Stanley M. Hawthorne (2004)

following factual findings by clear and convincing evidence: The Professional Conduct Committee has determined that the record supports the

below. the Professional Conduct Committee makes factual findings and rulings as detailed Motion in Limine, Hearing Panel Report, and Transcript of September 8, 2004 hearing, Motion to Dismiss, Respondent's Amended Motion to Dismiss, and Respondent's Having reviewed the record, including the Notice of Charges, Answer, Respondent's The Professional Conduct Committee thoroughly reviewed the record in this matter.

Stephen B. Stepanek. included: Benette Pizzimenti, Toni M. Gray, Morgan A. Hollis, James R. Martin, and David N. Cole, Thomas P. Connair, Alan J. Cronheim, and David N. Page. Those absent Members present included Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, Richard B. McNamara, Reporter,

Hawthorne. between Disciplinary Counsel, Landya B. McCafferty, and Respondent Stanley M. referenced matter. The matter was presented to the committee pursuant to a Stipulation On October 19,2004, the Professional Conduct Committee considered the above­

Alan J. Cronheim * non attorney member Thomas P. Connair Stephen B. Stepanek* David N. Cole David N. Page* Toni M. Gray, * Vice Chair 603-224-5828 + Fax 228-9511 Richard B. McNamara Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 James R. Martin Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Park Street, Suite 304 Morgan A. Hollis

Hawthorne's website: 8. On July 10, 2000, Mr. Bishop sent the following e-mail message to Mr.

with Mr. Bishop. petition. Mr. Hawthorne did not go over the questionnaire or the petition 7. Mr. Hawthorne used Mr. Bishop'S questionnaire to prepare a bankruptcy

Hawthorne gave Mr. Bishop a bankruptcy questionnaire to take home. Bishop. Mr. Bishop gave Mr. Hawthorne $500.00 for his fee. Mr. explain the legal and practical aspects of student loan dischargeablity to Mr. were dischargeable in bankruptcy. In this meeting, Mr. Hawthorn failed to office. Mr. Hawthorne again assured Mr. Bishop that his student loans 6. On July 1,2000, Mr. Bishop and Mr. Hawthorne met at Mr. Hawthorne's

2000. to meet with Mr. Bishop at Mr. Hawthorne's office on Saturday, July 1, Bishop decided to retain Mr. Hawthorne's services. Mr. Hawthorne agreed assured Mr. Bishop that his loans were dischargeable in bankruptcy. Mr. student loans and the time-sensitive nature of his situation. Mr. Hawthorne Bishop explained to Mr. Hawthorne both the issue with respect to the 5. On June 28, 2000, Mr. Bishop telephoned Mr. Hawthorne's office. Mr.

student loans were not dischargeable in bankruptcy. were dischargeable. Each of these attorneys advised Mr. Bishop that his attorneys who specialized in bankruptcy about whether his student loans 4. Before speaking with Mr. Hawthorne, Mr. Bishop had spoken with several

service of the summons) within which to respond to the summons. Bishop had a short time-frame (approximately 20 days from the date of 3. The Summons was dated June 13,2000. According to the summons, Mr.

State of America v. Daniel A. Bishop (docket # C-00-278-B). arrearages on Mr. Bishop's federally guaranteed student loans. See United the District of New Hampshire against Mr. Bishop in an effort to collect federal government filed a complaint in the United States District Court for government with respect to outstanding student loan obligations. The 2. On June 20,2000, Mr. Bishop received a summons from the federal

allegations of professional misconduct against Stanley M. Hawthorne. letters dated November 20 and November 21,2000, Daniel A. Bishop made l. In a sworn letter of complaint dated October 16,2000, and in supplemental containing the same information. p. 3 of the retainer. Mr. Bishop also forwarded Mr. Hawthorne an e-mail certified mail. In that letter, Mr. Bishop demanded his file and a full refund 16. On October 7, 2000, Mr. Bishop sent Mr. Hawthorne a termination letter by

2000 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Hawthorne did not show up for that appointment. him. Mr. Hawthorne agreed to meet Mr. Bishop at his home on October 5, 15. On October 3,2000, Mr. Hawthorne telephoned Mr. Bishop and spoke with

McDonald's restaurant in Alton on October 3,2000. discuss the case. Mr. Hawthorne agreed to meet Mr. Bishop at the possessed all of his documents. Mr. Hawthorne suggested a meeting to Mr. Bishop also expressed frustration with the fact that Mr. Hawthorn frustration with Mr. Hawthorne's evasiveness and non-communication. Mr. Hawthorne answered the telephone. Mr., Bishop explained his 14. On or about October 2,2000, Mr. Bishop again telephoned Mr. Hawthorne.

was set for the middle of 200 1. regarding his case. Someone in that office informed him that a trial date 13. On September 25,2000, Mr. Bishop contacted the u.S. Attorney's Office

for information on his case. 12. On September 24, 2000, Mr. Bishop sent Mr. Hawthorne an e-mail asking

stated:"Ok, will call soon." 11. On July 25,2000, Mr. Hawthorne sent Mr. Bishop an e-mail. That e-mail

process. Thanks." Could you give me a call and let me know what the next step is in the legal Hawthorne's website stating:"Thought I would hear from you last week. 10. On Friday, July 24,2000, Mr. Bishop sent an e-mail message to Mr.

Mr. Hawthorne later this week. Regards, Stan. moot after our phone con[ verastion] a minute ago. Talk to Dan: Sorry for the non-communication. The issue should be

wrote Mr. Bishop the following e-mail message: the bankruptcy petition. After the telephone conversation, Mr. Hawthorne and that he should meet Mr. Hawthorne toward the end of the week to sign Hawthorne assured Mr. Bishop that the necessary action had been taken, 9. In response, on that same date Mr. Hawthorne telephoned Mr. Bishop. Mr.

documents. immediately and update me on the filing of our contracted information by Mr. Bishop in violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a). p. 4 case and promptly comply with or respond to reasonable requests for keep Mr. Bishop reasonably informed regarding the status of Mr. Bishop's

2. There exists clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hawthorne did not

competent and constitutes a violation of the N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(a). with respect to the dischargeability of Mr. Bishop's student loans was not 1. There exists clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hawthorne's advice

Stanley M. Hawthorne has violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Professional Conduct Committee concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence The above-listed facts having been found by clear and convincing evidence, the

Bishop in the federal matter. federal case, Mr. Hawthorne was still listed as attorney of record for Mr. 21. As of May 5, 2001, the date on which a Consent Order was entered in the

matter. 20. On January 27, 2001, Mr. Bishop filed a pro se appearance in the federal

Mr. Hawthorne: Attorney who was prosecuting Mr. Bishop in the federal matter, wrote to 19. By letter dated December 4,2000, David L. Broderick, the Assistant U.S.

provide Mr. Bishop with an itemized billing of your time. Hawthorne also failed to return any portion of the unearned fee or to Hawthorne did not withdraw from representing him in the federal case. Mr. 18. Despite Mr. Bishop's termination letter dated October 6, 2000, Mr.

"due," and"file a withdrawal" from the federal case. and itemized billing of Mr. Hawthorne's time, return any refund that as stating that Mr. Hawthorne would return his file"immediately," send him 17. On that same date, Mr. Hawthorne responded to Mr. Bishop's e-mail, p. 5 File Ruth Hall, Esquire (Respondent's Counsel)

cc: Disciplinary Counsel

1. 16(d), and 8.4(a). M. Hawthorne for violating N.H. Prof. Conduct Rules 1.1(a), 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.16(a)(3), For the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee Publicly Censures Stanley

considered them when imposing sanctions). that although the Court has never formally adopted these Standards, the Courts has Lawyer Sanctions (1991). See, e.g., Shillen's Case, 149 N.H. 132, 139 (2003) (noting accord with the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Standards for Imposing Supreme Court. See, e.g., Fe/d's Case, 149 N.H. 19,28 (2002). This sanction is also in is in accord with the purposes of attorney discipline as described by the New Hampshire concludes that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a public censure. This sanction Having made the above findings and rulings, the Professional Conduct Committee

Conduct 8.4(a). clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hawthorne violated N.H. R. Prof. 6. Because of the aforementioned rules violations, there necessarily exists

Prof. Conduct 1.16( d). return Mr. Bishop's file upon Mr. Bishop's request as required by N.H. R. 5. There exists clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hawthorne did not

Prof. Conduct 1. 16(a)(3). a withdrawal in the student loan case in federal court as required by N.H. R. 4. There exists clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hawthorne did not file

in violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(b). adequately explain the legal and practical aspects of the case to Mr. Bishop 3. There exists clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hawthorne did not