Robert R. Bennett (2004)

1. 16(a)(3) and 8.4(a). N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1. 1 (a), 1.1(b)(4), 1.1(b)(5), 1.1(c)(4), 1.3(a), 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.4(c),

Bennett, Esquire, for violating the following rules: For all of the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee Reprimands Robert R.

when imposing sanctions"). although the Court has never formally adopted these Standards, the Court has"considered them Lawyer Sanctions (1991). See~, Shillen's Case, 149 N.H. 132, 139 (2003) (noting that, also in accord with the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Standards for Imposing New Hampshire Supreme Court See.u;", Feld's Case, 149 NH 19,28 (2002). This sanction is Reprimand. This sanction is in accord with the purposes of attorney discipline as described by the The Professional Conduct Committee concludes that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a

the Rules of Professional Conduct. Committee concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence that Robert R. Bennett violated The facts having been found by clear and convincing evidence, the Professional Conduct

attached hereto and made part thereof, are supported by clear and convincing evidence. findings contained in the Hearing Panel Report and the Stipulation As To Facts and Sanction Having reviewed the record, the Professional Conduct Committee concluded that the factual

Facts and Sanction dated March 16, 2004. referenced matter, including the Hearing Panel Report dated May 10, 2004 and Stipulation As To On June 15,2004, the Professional Conduct Committee reviewed the record in the above­

Bennett, Robert R. advs. John W. Levesque # OO-N-112

Robert R. Bennett, Esquire c.c. Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel

July 6, 2004

the Rules of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Robert R. Bennett, Esquire shall be entitled to appeal the findings or sanction in accordance with was forced to file the Accounting himself, and on a last-minute basis. p. 3 6. As a result of Mr. Bennett's failure to communicate and to file the Accounting, Mr. Levesque

Mr. Bennett's office 14 times and Mr. Bennett failed to return these calls. 5. For the time between April 19 and the July 17,2000 filing deadline, Mr. Levesque telephoned

4. The filing deadline for the Accounting was July 17, 2000.

file the Accounting.. 3. On April 5, 2000, Mr. Levesque forwarded to Mr. Bennett all of the documents necessary to

2. At all relevant times, Mr. Levesque resided in Arkport, New York.

0108. Mr. Levesque served as the Trustee. County Superior Court. Rockingham County Probate Court docketed the matter as #1966to as"the Accounting") for the"Trust Under the Will of Arthur A. Levesque" in Rockingham 1. In 2000, Mr. Levesque hired Mr. Bennett to file the Annual Accounting (hereinafter referred

facts and sanctions which provided as follows: Respondent ROBERT R. BENNETT entered into a Stipulation with Bar Disciplinary Counsel as to A pre-hearing conference was scheduled for March 17,2004. However, prior to hearing, the

Elaine Holden Vahrji Manoukian Melissa Countway Guldbrandsen, Esquire Robert C. Varney, Esquire, Reporter William E. Brennan, Esquire, Chair

March 1, 2004. The following Panel was selected: A complaint was referred to this Panel pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37A(llI)(b)(4) on

follows: (d) Mr. Bennett's original letter to the Committee, dated September 14, 2000, states as

the distress and frustration his actions caused Mr. Levesque. (c) Mr. Bennett has accepted responsibility for his conduct and has expressed remorse for

selfish motive. (b) Mr. Bennett acted negligently in this matter, but he did not act dishonestly or with a

received a warning relatedto his office calentllli-ing procedures. (a) Mr. Bennett has no prior record of misconduct. In1998, however, Mr. Bennett

Reprimand would be an appropriate sanction based upon the following factors: The Hearing Panel having reviewed the Notice of Charges, Answer and Stipulation agrees that a

a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). D. Because of the above Rule violations, there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence of

above, constitutes a violation ofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(a)(3). C. Mr. Bennett's failure to withdraw after Mr. Levesque discharged Mr. Bennett, as stipulated

as stipulated above, constitutes a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct l.4(a), l.4(b) and l.4(c). B. Mr. Bennett's failure to communicate with Mr. Levesque between April 19 and July 17,2000,

N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(a), l.f(b)(4), 1.1(b)(5), 1. 1 (c)(4) and 1.3(a). A. Mr. Bennett's failure to file the Accounting, as stipulated above, constitutes a violation of

rule violations could be shown by clear and convincing evidence: Respondent ROBERT R. BENNETT and Bar Disciplinary Counsel also stipulated that the following

10. As of September 25,2000, Mr. Bennett still had not filed a withdrawal.

in case Mr. Bennett had questions. withdraw. In that same letter, Mr. Levesque provided the clerk's name and telephone number 9. In a letter dated July 17,2000, Mr. Levesque instructed Mr. Bennett to file a motion to

instructed by Mr. Levesque and as required by the Probate Court. 8. In addition, Mr. Bennett failed to file a motion to withdraw from the probate matter when so

agent. an extension of time, an appearance pro se, and a petition for an appointment of resident 7. To do this, Mr. Levesque had to file several motions on a pro se basis, including a motion for

Dated: ----=:S:::::.;-{!<..-lO_· ____ , 2004

1.4(b), 1.4(c), 1.16(a)(3) and 8.4(a). ROBERT R. BENNETT for violation of Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b)(4), 1.1(b)(5), 1.1(c)(4), 1.3(a), 1.4(a), The Hearing Panel therefore recommends that the Committee impose a Reprimand upon

(g) Mr. Bennett is currently on inactive status for medical reasons.

inattention to details in his professional life. letter to the Committee, not by way of an excuse, but by way of explaining his not able to locate the assailant. Mr. Bennett offered this information in his original a convenience store in Epsom, New Hampshire. The police were notified but were Mr. Bennett's seven year old daughter was the victim of an attempted abduction from (f) _During the time that Mr. Bennett neglected Mr. Levesque's case (April-July, 2000),

full disclosure and has exhibited an extremely cooperative attitude. (e) In Mr. Bennett's discussions with Disciplinary Counsel aboutthis matter, he has made

rectify the situation, I would be pleased to do so." Accounting as he wished, and if there is any action I can take to

Levesque was forced to file the Accounting himself, and on a last-minute basis.

6. As a result ofMr. Bennett's failure to communicate and to file the Accounting, Mr.

telephoned Mr. Bennett's office p. 6 14 times and Mr. Bennett failed to return these calls.

5. For the time between April p. 6 19 and the July 17,2000 filing deadline, Mr. Levesque

4. The filing deadline for the Accounting was July p. 6 17,2000.

necessary to file the Accounting.

3. On AprilS, 2000, Mr. Levesque forwarded to Mr. Bennett all of the documents

2. At all relevant times, Mr. Levesque resided in Arkport, New York.

the matter as # p. 6 1966-0 108. Mr. Levesque served as the Trustee.

in Rockingham County Superior Court. Rockingham County Probate Court docketed

referred to as"the Accounting") for the"Trust Under the Will of Arthur A. Levesque"

p. 6 1. In 2000, Mr. Levesque hired Mr. Bennett to file the Annual Accounting (hereinafter

Respondent, and respectfully submit this Stipulation as to Facts and Sanction:

NOW COMES Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Bennett,

evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a).

14. Because ofthe above Rule violations, there is necessarily clear and convincing

Prof. Conduct l.l6(a)(3).

stipulated above, constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation ofN.H. R.

13. Mr. Bennett's failure to withdraw after Mr. Levesque discharged Mr. Bennett, as

N.H. R. Prof. Conduct l.4(a), l.4Cb), and 1.4(c).

p. 7 2000, as stipulated above, constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of

1 p. 7 2. Mr. Bennett's failure to communicate with Mr. Levesque between April 19 and July 17,

1. 1 (c)(4), and 1.3(a).

convincing evidence ofaviolation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(a), 1.1(b)(4), 1.1(b)(5),

11. Mr. Bennett's failure to file the Accounting, as stipulated above, constitutes clear and

10. As of September p. 7 25, 2000, Mr. Bennett still had not filed a withdrawal.

number in case Mr. Bennett had questions.

withdraw. In that same letter, Mr. Levesque provided the clerk's name and telephone

9. In a letter dated July 17, p. 7 2000, Mr. Levesque instructed Mr. Bennett to file a motion to

when so instructed by Mr. Levesque and as required by the Probate Court.

8. In addition, Mr. Bennett failed to file a motion to withdraw from the probate matter

appointment of resident agent.

motion for an extension of time, an appearance pro se, and a petition for an

7. To do this, Mr. Levesque had to file several motions on a pro se basis, including a p. 8 3

were notified but were not able to locate the assailant. Mr. Bennett offered this

abduction from a convenience store in Epsom, New Hampshire. The police

2000), Mr. Bennett's seven year old daughter was the victim of an attempted

(f) During the time that Mr. Bennett neglected Mr. Levesque's case (April-July,

made full disclosures and has exhibited an extremely cooperative attitude;

(e) In Mr. Bennett's discussions with Disciplinary Counsel about this matter, he has

situation, I would be pleased to do so." wished, and if there is any action I can take to rectify the experienced due to my failing to file Accounting as, he honorable man. I am truly sorry for any difficulty he has found Mr. Levesque to be an excellent client and an "On a final note, I would like to say that I have always

as follows:

(d) Mr. Bennett's original letter to the Committee, dated September 14,2000, states

remorse for the distress and frustration his actions caused Mr. Levesque;

(c) Mr. Bennett has accepted responsibility for his conduct and has expressed

with a selfish motive;

(b) Mr. Bennett acted negligently in this matter, but he did not act dishonestly or

received a warning related to his office calendaring procedures,

(a) Mr. Bennett has no prior record of misconduct. In 1998, however, Mr. Bennett

17. A Reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this case for the following reasons.

16. Mr. Bennett has agreed to accept a Reprimand for his conduct in this matter.

violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct contained in the Notice of Charges.

Notice of Charges. Additionally, Mr. Bennett has admitted each of the alleged

15. In this Stipulation, Mr. Bennett has admitted every material allegation contained in the

Dated: ____"J j ;/r ~ __ ~2- __ __ By: -----,,~<f, p. 9 4(/--~.!::-~---=-~~-~--.).. __

"considered them when imposing sanctions").

although the Court has never formally adopted these Standards, the Court has

Shillen's Case, No. LD-2000-00 p. 9 4, __ N.H. __ (February 18,2003) (noting that,

Responsibility Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions § 9.0 (1991). See,~,

18. A Reprimand in this matter would be consistent with the ABA Center for Professional

(g) Mr. Bennett is currently on inactive status for medical reasons.

by way of explaining his inattention to details in his professional life;

information in his original letter to the Committee, not by way of an excuse, but