panel found that Ms. Boehm's repeated assertion that she was justified in failing to respond

law. Ms. Boehm asserts that she evidenced genuine remorse in mitigation. However, as detailed above,

We find that the appropriate baseline sanction in this matter is a suspension from the practice of

to a client, the public, or the legal system. that is a violation of a duty as a professional and causes injury or potential injury Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct

Standards, entitled: Violations of Duties Owed as a Professional provides in Section 7.2:

In detennining the baseline sanction, the standards provide guidance. Section 7.0 of the

administration of justice and placed herself above the law.

profession. Ms. Boehm's effort to evade and ignore the regulatory process interfered with the

misconduct. Here, Ms. Boehm's misconduct caused harm to the reputation and integrity of the legal

The third prong requires analysis of the actual or potential injury caused by Ms. Boehm's

disciplinary process and undennined public confidence in the legal profession.

Here, it is undisputed that Ms. Boehm knowingly failed and refused to cooperate with the

(quoting Clark, 99 Wash.2d 702, 707-08, 663 P.2d 1339, 1341-42 (1983)). p. 11 Page 11 of 17

The Committee adopts and imposes the following conditions to the suspension as proposed by

years contingent upon successful compliance with the following conditions.

a professional law practice, the Committee suspends three months of the suspension for a period of two

appropriate. However, in yet another effort to assist Ms. Boehm in rehabilitating herself and establishing

evidenced by her lengthy disciplinary record, the Committee determined that a six month suspension is

violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the repeated and recent violations of the Rules as

the practice of law is the appropriate sanction. Based on the seriousness of the offense, the knowing

The aggravating factors and the lack of any mitigating factors suggest a lengthy suspension from

to Show Cause. Hearing Panel Report, Tab 15 at 12.

Mandatory Diversion until she had received three letters form Disciplinary Counsel and a Motion

Diversion, implemented to improve her law practice, she failed to comply with provisions of the

correspondence, pleadings and complaints. In December 2008, as part of the Mandatory

lengthy pattern of professional misconduct, with many related to the failure to respond to

Diversion for violating Rules 1.4, 8.1 (b), and 8.4(a) , July 21, 2008. These violations evidence a

about the status of their cases, October 2, 2000, and, (7) Public Censure with Mandatory

delay in responding to a client, May 30, 2000; (6) Warning related to keeping clients informed

1.1 ( c )(4), 1.3(a), 1.4(a) and 8.4(a), October 26, 1999; (5) Warning for failure to respond or a

seizure of funds for a client, June 29, 1998; (4) Reprimand for violating Rulesl.1(b)(5),

l.I(b)(5), 1.3(a), l.4(a), and 8.4(a), June 8; 1998; (3) Warning for issue relating to unjustified

violating Rules l.15( c) and 8.4(a) , October 31,1995; (2)Reprimand for violating Rules 1. 1 (a),

warnings since 1995. The record shows the following Committee actions: (1) Reprimand for

serious aggravating factors. Ms. Boehm has received a public censure, three reprimands and three p. 12 Page 12 of 17

clients will be reviewed by the secretary assigned to support Ms. Boehm (or herlhis such e-mail. All incoming e-mails for Ms. Boehm related to her representation of providing administrative assistance pursuant to this Sanction Order, has access to d) Incoming E-Mail: Ms. Boehm shall set up her e-mail account so that the secretary

by the writer and any applicable deadline for the response. description of the contents of the correspondence, the nature of any response sought entries will include the name of the client, the date of the correspondence, a brief herlhis designated substitute) by client name with appropriate file references. The log Boehm (whether by mail or fax) will be logged in by Ms. Boehm's secretary (or c) Incoming Client Correspondence: All incoming client correspondence to Ms.

of any response sought by the caller and any applicable deadline for the response. of that message will be attached to or incorporated into the log, including the nature make a notation to that effect on the log. If the caller elects to leave a message, a copy Ms. Boehm's voicemail. If the caller selects voicemail, Ms. Boehm's secretary will will be asked if he/she prefers to leave a message with the secretary or to be put into log in the calls by caller name, date and time. If Ms. Boehm is not available, the caller secretary assigned to support Ms. Boehm (or herlhis designated substitute) who will b) Incoming Calls: All incoming calls for Ms. Boehm will be routed first to the

workload and availability. may also support other attorneys and paralegals in the office, depending upon specific terms of the Sanction Order. The secretary assigned to support Ms. Boehm a full-time secretary to provide Ms. Boehm with administrative support to effect the a) Administrative Assistance. Boehm & Wright (Ms. Boehm's law office) will assign

Respondent's practice of law: 2. Response Logs. The following terms and conditions apply to specific aspects of the

accordance with the terms of this Sanction Order. concerns regarding Ms. Boehm's diligence and/or communication with her clients in b) Ms. Wright shall report to the ADO on a monthly basis whether there are issues or

subparagraph, below. Counsel regarding Ms. Boehm's compliance as provided in the following the terms and conditions of this Sanction Order and also shall report to Disciplinary firm) and a signatory to the agreement, shall monitor Ms. Boehm's compliance with a) Shayna M. Wright, Esq., a partner of Boehm & Wright, PLLC (Ms. Boehm's law

of her practice of law, as described herein. 1. Ms. Boehm shall comply with the terms of this Sanction Order, including the monitoring

Ms. Boehm and adopted by the Hearing Panel: p. 13 Page 13 of 17 Ms. Boehm is working, Ms. Wright will inquire further about the identity of the b) If any call, e-mail, correspondence or pleadings do not involve matters on which

and being followed. less than a weekly basis to ensure that the procedures in Paragraph 2 are implemented a) Ms. Wright will confer with Ms. Boehm's secretary (or hislher designee) on not

correspondence, telephone, e-mail and pleading logs: 3. Oversight -Attorney Wright. On at least a weekly basis, Ms. Wright will review the

subparagraph are fulfilled. marked to signify a completed response until the procedures described in this meeting to discuss the communication. In such instances, the log should not be their call, the attempts to reach the caller and inviting a phone call, e-mail letter or attempt must be made, followed by an e-mail or letter to the caller, acknowledging cannot be reached or Ms. Boehm or her staff leave a message, a second or third h) Telephonic Responses. If the form of the response is a return call, and the caller

calendar. response deadlines shall be placed in the logs and on Ms. Boehm's electronic pursuant to the Sanction Order shall review the logs once a day with Ms. Boehm. Any g) Review of Logs: Responses. The secretary providing assistance to Ms. Boehm

responsible, pursuant to the following paragraph, shall then occur immediately. in the communication, as outlined above. The oversight tasks for which Ms. Wright is Sanction Order shall notify Ms. Boehm and Ms. Wright as soon as possible, and log secretary providing assistance to Ms. Boehm (or hislher designee) pursuant to the f) Emergencies. If any incoming communication is of an emergency nature, the

respective client. response. Copies of the pleadings or correspondence shall be provided to the of any response required by such correspondence, and any applicable deadline for the correspondence, a brief description of the contents of the correspondence, the nature The log entries will include the name of the client or matter, the date of the herlhis designated substitute) by client/matter name with appropriate file references. counsel and all discovery requests, will be logged in by Ms. Boehm's secretary (or Boehm's cases or other active matters, including all pleadings filed by opposing incoming pleadings, court orders or other legal system correspondence related to Ms. e) Incoming Pleadings, Court Orders and Other Legal System Correspondence. All

deadline for the response. log, including the nature of any response sought by the author and any applicable the author of the email requests a response, a notation will be incorporated into the designated substitute) who will log in the e-mails by author narne, date and time. If p. 14 Page 14 of 17 burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish that imposition of the suspension. The Committee's decision shall be final. Disciplinary Counsel shall have the Counsel and Ms. Boehm ten (10) minutes to address the issue of imposition of the stayed granted or denied. Unless waived, oral arguments will be conducted to allow Disciplinary whether the motion requesting imposition of the three month suspension should be requested), or the denial of a request for such hearing, the Committee shall determine for an evidentiary hearing and for oral argument. Following an evidentiary hearing (if request oral Argument before the Committee. The Committee shall rule upon any request writing to Disciplinary Counsel's motion, to request an evidentiary hearing thereon, and to impose the stayed three month suspension. Ms. Boehm shall have the right to respond in violation, she may file a motion with the Committee requesting that the Committee

6. If Disciplinary Counsel concludes that, in her opinion, the reported event is a material

event. to provide Disciplinary Counsel with any additional information regarding the reported further investigation, if any, that she deems appropriate. Ms. Boehm shall have the right Sanction Order. In making that determination, Disciplinary Counsel may conduct such whether, in her opinion, the reported event is a material violation of the terms of this Sanction Order, Disciplinary Counsel shall review that report and shall determine 5. If, pursuant to Paragraph 1, Ms. Wright reports issues or concerns in accordance with this

provide proof sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this paragraph. registration, a description of each program and copies of materials. Ms. Boehm shall maintain a record of her attendance and participation in such courses, including proof of focusing on law practice management, including communications skills. Ms. Boehm shall a minimum of 6.5 hours of continuing legal education credit ("CLE") in CLE courses 4. CLE. During the first year described in this Sanction Order, Ms. Boehm shall also obtain

sought by the caller or writer was addressed appropriately. appropriately, identifying the date of the response and confirming that the response Ms. Boehm sends or provides to the individual and the log will be marked including the deadline for the response. Ms. Wright will be copied on any response that a further response is appropriate, she will discuss the matter with Ms. Boehm, will determine if a further response to the individual is appropriate. If she determines c) If the logged-in individuals do appear in the firm's active case files, Ms. Wright

writer was addressed appropriately. response and confirming that the response sought by the caller, pleadings author or individual, and the log will be marked appropriately, identifying the date of the Wright will be copied on any response Ms. Boehm sends or provides to the discuss this matter with Ms. Boehm, including the deadline for the response. Ms. further response to the caller, pleadings author or writer is appropriate, she will correspondence, and will follow up with Ms. Boehm. If Ms. Wright determines that a caller, writer or source of the pleading, and the reason for the call, pleading, e-mail or p. 15 Page 15 of 17

described above, that Ms. Boehm has not abided by these conditions, the remaining three months

stated above, to begin as of April 1, 2010. Should the Committee find, pursuant to the procedure

a period of six months with three months suspended for a period of two years with the conditions

appropriate discipline in this matter is that Ms. Boehm be suspended from the practice of law for

Having made the aforementioned findings and rulings, the Committee concludes that the

hereof must be initiated within 30 days offinal disposition of that complaint. imposition of the stayed suspension that is based upon a complaint under paragraph 9 are concluded after expiration of the one year period of the stay. Any request for the stayed three month suspension even if the proceedings on such complaints or motions motions are filed during such period, they can provide a basis for seeking imposition of pending pursuant to paragraphs 3 or 11 of this Sanction Order. If such complaints or suspension shall be permanently stayed provided that there are no complaints or motions 10. At the conclusion of the two year period described in this Sanction Order, the three month

be entitled to an evidentiary hearing and review by the Committee. suspension in this case. If Disciplinary Counsel makes such a request, Ms. Boehm shall for a request by Disciplinary Counsel that the Committee impose the stayed three month Rules of Professional Conduct that may result from that complaint may provide a basis processed by the ADO on an expedited basis. Any final adjudication of a violation of the Committee and are within the period of the two year stay, that complaint will be stay that arises out of events that post date adoption of this Sanction Order by the 9. If the ADO receives a complaint against Ms. Boehm during the period of the two year

month suspension in this case. Conduct that may result from that complaint will not be a basis for imposition of the three ordinary course of business. Any finding of a violation of the Rules of Professional adoption of this Sanction Order by the Committee, that complaint will be processed in the 8 If the ADO receives a complaint against Ms. Boehm that arises out of events that predate

Conduct. of this Sanction Order or constitutes a violation of the N.H. Rules of Professional of the evidence that Ms. Boehm's reported conduct is either a material breach of the terms Counsel must meet is as follows: Disciplinary Counsel must establish by a preponderance based upon information reported by Ms. Wright, the burden of proof that Disciplinary 7. In any proceeding under this Sanction Order to impose the stayed three month suspension

stayed suspension is warranted. p. 16 Page 16 of 17

the investigation and prosecution of this matter. N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 37(19).

suspension to begin as of April 1,2010. Ms. Boehm is hereby assessed all costs associated with

years contingent on her fulfillment of the conditions stated above, with the three month

Ms. Boehm from the practice of law for six months with three months stayed for a period of two

through Ms. Boehm's suspension with conditions. Accordingly, the Committee hereby suspends

in the bar can be maintained, and the integrity of the legal profession can be preserved only

disciplinary record, it is the Committee's view that the public can be protected, public confidence

In view of the seriousness of Ms. Boehm's misconduct, and her prior recent and lengthy

the expenses incurred by the Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

The parties have stipulated to, and the Committee accepts Ms. Boehm's agreement to pay

Standards, the Court has considered them when imposing sanctions).

N.H. 132, 139 (2003) (noting that, although the Court has never formally adopted these

Responsibility, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2002). See, e.g., ShUlen's Case, 149

149 N.H. 19,28 (2002). This sanction is also in accord with the ABA Center for Professional

attorney discipline as described by the New Hampshire Supreme Court See, e.g., Feld's Case,

of suspension shall be immediately imposed. This sanction is in accord with the purposes of p. 17 Page 17 ofl7

File Kimberly Frederickson LenoraE. Boehm, Esquire Richard Y. Uchida, Esqutre Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Couns.el Distribution:

Richard Y. Uchida, Esquire Lenora E. Boehm, Esquire Margaret H. Nelson, Chair Jennifer B. Sargent, Esquire Distribution:

Dalianis, Duggan, Hicks and Conboy, JJ., concurred.

immediately. E. Boehm is reinstated to the practice of law in New Hampshire, effective Lenora E. Boehm's expedited motion for reinstatement is granted. Lenora

order: Boehm, the court on September 17, 2010, issued the following In Case No. LD-2010-0007, In the Matter of Lenora E.