Mary Notaris (2010)

The partiesstipulatedto certainfactualallegationscontainedin the Notice ofCharges.

the factualfindingsand rulingsoflaw asdetailedbelow.

the partiessubmittedat thetime oforal argument, theProfessionalConduct Committee makes

hearing,Respondent'spriordisciplinaryrecord,theHearingPanelReportand theStipulationof

theNoticeofCharges,theAnswer,theJointlySubmittedExhibits,thetranscriptof thesanction

RichardH.Darlingwererecusedfrom theproceeding.Havingreviewedtherecord,including

Martinand Jennifer L. Parent. David N. Cole wasabsent.Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair and

Chair,SusanR.Chollet,Thomas P.Connair,AlanJ.Cronheim,GeraldA. Daley,JamesR.

ProfessionalConduct Committee included Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, Benette Pizzimenti, Vice

RussellF.Hilliard,Esquire,appearedon behalfof theRespondent,MaryNotaris,Esquire.The

LandyaB.McCafferty,DisciplinaryCounsel,appearedfor theAttorneyDisciplineOffice.

above-referencedmatter pursuantto NewHampshireSupremeCourt Rule37A(III)(b)(2).

On February16,2010,theProfessionalConductCommitteeheard oral argumentin the

AlanJ.Cronheim HollyB. Fazzino,Admin. Coordinator Thomas P.Connair * nonattorneymember David N. Cole Susan R. Chollet JenniferL. Parent Toni M. Gray,* ViceChair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 James R. Martin BenettePizzimenti,ViceChair Concord,New Hampshire03301 RichardH. Darling* MargaretH.Nelson,Chair 4 ChenellDrive,Suite102 GeraldA. Daley*

Hampshirewas time-sensitive because he was alsocontemplatinganappealofthe ruling in

6. Mr. Pedersen understoodthat the issueofwhetherto register the decree inNew

in aNew Hampshire court and then to file for contempt.

New Hampshire. He further advised him to attempt to register the Massachusetts divorce decree

5. Mr. Pedersen's lawyer inMassachusettsadvised him to seekrepresentationin

having taken out a second mortgage on her home inNew Hampshire.

Hampshire.Mr. Pedersenbelieved hisex-wifewas in contemptofthe divorce decree for not

4. Mr. Pedersen'sex-wifeand then19 year-oldson were residing in New

remarried and moved to Florida.

3. Although hisdivorcewas enteredinMassachusetts,Mr. Pedersen had since

divorce family law matter that was being handled by his counsel in Massachusetts.

2. In the Fallof2007,PaulPedersen,theComplainant,was dealingwith a post-

03079.

operatedherlawoffice asNotarisLaw Office,45 StilesRoad,Unit104,Salem,New Hampshire

admittedtopracticeon June 19,1992.At alltimesmaterialto thisproceeding,Ms. Notaris

1. Ms. Notaris is anattorneylicensedtopracticelaw inNew Hampshire.She was

evidence:

determinedthattherecordsupportsthefollowingfindingsoffactby clearand convincing

Committee, uponconsiderationand reviewofthesematerialsand therecordas a whole,

ProfessionalConduct Committee on February16,2010. As a result, the Professional Conduct

addition, the parties entered into a stipulationoffurtherfacts that wassubmittedto the

The HearingPanelfoundthesefactsand certainothersbyclearand convincingevidence.In p. 3 Page 3of20

15. On or aboutNovember 14,2007,Mr. PedersentelephonedMs. Notaris'officeand

what she had filedwith thecourt.

November 6,2007.Ms. NotarisinformedMr. Pedersenthatshewould forwardto him a copyof

14. Ms. NotarisreturnedMr. Pedersen'scallsometime between October 29 and

confirm that Ms. Notaris had filed the necessary paperworkto register the decree.

13. On or about October 29, 2007, Mr. PedersentelephonedMs. Notaris1officeto

October 16,2007.

an entrythatindicatedthatshehad preparedand fileda petitiontoregistera foreigndecreeon

12. Ms. Notaris' bill, which sheforwardedto Mr. Pedersen at a later date, contained

Notariswouldcompletetheregistrationprocesswithinapproximatelytwo months.

11. Based on hisconversationwithMs. Notaris, Mr.Pedersenunderstoodthat Ms.

check for$2,200.00.

10. On or about October 5, 2007, Mr. Pedersenforwardedto Ms. Notaris aretainer

$2,200.00retainer.

HillsboroughCountySuperiorCourt-North.Ms. NotarisaskedMr. Pedersentosendhera

9. Ms. NotarisagreedtorepresentMr. Pedersenand to make therequisitefilingin

hertoregistertheforeigndecreeand pursuethematterin NewHampshire.

8. After acoupleoftelephonecallswithMs. Notaris,Mr. Pedersendecidedtoretain

discussedthematter.

7. On or aboutSeptember26,2007,Mr. PedersentelephonedMs. Notarisand

decree.

Massachusetts.He understood that he had a limited timewithinwhich to attempt to registerthe p. 4 Page 4of20

handlingofthe registrationofthe foreign decree, as well as her failures tocommunicate withhim

DisciplineOffice,alleging professionalmisconducton the partofMs. Notaris related to her

21. On May 5, 2008, Mr. Pedersen filed a letterofcomplaintwiththeAttorney

informationabout it.

provide himwitha copyofthe October16 pleading or otherwise respond to his requests for

20. Despite Mr. Pedersen'srepeated andspecificrequests, Ms. Notaris did not

October16 pleading.

purportedsecond petition.Nonetheless,Mr. Pedersenpersistentlyasked to see acopy ofthe

petition to registerwiththe court. Ms. Notaris forwarded to Mr.Pederson a copy ofthis

19. On or aboutDecember 31,2007, Ms. Notaris filed what purported to be a second

copy ofthe October16 pleading.

specific, additional requestsofMs. Notaris via email andtelephonethat sheprovidehim witha

18. Between December 1,2007, and February 22,2008, Mr. Pedersen made seven

October 16 pleading.

nor did she respond to Mr. Pedersen's inquiries or otherwise address hisquestionsconcerning the

filing and whether she could forward a copy to him. Ms. Notaris did not forward a copy to him,

17. Thereafter,Mr. Pedersencontinuedto inquireofMs. NotarisabouttheOctober 16

Willyou send us one?"

Ms. Notaris an email, inwhich he wrote:"We have not received a copyofwhat you submitted.

16. Having receivedno response,on or aboutNovember 26, 2007, Mr. Pedersen sent

talkedto him about."

left a message asking"if[Ms. Notaris had filed, andif[she]had senthim the hard copy[she]had p. 5 Page 5of20

29. Duringthe April 3meeting,Ms. Notarisfalselyassertedthat the AlteredPleading

was thedocument thatwas createdand filedon Mr. Pedersen'sbehalfon October 16,2007.

28. Duringthe April 3meeting,Ms. Notarisfalselystatedthat the AlteredPleading

DisciplinaryCounsel, was also present.

Counsel, about the case at Ms. Notaris' office. Gladys E. Strickhart,AdministrativeAssistantto

27. On April 3,2009,Ms. Notarisspokewith LandyaB. McCafferty,Disciplinary

Pleading").

what she claimed was a copyofthe October16 pleading(hereinafterreferred to as "Altered

26. On March 24,2009, Ms. Notaris supplied theAttorneyDisciplineOfficewith

October16 pleading had been filed.

25. There was no record at theHillsboroughCounty SuperiorCourt -North that the

Officewitha copyofthe October16 pleading.

for information, Ms. Notaris repeatedly failed to respond to the requests that she supply the

Office with a copyofthe October16 pleading.Although Ms. Notaris responded to other requests

requestswere made by membersofthe AttorneyDisciplineOffice for Ms. Notaris to supply the

24. During the investigationconducted by theAttorneyDisciplineOffice,numerous

pleading,or explain why she had notforwardedit to Mr.Pedersen.

respondedto Mr. Pedersen's complaint. In herletter,Ms. Notaris did not mention the October16

23. In a letter to theAttorneyDisciplineOfficedated July18,2008, Ms. Notaris

failuresto respond to his requests for a copyofthe October16 pleading.

22. In Mr. Pedersen'sMay 5, 2008, complaint, hespecificallyreferencedMs. Notaris'

about matters,includingtheOctober 16 pleading. p. 6 Page 6of20

changes to theDecember 2007 pleading see, supra atf 19, tomake thatpleadinglook likethe

34. Ms. Notarisadmittedthat shemanufacturedtheAlteredPleadingby making small

October16 pleading.

Pleading in anefforttoprovidetheAttorneyDisciplineOfficewith a copy ofthe purported

the originalOctober 16 pleading.Ms. Notarisadmittedthat shemanufacturedtheAltered

33. Later in theApril3 meeting,Ms. Notarisadmittedthat she did not have a copyof

for a petition to register foreign decree.

digitalversionofthepleadingsindexofthe Peterson Case file so that itwould containan entry

Case, andwhile DisciplinaryCounsel was waitingtoexamine theindex,Ms. Notarisaltered the

32. Prior to showing Disciplinary Counsel the digitalpleadingsindexin the Peterson

the digitalversionofthe pleadingsindexofthe Peterson Case file.

Notarisshowed DisciplinaryCounsel on Ms. Notaris'computer what Ms. Notarisasserted was

31. During the April3 meeting,and upon requestby DisciplinaryCounsel,Ms.

Pleadinginsidethat file.

stated that, uponrecentlyretrievingthe Peterson Case file, she was able to locate theAltered

to register foreign decree,which sheknew had not been done in the Peterson Case. Ms. Notaris

when she noticed that the pleadingsindexin the Peterson Casecontainedan entry for a petition

30. During the April3 meeting,Ms. Notarisstated that shediscoveredthemisfiling

send a copy to Mr. Pedersen because it had beenmisfiled.

"Peterson Case"). Ms. Notaris stated that she had not been able to locate theAlteredPleading or

a "Mr. Peterson" (asdistinguishedfrom Mr. Pedersen, andhereinafterreferred to as the

had beenmisfiledin another case filewithinheroffice,which file shedescribedas belongingto p. 7 Page 7 of20

41. As describedin more detailabove,Ms. Notarisviolatedherobligationto

promptly comply with hisreasonablerequests for information.

40. Accordingly,at allrelevanttimes,Ms. Notarishad a duty to Mr.Pedersento

R.Prof.Conduct1.4(a)(4)(new rule); Rule1.4(a)(oldrule).

attorneysto "promptly comply with reasonable requests for information" from clients. See N.H.

January1,2008.Boththenew Rule1.4,aswellastheoldRule 1.4,containprovisionsrequiring

39. Duringthe pendencyof theunderlyingcase, Rule1.4was amended, effective

38. Allegations set forth above areincorporatedby reference.

case,makes thefollowingrulingsof law by clearandconvincingevidence:

The Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration and reviewofthe record in this

on orabout October 16,2007.

37. The partiesfurtherstipulatedthatMs. Notarisbelieveda petitionhadbeenfiled

an October 16 petitionin thecasewas createdin Ms.Notaris'officeon orabout thatdate.

Committee,andforthepurposesofthisattorneydisciplineproceeding,thepartiesstipulatedthat

36. On February16,2010,duringoralargumentbeforetheProfessionalConduct

locatethepleadingsindexin thePetersonCaseonMs. Notaris'computer.

referencetotheAlteredPleadingwhileDisciplinaryCounselwas waitingforMs. Notaristo

she hadalteredthedigitalversionof thepleadingsindexin thePetersonCasetomake false

35. LaterintheApril3meeting,Ms. Notarisalsoadmittedthat,duringthemeeting,

purported October16 pleading. p. 8 Page 8 of20

48. Duringthe April 3meeting,Ms. Notarisalteredcertain digitalrecordson her

October 16 pleading.

October16 pleadingexistedandthatthe>AlteredPleadingwas anactualcopyof thepurported

meeting,Ms. NotarisintendedtoinducetheAttorneyDisciplineOfficeintobelievingthatthe

Pleadingwas afalserepresentationofthepurportedOctober16 pleading.AttheApril3,2009,

47. At the time thatshe made this falseassertion,Ms. Notarisknew thattheAltered

pleading.

reiterated her false assertion that the Altered Pleading was an actual copyofthe October16

46. DuringtheApril3,2009,meetingwithDisciplinaryCounsel,Ms. Notaris

was an actual copyofthe October16 pleading.

Notarisintendedto induce theAttorneyDisciplineOffice into believing that the Altered Pleading

thattheAlteredPleadingwas afalserepresentationof thepurportedOctober16pleading.Ms.

45. At the time that Ms. Notaris submitted the AlteredPleadingas evidence, she knew

October 16 pleading.

submittedtheAlteredPleading,andofferedit asevidenceof theexistenceof thepurported

44. In a letterto theAttorneyDisciplineOfficedatedMarch24, 2009,Ms.Notaris

43. Allegationssetforthaboveareincorporatedbyreference.

Rule 8.1(a): FalseStatementstoDisciplinaryAgency

thereby violating Rule 1.4.

42. As a result, Ms. Notarisfailedtoadequatelycommunicatewith Mr.Pedersen

copyofthepurportedOctober16 pleading,and/orany informationrelatedthereto.

communicateproperlywithMr. Pedersenby repeatedlyignoringhisreasonablerequestsfora p. 9 Page 9of20

ofmaterialfactto adisciplinaryagencyinviolationofN.H. R.Prof.Conduct8.1(a).

computertosupportherfalsestatementsabouttheAlteredPleading,constitutedfalsestatements

abouttheveracityof theAlteredPleading,aswellas heralterationof thedigitalevidenceon her

53. Ms. Notaris'creationand submissionoftheAlteredPleading,her falsestatements

DisciplineOffice'sprosecutionof thisattorneydisciplinematter.

AttorneyDisciplineOffice'sinvestigationofMs. Notaris'handlingof thecaseandtheAttorney

52. The existenceandveracityof theAlteredPleadingwas a factmaterialto the

her claim that the AlteredPleadinghad been misfiled.

evidenceonhercomputerin thePetersonCaseinanefforttocreateevidencethatwouldsupport

that,duringthatmeetingand inthepresenceofDisciplinaryCounsel,shehad altereddigital

51. DuringtheApril3,2009,meetingatMs. Notaris'office,Ms. Notarisadmitted

AlteredPleadingwas anactualcopyof thepurportedOctober16pleading.

theAlteredPleadingin anefforttoinducetheAttorneyDisciplineOfficetobelievethatthe

thatherstatementsconcerningtheAlteredPleadingwerefalse,and that she hadmanufactured

50. DuringtheApril3,2009,meetingatMs. Notaris'office,Ms. Notarisadmitted

purportedOctober16 pleading,andthatithadbeenmisfiledinthePetersonCasefile.

toinduceDisciplinaryCounselintobelievingthattheAlteredPleadingwas anactualcopyofthe

Pleading.AttheApril3,2009,meeting,Ms. Notarisalteredthisdigitalevidencewiththeintent

theactualdigitalevidencewouldnotsupportherstoryaboutthemistakenfilingof theAltered

49. At the time that she altered this digital evidence on her computer, she knew that

October16 pleading had been misfiled.

computerinanefforttomanufacturefurtherfalseevidencethatwouldsupportherclaimthatthe p. 10 Page 10 of20

disciplineprocessitself.We recognize,too,thatMs. NotarisfailedtorespondtoMr. Pedersen's

in this case. Ms. Notaris' choice can only be seen as an effort to undermine the attorney

matterandherdecisiontoundermineDisciplinaryCounsel'seffortto obtainanaccuraterecord

consciousanddeliberatedecisiontodeceiveDisciplinaryCounselduringtheinvestigationof this

Inmakingtherecommendationfordisbarment,we focusin thiscaseon Ms. Notaris'

(2007);quoting Coddington'sCase, 155 NH 66,68 (2007).

legalprofessionandpreventsimilarconductinthefuture." Grew's Case, 156 NH 361,365

rathertoprotectthepublic,maintainpublicconfidenceintheBar,preservetheintegrityofthe

We recognizethat "thepurposeofattorneydisciplineis not to inflictpunishment,but

ConductCommittee concludes that theappropriatediscipline in this matter is disbarment.

Havingmade theabove-referencedfindingsoffactandrulingsof law,theProfessional

alsoviolatedN.H. R. ofProf.Conduct 8.4(a).

56. As a consequenceofviolatingRule1.4,Rule8.1(a) and Rule 8.4(c),Ms.Notaris

violationofN.H. R.Prof.Conduct 8.4(c).

AlteredPleading,constitutedconductinvolvingdishonesty,deceitormisrepresentationin

heralterationof the digitalevidenceon hercomputertosupporther falsestatementsaboutthe

theAlteredPleading,her falsestatementsabouttheveracityof theAlteredPleading,as wellas

55. As specificallyalleged supra at| 42-50,Ms. Notaris'creationandsubmissionof

54. Allegations set forth above are incorporatedby reference.

Inthefirstinstance,we considertheethicaldutyviolatedby Ms. Notariswhen she(a)

(2007),quoting Richmond'sCase, 152NH 155,160(2005).

greaterthan the sanction for the mostseriousmisconduct." Douglas'Case, 156NH 613, 621

instanceofmisconductamong a numberofviolations;it mightwell beand generallyshouldbe

that the sanctionimposed shouldat least beconsistentwiththe sanction for themost serious

Standards,supra, § 3.0. In instancesofmultiplechargesofmisconduct, "theABA recommends

causedby thelawyer'smisconduct;(d) theexistenceofaggravatingormitigatingfactors."

sanctions:"(a)thedutyviolated;(b)alawyer'smentalstate;(c)thepotentialoractualinjury

513 (2005).Under the Standards, we aretoconsiderthefollowingfactorswhen imposing

LawyerSanctions (2005)forguidance. Grew'sCase,supra at365; Coffey'sCase, 152 NH 503,

Inreachingthisdecision,we usethe AmericanBar AssociationStandardsFor Imposing

Counsel but her clientas well.

2009,adelayofmore thanoneyear.Atthatpoint,Ms. Notarismislednot onlyDisciplinary

pleadingwhen she sent the AlteredPleadingto the Attorney Discipline Office onMarch 24,

earlyasthe endofOctober,2007.She onlydirectlyaddressedtherequestfora copyofthe

Pedersen'srequestsforinformationabouttheOctober16pleading,requestswhichstartedas

Jointly Submitted Exhibits,Exhibit6, pp122-125.Ms. Notaris also failed to answer Mr.

NotarisproperlycompletedthePetitionand includedMr. Pedersen'sswornsignature.See,

2007,asRespondentinitially claimed, butinsteadwas filedon January26,2008 after Ms.

case.The recordreflectsthat thePetitiontoRegistertheForeignOrderwas not filed inOctober,

toregistertheMassachusettsdecreein a timelymannertoprotecthislegalinterestsin hisdivorce

reasonable,repeated and insistent requests for information about his case. Mr. Pedersen needed p. 12 Page 12 of20

argument before the Professional Conduct Committee,February16,2010,p 59.

Ms. Notaris'conduct should be assessedin lightofthisimportantfactor. See, transcriptoforal

was createdon or about October 16,2007. Counsel thereforecontended thatthe seriousnessof

factorscovered by Standards, § 5.1, but noted that Ms. Notarisbelievedthedisputedpleading

Counsel for Ms. Notarisacknowledged that herconductinvolveddishonestyand deceit,

referredto the"Pierce Case."

pending matter. See, Notaris, Mary advs. Attorney Discipline Office # 07-059, hereinafter

Notaris wasaddressinga separatedisciplinarycomplaintregarding herconduct in another

impactedeffortstoresolveMr. Pedersen'sdisciplinarycomplaintbut also occurredwhileMs.

DisciplinaryCounsel supports her claim by pointing out that Ms. Notaris' conduct not only

investigationofthis case seriously and adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law.

DisciplinaryCounsel contends that Ms. Notaris' deceit and misrepresentation during the

Standards, § 5.1 in that Ms. Notaris failed to maintain her personal integrity. Moreparticularly,

Disciplinary Counsel suggests that Ms. Notaris' conduct more properly is covered by

violateda duty sheowed as aprofessional.

suspended for a three year period, chose to apply Standards, § 7.0, finding that Ms. Notaris

The Hearing Panel, inreviewingthe Standards, and recommending that Ms. Notaris be

provided to him.

explanationofits status despitenumerous requests that the pleading andinformationabout it be

April3,2009;and (c) further failed to provide Mr. Pedersenwitha copyofthe pleading or any

Disciplinary Counsel that she had located the pleading on hercomputer during theirmeetingof

fabricatedthe October16,2007 pleading and provided it toDisciplinaryCounsel; (b) falsely told p. 13 Page 13of20

Notaris'representationsand thedisciplinaryprocessitself.Thereisactualinjurytothe

beseenas significantlyunderminingtheconfidencethatthepubliccouldhaveinrelyingonMs.

done withthepurposeofinterferingwiththeattorneydisciplineprocess.Thisconductcanonly

seriouslyimpactedDisciplinaryCounsel'sefforttoaddressMr. Pedersen'scomplaint,and was

As totheinjurycausedbyMs. Notaris'conduct,theCommitteeconcludesthatit

intentionofprotectingherselfduringtheinvestigationofMr. Pedersen'sdisciplinarycomplaint.

contendeditwas an actualcopyof theoriginal.Her conductwas deliberateand donewiththe

statewas intentional.She createdthefalsepleading,mailedit toDisciplinaryCounseland

Inreviewingthe Standards, § 5.1,theCommitteealsoconcludesthatMs. Notaris'mental

and acknowledge her deceit.

and thisaftershehadfabricateda falseentryon hercomputer- did she admitto herdeception

uncovered.Onlyatapointwhen shewas directlychallengedaboutthepleading'sauthenticity-

falsedocument,forwardedit toDisciplinaryCounseland hopedthatherdeceptionwouldnotbe

pleading.Ratherthanacknowledgethistoherclientand DisciplinaryCounsel,shecreateda

Here,Ms. NotarisrealizedformonthsthatshecouldnotlocatetheOctober16,2007,

Astle's Case, 134 NH 602, 606 (1991). No singletransactionreflectsmore negativelyonthelegalprofessionthanalie.

As theHearingPanelnoted,theNew HampshireSupremeCourthasrepeatedlystated:

determininga sanctionin thiscase.

ethicaldutytomaintainherpersonalintegrityand uses Standards, §5.1as itsbasisfor

Report,theStipulationand argumentsofcounsel,concludesthatMs. Notarisbreachedher

The ProfessionalConduct Committee, afterreviewing therecord,theHearingPanel p. 14 Page 14of20 case is disbarment. See,Grew's Case, supra at 366.

consequenceswhichflowedfrom it,theCommitteeconcludesthatthebaselinesanctioninthis

InlightofMs. Notaris'intentionalconduct,thebreachofherethicaldutiesand the

practice. deceit,ormisrepresentationthatseriouslyreflectson the lawyer'sfitnessto (b)a lawyerengagesinanyotherintentionalconductinvolvingdishonesty,fraud,

Disbarment is generallyappropriatewhen...:

issues raised by this case. It provides:

integrity,theCommitteealsoconcludesthat Standard 5.11(b)mostappropriatelyaddressesthe

Havingdeterminedthat Ms.Notaris'conductdemonstrateda failuretomaintainpersonal

Clark, 99 Wash. 2d 702, 707-708, 663 P.2d1339,1341-1342 (1983). expectthepublicto do soand the verybasisofourprofessionalismerodes. In re professiondo not take theprocessofinternaldisciplineseriously,we cannot confidence in the legal profession is undermined.Ifthemembers ofour Obviously,unlessattorneyscooperatein theprocess,the systemfailsand public determine whether the lawyer should continue to be certified to the public as fit. cooperation,the BarAssociationisdeprivedofinformationnecessaryto dependsto agreatextent upon anindividualattorney'scooperation.Without that prompt,completeinvestigations.The processofinvestigatingcomplaints confidence in the legal profession, and thedeterrenceofmisconduct, require ethics andconductofthe attorneys admitted to practicebeforethiscourt. Public complaint is anintegralpartofthemachineryforhandlingchargesregardingthe distinguishedfrom a trade orbusiness.The Bar Association's investigationofa Internalinvestigation and self-discipline areat the very heartofa profession, as

quoted the Washington SupremeCourt:

cooperatingwithdisciplinaryinvestigations.In Clark's Case, 136NH 497 (1992),the Court

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has repeatedly noted the importanceoflawyers

complete andtimelyinformation about his case.

disciplinaryprocess, the legal profession and to Mr. Pedersenin hiseffortto obtainaccurate, p. 15 Page 15 of20

ApartfromMs. Notaris'conductinrespondingtothedisciplinarycomplaint,Ms. Notaris

Officestaff are further significantand seriousaggravatingfactors.

entryon hercomputerduringthetimeshewas beinginterviewedby theAttorneyDiscipline

it could not be foundbecauseit was misfiled in anotherclient'sfile and, finally, falsely create an

Ms. Notaris'decisiontomisleadDisciplinaryCounsel,createa falsedocument,falselyclaimthat

withinthecontemplationofthe Standards foraggravatingfactors. See,Standards, § 9.22(b).

Ms. Notaris' conduct also must be considerednot only as dishonest but also as selfish

significantand seriousaggravatingfactor. See,Standards, § 9.22(a).

whilethepubliccensureinthePierceCasewas waitingourreviewcanonlybeconsidereda

disciplinaryinvestigation.ThatshethenchosetoaffirmativelymisleadDisciplinaryCounsel

was made at a time when she should have been acutely awareofher duty to cooperate in a

Ms. Notaris'choicetoprovidefalseanddeceptiveinformationto theAttorneyDisciplineOffice

case occurred as Ms. Notaris addressed the allegations in the Pierce Case. As a consequence,

Notaris,Mary advs.AttorneyDisciplineOffice # 07-059. Importantly,theviolationin theinstant

hersimultaneousrepresentationof clientswho hadconflictinginterestsin a custodymatter. See,

DorisDonovan #00-008. In 2009, in the Pierce Case, she agreed to a public censure based on

concludethatthis priorviolationalsorelatesto herpersonalintegrity. See,Notaris,Mary advs.

fee to a client. Much as the case we now consider relates to Ms.Notaris'personal integrity, we

AttorneyDisciplineSystem.In 2001, shereceiveda reprimandforcharginga clearlyexcessive

The Committee first notes that this is not Ms.Notaris'firstcomplaintreviewed by the

aggravatingandmitigatingfactorsincludedin the Standards, §§ 9.2 and 9.3.

In reaching our conclusion regardingsanction,we have also considered a numberof p. 16 Page 16 of20

provideextensivepro bono services,legal serviceswhich are nototherwiseavailable. In her

noted inissuingthepubliccensurein the Pierce Case. Ms. Notaris hasmade a careerchoiceto

There is one considerable mitigating factor presented by Ms. Notaris. It is a factor we

aggravating factors inthiscase.

§9.22(e)and (f), and her substantial experience in thepracticeoflaw, Standards, §9.22(i), areall

Office and bycreatingthe AlteredPleadingandthefalseentry on her computer, Standards,

Counsel's investigation by failing to providerequestedmaterialsto theAttorneyDiscipline

violatedmultipledisciplinaryrules, Standards, §9.22(d),her bad faith obstructionofDisciplinary

Standards, §9.22(a),her dishonest and selfish motive, Standards, §9.22(b), the fact that she

The Committee therefore concludes that Ms. Notaris' priordisciplinary offenses,

§9.22(i).

particularlyan experienced lawyer,knows that this conduct is unacceptable. See,Standards,

investigationwas conducted and at the time she madethesemisrepresentations.Any lawyer,

Finally,Ms. Notaris had beenpracticinglaw for more than15 years at the time the

falseevidenceandmade falsestatementsduringthisinvestigation. See,Standards, § 9.22(e).

deception and therefore had toacknowledge the truthofher conduct. Ms. Notarissubmitted

DisciplinaryCounsel and continued until the moment when she could no longer maintainthe

providingtherequestedmaterials.Her decisionswere made to mislead and todeceive

Ms. Notaris'decisionswere made inbad faithand made with a conscious effortto avoid

legitimateinterest infindingout details about the statusofhis case and thecontentsofhis file.

protectionahead ofhis desire toobtaininformationabout his case. Mr.Pedersen had a

alsoengagedin conduct thatdisregardedMr. Pedersen's concerns and placed her interest inself p. 17 Page 17 of20 a single instanceofa bad choice, and youknow, it'snotwhat Iwant to be I'll live with this for the restofmy life. It is not representativeofme. It is - it is

And Ithinkpeople deservea second chance. Ithinkthatthis- thisis a -

other side.And theyown up to whattheydid, andtheymove forward. through this process and help them and help them realize thatthere'slife on the that have made bad decisions in their life, and as lawyers, we try to get them white or a black, that sometimes therearegray.And I've met numerous people frombeing inpracticeis thatpeoplemake mistakes, and it is notnecessarilya ...I'vebeen in practice for a long time.And ifanything thatI'velearned

Ms. Notaris testified at thehearingto recognizing and regretting her mistakes:

Organization.

organizations and acting as treasurer forsevenyears for herchildren'sParent Teacher

testifiedto her community work whichincludedbeingpresidentofhockey andsoftball

performnumerous civil unions andmarriagesfor those being deployed. Ms. Notarisfurther

Other than assistingwithestate plans and wills, Ms. Notaris alsotestifiedthat shevolunteeredto

ofassistinganother213 soldierswho were partof atransportationgroupbeingdeployedtoIraq.

estateplansforeverymember ofhisunit.At thetimeofherhearing,shewasalsoin theprocess

nephew was being deployed toIraq,sheagreednot only topreparehis will but also 480 wills and

volunteeredtoprovidefreelegalservicesto NewHampshiremilitaryfamilies.When her

Not only has she devoted aconsiderableamount oftime to these activities, she has also

firstforSeacoastAIDS ResponseinPortsmouth,and thenforanAIDS organizationinNashua.

otherAIDS organizationslearnedofheravailability,Ms. Notarisperformedthesesame services,

volunteeredtoassistAIDS Foundationclientswithsocialsecuritydisabilityapplications.When

Foundation.She has volunteeredtoprepareestateplansforover100oftheir clients. Shealso

community.She was aBoardmember and thenPresidentofthe NewHampshireAIDS

testimonybefore the Hearing Panel, Ms. Notaris described hervolunteerwork withtheAIDS p. 18 Page 18of20

heartofan attorney'sresponsibility.As theNewHampshireSupremeCourtnotedin Astle's

that shehadcreatedthe second copyoftheOctober16,2007petition,her dishonesty goesto the

While the CommitteerecognizesMs. Notaris'volunteerwork andhereventualadmission

acknowledgedhererroron April 3,2009,only10dayslater.

documentwas providedtoDisciplinaryCounselonMarch 24,2009and Ms. Notaris

deceptiveand improper,had an underlyingfactualbasis.Further,hearguesthatthefalse

16,2007petition.Inthatcontext,hearguesthatthecreationoftheAlteredPleading,while

oralargumentaugmentstherecordtodemonstratethatMs. NotarisactuallycreatedtheOctober

appropriatesanctioninthismatter.He notesthatthestipulationprovidedtotheCommitteeat

misconductbutalsoincludingherrecordofaccomplishmentas alawyer,a suspensionis a more

bytheCourt.Counselcontendsthatconsideringtherecordas awhole,includingMs. Notaris'

referencedbytheNew HampshireSupremeCourt,butguidelinesthathaveneverbeenadopted

Counsel for Ms. Notaris counters that the Standards are guidelines, guidelines frequently

disbarment as the onlyappropriatesanction.

conductin thiscase,combined with theseriousaggravatingfactorspresented,warrants

DisciplinaryCounselstronglyarguesthatdespiteMs. Notaris'volunteerwork,her

whether,on balance,theywarranta departurefromthebaselinesanctionofdisbarment.

The issueforthe Committee inassessingtheaggravatingand mitigatingfactorsis

communityis amitigatingfactorinthiscase. Standards,See, §9.32(g).

The Committeethereforefindsthat Ms.Notaris' pro bono work and her serviceto the

Transcript,SanctionHearing,October7,2009,at70.

remembered for... p. 19 Page 19of20 As aresult,The CommitteerespectfullyrecommendsthattheSupremeCourtissuean

able to seek readmission three years following her disbarment.

work.We, thereforeconclude,underthefullcircumstancesofthiscase,Ms. Notarisshouldbe

demonstratedan abilitytocontributeto thecommunityand tothoseinneedthroughherlegal

shouldalsobeallowedtheopportunitytoreapplyforadmissionafterthreeyears.Ms. Notarishas

lightofMr. Connor'seffortstoaddresshispersonalproblems.Here,we believethatMs. Notaris

termofdisbarment." Id. at 305. The Court included a time frame for possible readmission in

followingthetimeheceasedpracticinglaw,aperiodtheCourtcharacterizedas"ameaningful

Conner'sCase, 158 N. H. 299 (2009), allowed anattorneyto apply for readmission threeyears

which is all the more notable because she is a solepractitioner.Recently, the Supreme Court in

we arealsomindfulofMs. Notaris'commitment to performpro bono work, acommitment

While theCommittee recommends disbarment as the appropriate sanction in this matter,

Notaris.

respectfullyrecommendsthatthe NewHampshireSupremeCourtissueanOrderdisbarringMs.

Pedersen'srequestsfor information abouthercase,theProfessionalConduct Committee

Attorney DisciplineOffice and herfailuretorespondin a timely andaccuratemanner to Mr.

hersubstantialexperience in practicing law, the multiple misrepresentations made to the

In weighing the fullrecordin thiscase,includingMs. Notaris' priordisciplinaryrecord,

trustworthinessfrom the legal practitioners in this State.136 N.H. at 606. theneed formaintainingand requiring thehighestpossiblelevelsofhonestyand pervasiveness, one indisputable consequenceofsuch an increase hasoccurred: nearly every facetofprivate and public life.Without debating themeritsofthis Intoday'ssociety,more than ever before, the legalprofessiontouchesand affects

Case: p. 20 Page 20of20

File Paul Pederson Russell F.Hilliard,Esquire LandyaB.McCafferty,DisciplinaryCounsel Distribution:

petitionfordisbarmentofMary Notarisin theNewHampshireSupremeCourt.

Therefore, the Professional Conduct Committee directs Disciplinary Counsel to file a

Court Rule 37(19).

andexpensesrelated to theinvestigationandprosecutionofthis matter. See, N.H. Supreme

8.4(a).The Professional Conduct Committeerecommends that Ms. Notaris be assessed all costs

ofProfessionalConduct toincludeRule 1.4, Rule 8.1(a),Rule 8.4(c)and, as aconsequence,Rule

Hampshire Supreme Court that Mary Notaris be disbarred for violating New Hampshire Rules

For theabove reasons,the ProfessionalConduct Committee recommends to theNew

comply with therequirementsofNew Hampshire Supreme Court Rule37(2)(d).

years following the dateofthe final Orderofthe Supreme Court. Ms.Notariswould need to

Order disbarring Ms. Notaris in this case and allow her to start the processofreadmission three