Paula J. Green (2010)

PLLC, 67 Central Street, Manchester, NewHampshire 03101. proceeding,Ms. Greenoperatedher lawofficeas LawOfficesof PaulaJ.Green, was admitted to practice on October28,1996. At all times material to this 1. Ms. Green is an attorney licensedto practice law in New Hampshire. Ms. Green

the following facts:

The partiesstipulatedto,andtheCommitteethusfinds,byclearandconvincingevidence,

detailedbelow:

RulesandSanction,theProfessionalConductCommitteemakes factual findings and rulingsas

HavingreviewedtheRecord,includingtheNoticeofCharges,andStipulationas toFacts,

Darling were absent.

GeraldA. Daley;JamesR.Martin;andJenniferL. Parent.DavidN. ColeandRichardH.

ViceChair;ToniM. Gray,ViceChair;SusanR. Chollet;Thomas P.Connair;AlanJ.Cronheim;

referencedmatter.Members presentincluded:MargaretH. Nelson,Chair;BenettePizzimenti,

On February16,2010,theProfessionalConductCommitteedeliberatedtheabove-

GeraldA. Daley* HollyB.Fazzino,Admin. Coordinator Alan J. Cronheim * non attorney member Thomas P. Connair David N. Cole ToniM. Gray,*ViceChair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 JenniferL.Parent BenettePizzimenti,ViceChair Concord,New Hampshire03301 JamesR.Martin MargaretH. Nelson,Chair 4 ChenellDrive,Suite102 RichardH. Darling" i*

Assistant,Donna Jesmer: 6. On May 11,2009, Ms. Castanino wrote thefollowingemailto Ms.Green'sLegal

5. Ms. Green did not issuea correctedinvoice.

Castanino a new bill. theinvoice($250.00). Ms. Green agreedto correct theinvoiceand send Ms. Green'sstatedhourlyrate in the fee agreement($225.00)and the rate charged in regarding the case. Ms. Castanino pointed out the discrepancybetween Ms. They went over financial paperwork for the divorce and had a detaileddiscussion 4. On April 28, 2009, Ms. Castanino met in personwith Ms. Green about her case.

per hour, insteadof$225.00. totaling $1,284.49. On the invoice, Ms. Green billed Ms. Castanino at $250.00 aboutApril15,2009, Ms. Green sent Ms. Castanino aninvoicewitha legal bill Ms. Castanino,drafting pleadings andconversingwith opposing counsel.On or 3. Between January12 and April 2009, Ms. Greenworked on the case onbehalfof

as $225.00. Ms. Castanino paid Ms. Green a$2,500.00retainer. signedby both Ms. Castanino and Ms. Green. Itquoted Ms. Green'shourlyrate Haley) retained Ms. Green to represent her in her divorce.The fee agreement was 2. On January 12,2009, Cynthia A. Castanino(formerlyknown as CynthiaA. meeting at the endofApril we hadreviewed the 1 invoicethat p. 3 have receivedno communication from you. Also,duringour seem thatyou areinterestedincontinuingwith my case sinceI thatI can move forward with thedivorce. At thistime itdoes not insteadjustwanted you todraw up thenecessarypaperwork so Itoldyou that I did not want to have to go to trial inAugust but reviewedtheparentingplan with you as well as myfinancialinfo. caseand wherewe stand.DuringourlastmeetingonApril28thI stillhave not receivedany responseback from you regardingmy ofe-mailsand left several messages over thepast4 weeks and no phone or e-mailcommunication from you. I have sent acouple It has been over 2 months since our lastmeetingand I'vereceived Hi Paula/Donna,

Castanino wrote an email to both Ms. Jesmer and Ms. Green as follows: 10. On July 10, 2009, having heard nothing in response from Ms. Jesmer, Ms.

Cindy Haley Thank you, months and I'djustlike tounderstandwhere we are at. for me to review. I have not received any updates in almost 2 parenting plan and she was going to draft up the divorce paperwork paperwork?Ihad ameetingwithPaulaonApril28thtodiscussthe Can I please get an update as to where we stand on my divorce Hi Donna,

wrote toher again: 9. Having heard nothingmore from Ms.Jesmer,on June 23,2009, Ms. Castanino

her availability for a scheduling conference on August17,2009. Hearing inher case. In hercoverletter, Ms.Jesmer asked Ms. Castaninoabout 8. On or about June 4, 2009, Ms. Castaninoreceivedfrom Ms. Jesmer a Notice of

Cindy Thanks, meeting with Paula to discuss finalizing my divorce? Do you have an update for me?Should Ischedulea call or Hi Donna,

follow-upemail to Ms. Jesmer: 7. Having heard nothing in response, on May18,2009, Ms.Castaninowrote a assistanceofcounsel. p. 4 14. In August 2009, Ms. Castanino was able to finalize herdivorcewithoutthe

(Emphasis in original.)

CONDUCT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. RULE 8.1(b). IN A FINDING THAT THE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESULT IN THE SCHEDULING OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND COOPERATE WITH A DISCIPLINARY AGENCY COULD THE REQUESTS OF THIS OFFICE. THE FAILURE TO IT IS EXPECTED THAT YOU WILL PROMPTLY RESPOND TO

letter to Ms. Green. The letter included thefollowinglanguage: complaint. Mr. DeHart enclosed a copyofthe July18 grievance with his July 28 DisciplineOfficewas docketing Ms. Castanino's July18 grievance as a formal Counsel to theAttorneyDiscipline Office, informed Ms. Green that theAttorney 13. In a letter to Ms. Green dated July28,2009,James L. DeHart, Esq., General

Officeabout Ms. Green's failuresto communicate. 12. On July18,2009, Ms.Castaninofiled a grievancewith theAttorneyDiscipline

telephonecalls was returned. Jesmer onnumerous occasions, and leftvoicemailmessages,but not oneofher July18,2009, Ms. Castanino attempted to telephone Ms. Greenand/orMs. 11. In additionto theaforementionedemailcorrespondence,between April 28 and

Cindy Haley Regards, very closefamilyfriend. communication from you because you had been a referral from a I amextremelydisappointed with the lackofattention & Concord to discussthiswith them. willbe contactingthe ProfessionalConduct Committee in If Ido nothearbackfrom youbyMonday, July13that5:00pm I that we can discussmy case. Please confirm receiptofthis e-mail. reachme on my cell at603-674-6755 or work 603-994-2059 so refundof$2,500.If you would like todiscussthisfurtheryou can engagement, please let me know when I can receivemy full received. Due to thesecircumstances I would liketoend our theadjustmentand sendme a new statementwhich Inever had chargedme the wrongrateperhour.You were going to make you had submitted to me for the work you had completed but you p. 5 Stipulationas toFacts,Rulesand SanctionTJ1-18at pp1-6.

18. Ms. Greenhad notrespondedto Mr. DeHart's letter dated July 28,2009.

to Ms. Castanino the balance ofher retainer. meeting,Ms. Greenmade adjustmentstoMs. Castanino'sfinalbilland returned meetingwithMs. Green.Thatmeetingtookplaceon October15,2009.Atthat 17. At some pointafterMs. Van Oot'sletter,Ms. Castaninowas abletoschedulea

Martha Van Oot Sincerely, Court Rule 37A(III)(b)(l) etseq. beappointedbytheHearingsCommitteeChair.SeeSupreme Counselmayservea NoticeofChargesandrequesta hearingpanel SupremeCourtRule37A(II)(a)(5)(C)and(7)(D).Disciplinary disciplinaryauthorityand on themeritsof thecomplaint.See Counsel forfurtheractionon both thefailureto respond to a ScreeningCommitteevoted to refer this matter to Disciplinary Afterconsideringtheinformationnow on hand, theComplaint Dear Ms. Haley and Ms. Green:

Committee,sent Ms. Castanino and Ms. Green the following letter: 16. On October13,2009, Martha Van Oot, Esq., ChairoftheComplaintScreening

(Emphasis in original). A copyof myletterto youdatedJuly28,2009isenclosed. issued,the file willbecome public. Rules ofProfessionalConduct. In theeventa Notice ofCharges is on the issue of your failure tocooperate.See Rule8.1(b)ofthe Counsel for the issuanceofa NoticeofCharges for apublichearing Officewillrecommend thatthematterbe referredtoDisciplinary If you fail toimmediatelyfile your answer to the complaint this August 27, 2009. Pleasegive this matteryour immediate attention. Cynthia Haley. We have not received your reply, which was due on On July 28, 2009, you were mailed a copyofa complaint filed by Ms. Green the followingletter: 15. Having heard nothing from Ms. Green, on September1,2009, Mr. DeHart sent p. 6 Conduct 8.1(b). 27. Ms. Green'sconduct in thisregardconstitutesa violationofN.H. R. Prof.

disciplinaryauthority. represents a knowing failure to respond to a lawful demand for information from a 26. Ms. Green'sfailure to respond to the AttorneyDisciplineOffice'scorrespondence

25. Ms. Green didnot respondto theAttorneyDisciplineOffice'scorrespondence.

remindingher ofthecomplaintand ofherobligationtorespond. 24. The AttorneyDisciplineOffice also wrote to Ms.Green on September 1, 2009,

37A(II)(a)(5)(C),Ms. Green was required to respondwithin30 days. 23. The July 28, 2009, letter informed Ms. Green that,pursuantto N.H. Sup. Ct. R.

A copy ofthecomplaintwas enclosed. it haddocketeda complaintagainst her based upon Ms.Castanino'sallegations. 22. In its July 28, 2009, letter, the Attorney Discipline OfficeinformedMs. Green that

violationofN.H. R. Prof.Conduct 1.4(a)(4). 21. Ms. Green'sconductin this regardconstitutesclearand convincingevidenceof

informationabout the statusofher case. inquiries via email and telephone from May through July 2009, seeking 20. Ms. Green breachedthis duty by neglecting torespondto Ms.Castanino's

Castanino'sreasonablerequests forinformationaboutthe case. regardingthe statusofher marital case and topromptlyrespondto Ms. 19. Ms. Green owed Ms. Castaninoa duty to keep Ms.Castaninoreasonablyinformed

violations by clear and convincing evidence as follows:

as to the RulesofProfessionalConduct that were violated. TheStipulationestablishesthese

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

II. RULINGS OF LAW p. 7 Underthe second and third prongs of theanalysis,there is an elementofnegligencewithregard

Greenalsofailedto respondto theAttorneyDisciplineOffice's lawfuldisciplinaryauthority.

promptlyrespondto Ms. Castanino'sreasonablerequestsfor information about the case. Ms.

failingto keepMs.Castaninoreasonablyinformedregardingthe status of her case and to

Under the first prongofthe analysis, Ms. Green violated duties owed to her client by

Id

existenceofany aggravating or mitigating factors and whether they affect the baseline sanction.

(2007)); Standards § 3.0. Once the baseline sanction is determined, the Court then looks to the

existenceofaggravating ormitigatingfactors." Id. (quotingDouglas' Case, 155 N.H. 613, 621

mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by thelawyer'smisconduct; and (d) the

partanalysisfor courts to consider in imposingsanctions:"(a)me duty violated; (b) the lawyer's

to them for guidance. Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). The Standards set forth a four

support theCommittee'sconclusion.Although the Court has notadoptedthe Standards, it looks

AmericanBar Association'sStandardsfor ImposingLawyer Sanctions(2005)("Standards")

appropriatesanctionin this matter is a publiccensure.Both case law in New Hampshireand the

The Committee agreed,consistentwith thestipulatedrecommendation,thatthe

Charges. NoticeofCharges are deemed admitted due to her failure toanswer the Noticeof acknowledges that, byoperationofRule 37A(III)(b)(3)(A),theallegationsin the 29. Ms. Green is hereinstipulatingto the facts and ruleviolationsalthoughshe

N.H. R. Prof.Conduct 8.4(a). above rules,thereisnecessarilyclearand convincingevidenceofa violationof 28. Because thereexistsclearand convincingevidencethatMs. Green violatedthe

engaged in the same or similarmisconductin the past. violates the termsofa prior disciplinary order or when a lawyer has 8.4 An admonition is generally not an appropriate sanction when a lawyer

8.3 Reprimand1isgenerallyappropriatewhen alawyer:

legalsystem,or theprofession. misconduct that cause injuryor potential injury to a client, the public, the for the same or similar misconductand engages in further similar acts or 8.2 Suspension isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer has beenreprimanded

8.1. Disbarment isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer:

the Standards (Prior Discipline Orders) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

determinationof abaselinesanction,the Standards offerappropriateguidance.Section8.0 of

misconductby Respondentthatresultedin aReprimandissuedon July21,2009. For a

Indeterminingtheappropriatesanction,theCommitteeconsideredprior similar

correspondence.

elementofknowingmisconductwithMs. Green'sdisregardoftheAttorneyDisciplineOffice's

to herfailuretocommunicatewith herclient,whichhadthepotentialfor harm, and some all costs associated with theinvestigationand prosecutionofthis matter.

p. 9 The parties have stipulated to, and the Committee accepts Ms.Green'sagreement to pay

PublicCensure.

The Committee voted to accept the Stipulation as to the sanction, and hereby issues a

N.H. 361, 366 (2007) (quotingCoddington'sCase, 155 N.H. 66, 68 (2007)).

integrityofthe legalprofession,and prevent similar conduct in thefuture.'" Grew's Case, 156

punishmentbut rather to protect the public, maintainpublic confidence in the bar, preserve the

(2005) CStandards"). The purposeofthe Court's disciplinary power is" 'notto inflict

(2005).This sanction is also in accord with the ABA StandardsforImposingLawyer Sanctions

e.g., Conner's Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303-305 (2009); Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. 155, 159-60

Committee'srecommended sanctionis inaccordwith thepurposesof attorneydiscipline. See,

Committee concludes that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a Public Censure. The

Having made the aforementioned findings and rulings, the Professional Conduct

willingnessto acknowledge and accept responsibility for her misconduct now.

informationfrom her client. TheCommitteeconsideredas a mitigator in this case Ms. Green's

informedregardingthe statusof her caseandfailingtocomplywithreasonablerequestsfor

Reprimandwas forsimilarmisconductinfailingtopromptlyandreasonablykeepherclient

Ms. Green's prior July 21, 2009 Reprimand (Rule1.4(a);Rule 8.4(a)) and the fact that the

In this case the Committee considered as an aggravating factor the closeness in timeof p. 10 File CynthiaHaley Paula J.Green, Esquire c.c. Landya B. McCafferty,DisciplinaryCounsel

March 2<fr,2010

Green forviolatingN.H. R. Prof.Conduct 1.4; 8.1(b); and 8.4(a).

For allofthe abovereasons,theProfessionalConduct Committee PubliclyCensuresMs.