Dennis C. Hogan (2010)

Nashua,New Hampshire. Hogan has operated as a solo practitioner with a law office at11 Concord Street, Suite 4, admitted to practice on October 28, 2002. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. 1. Mr. Hogan is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Mr. Hogan was

are established by clear andconvincingevidence: as to the factsofthis matter. Accordingly, the facts described below as set forth in the Stipulation The Respondent and the ADO havestipulated,and the Committee accepts the Stipulation

below: Sanction, theProfessionalConduct Committee makes factualfindingsand rulingsas detailed Having reviewed the record, Stipulation as to Facts, Violations, and Recommended Waiver ofFormal Proceedingsand for Final Ruling. The ProfessionalConduct Committee (PCC) voted to grant theJointMotion to Permit Cole was absent. Daley,Richard H. Darling, Julie A.Introcaso,James R. Martin and Jennifer L. Parent. David N. Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, Susan R. Chollet, Thomas P. Connair, Alan J. Cronheim, Gerald A. matter. Members present included Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, On April20,2010,the Professional ConductCommittee deliberated theabove-referenced

Hogan, Dennis C. advs.AttorneyDiscipline Office #09-016

Alan J. Cronheim Holly B. Fazzino,Admin. Coordinator Thomas P. Connair * nonattorneymember David N. Cole JenniferL. Parent Susan R. Chollet* James R. Martin Toni M.Gray,*Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax228-9511 Julie A. Introcaso Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Richard H. Darling* Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Gerald A. Daley*

a concurrentconflictofinterest. 13. Mr. Hogan'srepresentationofboth Kathleen and Domenic in the divorce matter involved

divorcematter. 12. Kathleen'sinterestsinthe divorce matter were adverse to Domenic's interestsinthe

Kathleen Feroce and Domenic Feroce." 11. On March 10,2009, Mr. Hogan filed hisappearancewiththe Court as"counselfor:

Child SupportGuidelineWorksheet,withthe Court. 10. On March 3,2009, Mr. Hogan filed the proposedUniform Support Order, alongwiththe

and byKathleenas"Obligee." Uniform Support Order. Mr. Hogan had the document signed byDomenic as "Obligor" 9. Mr. Hogan obtained additional information from his clients and preparedthe proposed

file an appearance form. indicating thatifMr. Hogan intended to represent a party in the matter, he was required to Order be filed in order tocompletethe case. The Court alsowrote to the Feroces, 8. In February 2009,the Court issued a notice requiring that aproposedUniform Support

FinancialAffidavitsexecutedby Kathleen andDomenic. aforesaiddocuments,alongwitha Personal Data Sheet,VitalStatisticsForm, and 7. On January13,2009,Mr. Hogan filed with the Salem FamilyDivisionCourt the

"AttorneyforPetitioners." Wife" and "AttorneyforHusband." Mr. Hogan executedthePermanent Stipulationas Stipulation, and Parenting Plan. Mr. Hoganexecutedthe Joint Petition as"Attorneyfor divorce. He hadKathleenand Domenic sign thecompletedJoint Petition, Permanent 6. Mr. Hogan determined that theFeroceswere in agreement as to the cause and termsof

Permanent Stipulation,Parenting Plan, and data sheets. Mr. Hogan determinedwas required in order to prepare and file a Joint Petition, 5. Mr. Hogan met withthe Feroces and obtainedfromthem theinformationand data that

payment in the amountof$175.00 to cover court filing costs. Mr. Hogan'srequest, the Feroces made an initial paymentof$375.00, and a subsequent 4. Mr. Hogan agreed to provide such services in considerationofa fixed feeof$750.00.At

and file the pleadings and paperwork required to obtain a divorce. 3. In or about January 2009, Kathleen andDomenic Feroce retained Mr. Hogan to prepare

pursuanttoNew Hampshire Supreme Court Rule37(l)(2)(h)and Rule 37A(I)(c). 2. The subject disciplinary proceeding was initiated byreferraldated May27,2009, p. 3 Page 3of6 thedivorcematterunder thefollowingcircumstances: 2. Mr. Hogan breachedsaiddutyby undertakingtorepresentbothKathleenand Domenic in

involvinga concurrentconflictofinterest. 1. Mr. Hogan owed adutytoKathleenandDomenic Ferocetoavoidlegalrepresentation

violationsby clear and convincingevidence: asto theRulesofProfessionalConductthatwereviolated.The Stipulationestablishesthese The RespondentandtheADO havestipulated,andtheCommitteeacceptstheStipulation

counselinconnectionwith thereleaseagreement. onJune14,2009.NeitherKathleennorDomenic was representedby independent Mr. Hogan from anyclaimsarisingoutofhisconduct.Suchan agreementwas executed thefeespaidinconsiderationofan agreementsignedby KathleenandDomenic releasing 19. Mr. Hogan receivedacopyofKathleen'saforesaide-mailmessage.He agreedtorefund

provideMr. Hogan with acopyof themessage. Mr. Hogan anddemanded arefundoffeespaidtoMr. Hogan. She askedDomenic to toincurtheexpenseofhiringnew counsel.Kathleenthreatenedformalactionagainst complaintsaboutvariousmistakesMr. Hogan had made inhisrepresentation,causingher 18. On or aboutJune3,2009,Kathleene-maileda messagetoDomenic outliningher

17. Kathleenretained new counsel and the partiesproceededto final divorce.

counsel. date,aftertheFeroceseachhad anopportunitytoconsultwithindependent,separate eitherpartyinthematter.The Courtalsorescheduledthematterforhearingat alater prohibitedunderN.H. R. Prof.Conduct1.7anddisqualifyinghim fromrepresenting in the matter. TheCourt issued an Interim Order notingthatMr. Hogan's appearancewas 16. AttheMay 19,2009,hearing,Mr. Hogan representedhimselfascounselforbothparties

for May 19, 2009. 15. On March 10,2009,theCourtissuedanorderschedulinganuncontesteddivorcehearing

in the divorceproceeding. potentialconflictofinterestassociatedwithhisconcurrentrepresentationofbothofthem 14. Mr. Hogan didnotatanytimeconferwithKathleenorDomenic abouttheactualor p. 4 Page 4of6

mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by thelawyer'smisconduct; and (d) the partanalysisfor courts to consider inimposingsanctions:"(a) the 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 not adopted the Standards, it looks American Bar Association'sStandardsfor Imposing LawyerSanctions (2005)0'Standards") appropriatesanction in this matter is a public censure. Both case law in New Hampshire and the The Committee agreed,consistentwith thestipulatedrecommendation, thatthe

Hogan'sconduct, as described herein, violated, N.H. R. Prof.Conduct 8.4(a). 7. Having found the foregoing violations, there is clear andconvincingevidencethat Mr.

constitutesa violationofN.H. R. Prof.Conduct 1.8(h). 6. There is clearand convincingevidence that Mr.Hogan's conduct,as describedherein,

with thenegotiationand executionofsuch agreement. 5. NeitherKathleennor Domenic was represented byindependentcounselinconnection

limithisliabilityforsuch claim. malpractice,negotiatedan agreementwith his clientswhich was intendedtoprospectively 4. Mr. Hogan, knowing thatone or bothofhis clientsmight asserta claimagainsthim for

Rule 1.8(h): ConflictofInterest:ProhibitedTransactions

constitutesa violationofN.H. R. Prof.Conduct 1.7 (a)and (b). 3. There isclearand convincingevidencethat Mr.Hogan's conduct,as describedherein,

obtainedunder thecircumstances. concurrentrepresentation,althoughsuch consentcould not reasonablyhave been d. NeitherKathleennor Domenic providedinformed consentto Mr.Hogan's and diligentrepresentationto bothKathleenand Domenic; and c. Mr. Hogan could not reasonablyhave believedthathe could providecompetent Domenic would be materiallylimited by hisrepresentationofthe other; b. There was a significantrisk that Mr.Hogan's representationofeitherKathleenor a. The interestsofKathleenand Domenic weredirectlyadverse; p. 5 Page 5of6

1The mostanalogoussanctioninNew HampshireisaPublicCensure.

concludesthattheappropriatedisciplineinthismatterisaPublicCensure.Thissanctionis in Havingmade theaforementionedfindingsandrulings,theProfessionalConductCommittee

Mr. Hogan has no priordisciplinaryrecordandhe isrelativelyinexperienced.

ofpotential injury to a client. representationwilladverselyaffectanotherclient,andcauseinjury materiallyaffectedby the lawyer'sowninterests,or whetherthe determining whether therepresentationofa client may be 4.33 Reprimand1isgenerallyappropriatewhen alawyerisnegligentin

Interest" determiningthebaselinesanction.Standards§4.33,entitled"FailuretoAvoidConflictsof Indeterminingtheappropriatesanction,the Standards offer materialguidancein caused actual harm to theFerocesasneitherwas adequatelyrepresented. potentialharm topublicconfidenceinthelegalprofessional.Mr. Hogan'srepresentationalso Thethird prong of theanalysisyieldedpotentialharmto the interestsof both clientsand proceedingwas more likely the product ofnegligence. underlyingconflictofinterestassociatedwithhisrepresentationof bothpartiesin adivorce However,the Committee determined that Mr.Hogan'sfailure to recognize and avoid the misconduct in connection with Mr.Hogan'sdetermination to obtain a release from his clients. Under the second prongofthe sanction analysis,there is an elementofknowing errorscommitted during thecourseofhis representation. and bynegotiatingandobtaininga releasefrom hisclientsintendedto limithis ownliabilityfor clientsby a)engaginginrepresentationwhileconfrontedwith a concurrent conflictofinterest Under the first prongofthe analysis, Mr. Hoganviolated the dutyofloyalty owed to his Id. existenceof anyaggravatingor mitigatingfactorsand whetherthey affect the baselinesanction. (2007)); Standards § 3.0. Once thebaselinesanctionisdetermined,the Court then looksto the existenceof aggravatingor mitigating factors." Id.(quotingDouglas'Case, 155 N.H. 613,621 p. 6 Page 6 of6

File Dennis C.Hogan, Esquire James L.Kruse,AssistantDisciplinaryCounsel Distribution:

ofInterest:ProhibitedTransactions;and 8.4(a):Misconduct. Hoganfor violating N.H. R. Prof. Conduct1.7(a)and (b): ConflictsofInterest; 1.8(h):Conflict For alloftheabove reasons,theProfessionalConduct Committee PubliclyCensures Dennis C,

willpayall costsassociatedwith theinvestigationandprosecutionofthismatter. The Respondentandthe ADO havestipulated,and the Committeeaccepts, that theRespondent

formallyadopted these Standards, the Court has consideredthem when imposing sanctions). See,e.g.,Shillen'sCase, 149N.H. 132,139(2003)(notingthat,althoughthe Courthasnever ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, StandardsforImposingLawyerSanctions (1991). Court See,e.g.,Feld'sCase, 149N.H. 19,28(2002).This sanctionis also in accordwith the accordwith the purposesofattorneydisciplineasdescribedby the New Hampshire Supreme