Paul A. Maggiotto (2010)

AttorneyMaggiotto'stwo-pageresponsedatedSeptember30,2009,theNoticeofCharges,the

May 18,2010toincludeMr. McCaffrey'stwo-pageinitialcomplaintdatedAugust20,2009,

RuleViolationssubmittedbytheparties.The Committee,havingreviewedtherecordon

PermitWaiverofHearingsCommitteeProcessand approvedtheStipulationastotheFactsand

On April20,2010,theCommitteegrantedDisciplinaryCounsel'sAssentedtoMotionto

deliberations.

absent.ToniM. Gray,ViceChairwas recusedfromtheproceedingand didnotparticipateinthe

James R.Martinand JenniferL.Parent.MargaretH. Nelson,Chairand SusanR.Cholletwere

Thomas P. Connair,AlanJ.Cronheim,GeraldA.Daley,RichardH. Darling,JulieA.Introcaso,

ProfessionalConductCommitteeincludedBenettePizzimenti,ActingChair,DavidN. Cole,

Hilliard,Esquireappearedon behalfoftheRespondent,PaulA.Maggiotto,Esquire.The

McCafferty,DisciplinaryCounsel,appearedfortheAttorneyDisciplineOffice.RussellF.

referencedmatterpursuanttoNew HampshireSupremeCourtRule37A(IH)(b)(2).LandyaB.

On May 18,2010,theProfessionalConductCommitteeheardoralargumentintheabove-

Maggiotto,PaulA. advs.KevinJosephMcCaffrey # 09-039

^SS^SS^m^ fichardH. DarLg*SusanR.ChoJlet Fax 228'9511 Ju,ieA- Introcaso ^PwSlS^ CoalST^r1* «—A.D.I*.IWlCO^VtaS^

continuedthroughoutMr. Maggiotto'srepresentationfl^^^^^^m

intimatefriendsand beganaconsensualsexualrelationship.Theirconsensualsexualrelationship

6. Shortlyafter^^J^^^PretainedMr. Maggiottoin2007,theybecame

5. Mr. McCaffreywas representedatallrelevanttimesbyJenniferMoore Balkus,Esq.

4. ^m^^^PfiledaPetitionforDivorceon November 15,2007.

divorce.

3. InNovember2007,^m^^^retainedMr. Maggiottotorepresentherinher

(H^Hdecided nottofilefordivorceatthattime.

Maggiottoaboutthepossibilityofdivorcingherthen-husband,KevinJ.McCaffrey.^B

InOctoberof2OO5,^^|^^^^^|^^^^0ConsiiltedwithMr.

Belobrow,PLLC, 58 PleasantStreet,Concord,New Hampshire03301.

timesmaterialtothisproceeding,Mr. MaggiottooperatedhislawofficeasMaggiotto&

Maggiottowas admittedtopracticeinNew Yorkin1984and inNew Hampshirein1990.Atall

1. Mr. Maggiottoisan attorneylicensedtopracticelawinNew Hampshire.Mr.

factbyclearand convincingevidence:

ProfessionalConductCommittee,determinesthattherecordsupportsthefollowingfindingsof

aresult,uponconsiderationand reviewoftheStipulationand therecordasawhole,the

The partiesstipulatedtocertainfactualallegationscontainedintheNoticeofCharges.As

findingsand rulingsoflawasdetailedbelow.

theCommitteedatedMay 17,2010,and theoralargumenton theissueofsanction,makes factual

StipulationastoFacts,Rulesand Sanctionssubmittedbytheparties,Mr. Maggiotto'sletterto p. 3 Page 3of9

(retainedMr. Maggiotto inNovember 2007.

timetheirattorney-clientrelationshipcommenced.Rather,theirintimaterelationshipbeganafterfB

14. Mr. Maggiottoand^^^^^^^didnothaveaconsensualsexualrelationshipatthe

when the client-lawyer relationship commenced."

nothavesexualrelationswithaclientunlessaconsensualsexualrelationshipexistedbetweenthem

13. Rule1.8(j),whichbecameeffectiveon January1,2008,providesthatalawyer"shall

12. The abovefactualfindingsareincorporatedby reference.

following rulingsoflaw:

Stipulation,andthefactsofthiscase,findsthereexistsclearandconvincingevidencetosupportthe

The ProfessionalConduct Committee,upon considerationand reviewoftherecord,

July 2009.

11. The intimaterelationshipbetweenMr. Maggiottoand^^^^^^^lasteduntil

10. Thedivorcebecame finalonApril30,2008.

9. Mr. McCaffreyand^^BIBhave two children.

parentingplanand a propertydistributionwithoutmuch rancor.

no contesteddiscoveryissues,no custodyoralimonydisputes,and thepartiesagreedtoa

8. OtherthantheFirstAppearance,therewereno hearingsinthecase.Therewere

counselisnotrequiredataFirstAppearance.

Maggiottoappearedwith(H^)Mr. McCaffreyappearedwithoutMs. Balkus,as

7. The FirstAppearanceinthemaritalcaseoccurredon January8,2008when Mr. p. 4 Page 4 of9

factors." Standards,supra § 3.0.

actualinjurycaused by thelawyer'smisconduct; (d) the existenceofaggravatingor mitigating

Standards, we consider "(a) the duty violated; (b) a lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or

LawyerSanctions(2005) for guidance. Coffey'sCase 152N.H. 503,513 (2005). Following the

In reaching our decision, we use the AmericanBar AssociationStandardsfor Imposing

N.H.361,365(2007) (quoting Coddington*s Case, 155N.H. 66,68 (2007)).

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

punishment,but rather to protect the public,maintainpublicconfidence in the Bar, preserve the

The Committeerecognizes that "thepurposeofattorneydiscipline is not to inflict

ConductCommittee concludes that the appropriatesanction in thismatteris a Public Censure.

Havingmadethe above-referencedfindingsof factandrulingsoflaw, theProfessional

ffl. SANCTION

8.4(a).

1.8(j),there is necessarilyclear andconvincingevidenceofa violationofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct

18. BecausethereexistsclearandconvincingevidencethatMr.MaggiottoviolatedRule

violationof N.H.R. Prof.Conduct1.8(j).

17. Mr.Maggiotto'sconductinthisregardconstitutesclearandconvincingevidenceofa

16. At allrelevanttimesMr. Maggiottoactedknowinglyinhisrelationshipwithl

hisdivorceclient

15. Mr.Maggiottohadadutynottoengageinasexualrelationshipwith( p. 5 Page 5of9

Havingfocusedon theethicaldutyviolated,Mr. Maggiotto'smentalstate,and theissue

analysisofthebaselinesanctioninthecase."Stipulation ^ 32.

significant.Therefore,asthepartiesacknowledge,thepotentialinjury"weighsheavilyinany

relationshipduringthecourseofthelitigation,theimpacton thecasecouldhavebeen

thatMr. McCaffreywas unawareoftheongoingrelationship.Had Mr. McCaffreylearnedofthe

pendencyofthecase,thiswas inlargepartduetoMr. Maggiotto'ssuccessfuleffortinassuring

oractualinjurycausedbyMr. Maggiotto'sconduct.Whiletherewas no actualinjuryduringthe

The thirdprongoftheanalysisunderthe Standards requiresustoconsiderthepotential

thatMr. Maggiottoactedknowinglywithrespecttohisviolation.

Inanalyzingthesecondfactor,Mr. Maggiotto'smentalstate,we agreewiththeparties

fromsexualrelationswith a client as well as his duty to avoid potential conflictsofinterest.

the rulewent into effect. Therefore, wedeterminethat Mr. Maggiotto violated his duty toabstain

acknowledgedhisviolationofthisrulebasedonhiscontinuedinvolvementwith hisclientafter

sexualrelationsbetween a lawyer and client,becameeffectiveJanuary1,2008. Mr. Maggiotto

dutyviolatedbyAttorneyMaggiotto.As notedintheStipulation,Rule1.8(j),the rulerelatedto

Insupportofour conclusionand inreviewingthe Standards, we first considertheethical

giventhenatureofthe conduct in thiscase,it is ourview thata PublicCensureiswarranted.

commencing a sexual relationshipwitha client duringthe courseofrepresentation.As a result,

ordertoassurepublic confidence in the Bar,it iscriticallyimportant for a lawyer to avoid

appropriatediscipline in this matter is areprimand.However,theCommittee concludes that in

parties'own analysisoftheABA Standardsas well as to theirjoint recommendation that the

Inconductingour analysis,theCommitteehas given significantconsiderationto the p. 6 Page 6of9 2§4 34 usestheterm"Admonition."The mostanalogoussanctioninNew HampshireisaReprimand. 1§4.33usestheterm"Reprimand."themostanalogoussanctioninNew HampshireisPublicCensure.

affect anotherclient, and causeslittle or noactualor potential injury to a client. affectedbythelawyer'sown interests,orwhethertherepresentationwilladversely ofnegligenceindeterminingwhethertherepresentationofaclientmay bematerially 4.34 Admonition2isgenerallyappropriatewhen alawyerengagesinan isolatedinstance

andcausesinjury orpotentialinjuryto a client. own interests,orwhethertherepresentationwilladverselyaffectanotherclient, whethertherepresentationofaclientmaybe materiallyaffectedby thelawyer's 4.33 Reprimand1isgenerallyappropriatewhen alawyerisnegligentindetermining

causesinjury orpotentialinjuryto aclient. and doesnot fullydiscloseto aclientthepossibleeffectofthatconflict,and 4.32 Suspensionisgenerallyappropriatewhen alawyerknows ofa conflictofinterest

seriousinjuryto aclient the intent to benefit the lawyeroranother,and causes serious orpotentially knowinglyuses informationrelatingto the representationofa client with interestsofa presentorformerclient are materially adverse, and (c) representsa client in amattersubstantiallyrelatedto a matterin whichthe

or potentially serious injuryto a client; or interestswiththe intent tobenefitthelawyeror another, and causes serious (b) simultaneouslyrepresents clients that thelawyerknows have adverse

and causes serious or potentially seriousinjuryto the client; or are adverse to the client's with the intent tobenefitthe lawyer oranother, (a) engages in representationofa clientknowing that thelawyer'sinterests

ofclient(s): 4.31 Disbarment is generallyappropriatewhen a lawyer,withoutthe informed consent

Standard § 4.3 provides:

misconduct involvingconflictsofinterest.

thatthemostanalogoussectionofthe Standards is Standard §4.3,thestandardreferencing

standardthatspecificallyaddressesmisconductunderRule1.8(j),we againagreewiththeparties

ofharm or potential harm,we must now determine a baseline sanction.While there is no p. 7 Page7 of9

The Committee notes that Mr.McCaffreyhasnot expressed a specificview as to what

harm. See Standards, § 9.32(a),(e) andfl).

ofhim and has indicated that she believes therelationshipneither caused her or her case any

understandingofhisconductand isremorsefulforit.Mr. Maggiotto'sclientisfullysupportive

investigationofhis caseandisrespectedin thelegalcommunity.Further,he has shownan

disciplinaryrecord.He hasbeenentirelycooperativewithDisciplinaryCounselduringthe

We arealso awareofa numberofmitigatingfactors.Mr. Maggiotto has no prior

had become known during the courseofthecase. SeeStandards § 9.22(i).

consensual, Mr. Maggiotto failed to consider the potentialharm to hisclientifthe relationship

vulnerabilitiesoflitigants in domesticcases.While therelationshipin question was fully

practiceinNew Hampshireforanextendedperiodoftimeand is nodoubtawareofthe

practicedlaw for more thantwentyyears at that timeoftheseevents.He has had a domestic

substantialaggravatingfactor.Mr. Maggiottois alawyerwithsubstantialexperience,having

We nextconsidertheaggravatingand mitigatingfactorspresentin thecase.Thereis one

warrants a baselinesanctionofa Public Censure.

Inreviewingthesefactors,we determinethatMr. Maggiotto'sviolationofRule1.8(j)

client priorto theconclusionofthe case.

affectedbyhisown interestsand whetherhisconductmightcauseinjuryorpotentialinjurytohis

Therefore,he was negligentinfailingtoconsiderwhetherhislegalrepresentationwouldbe

issueas itrelatedtothedomesticcasewhen he continuedhisrelationshipwithhisclient.

Maggiotto'sconductwithhisclientwas "knowing,"we believehedidnotconsidertheconflict

We concludethatStandard§4.33bestdescribesMr. Maggiotto'sconduct.WhileMr. p. 8 Page 8of9

Committeeintheinvestigationandprosecutionofthismatter.

Stipulation,Mr. Maggiottoisassessedtheexpensesincurredby theProfessionalConduct

ProfessionalConductCommitteeissuesaPublicCensureinthiscase.Pursuanttotheparties'

InconsiderationoftherecordbeforetheCommitteeandthefactorsdescribedabove,the

theseverityofMr. Maggiotto'sconduct.

he hasprovidedtotheBar,theCommitteeconcludesthatthemitigatingfactorscannotoutweigh

acknowledgesMr. Maggiotto'srecordinNew Hampshireasalawyerandappreciatestheservice

lawyermay notstartasexualrelationshipwithacurrentclient.WhiletheCommittee

considerable.Forlawyers,therearecertainbasicandobviousrules.One ofthemisthata

particularlyinadomesticcase.The riskofsubstantialimpacton acaseandonaclientis

inappropriatetocommence asexualrelationshipwithaclientwhilerepresentingthatclient-

believesthatanexperiencedattorney- hopefullyanyattorney- wouldknowthat it ishighly

sanctionin this case. While Mr.Maggiottoraisessignificantmitigating evidence, theCommittee

recommendationforsanction,the Committee believes a PublicCensure istheappropriate

Balancingthe aggravating andmitigatingfactorsas well as theparties'joint

supportsthe impositionofa lenient sanction in this matter.

Maggiotto's conduct. Incontrast,Mr. Maggiotto'sclient,who was presentfor the oralargument,

sanctionshould be imposed in this case; however,he has indicated that he felt harmed by Mr. p. 9 Page9 of9

File Russell F.Hilliard,Esquire JenniferB.Sargent,DisciplinaryCounsel Distribution: