Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting (2011)

and ruling of law as detailed below:

Disciplinary Counsel and the Attorney Discipline Office, the Committee makes factual findings

Memorandum on Sanction, the Hearing Panel Report and Respondent's e-mail exchanges with

Transcript dated October 20,2010, along with Disciplinary Counsel's Exhibits and

Notice of Charges, Respondent's Answer to the Notice of Supplemental Charges, the Hearing

New Hampshire Supreme Court Orders following the filing of this Petition, the Supplemental

in this matter, the Assented-to Petition for Three-Year Suspension from the Practice of Law, the

submitted based on the written record. Having reviewed that record, including the initial record

Ms. Vanim-Botting declined to appear for Oral Argument and therefore this matter was

Lawrence A. Vogelman. Thomas P. Connair and Richard H. Darling were absent.

David N. Cole; Alan 1. Cronheim; Gerald A. Daley; Julie A. Introcaso; James R. Martin and

Nelson, Chair; Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair; Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair; Susan R. Chollet;

matter on February 15, 2011. The following Committee members were present: Margaret H.

The Professional Conduct Committee (the"Committee") deliberated the above-captioned

Vanim-Botting, Jeanne M advs. Attorney Discipline Office #08-047

Alan J. Cronheim Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Thomas P. Connair * non attorney member David N. Cole Lawrence A. Vogehnan Susan R. Chollet' James R. Martin Toni M. Gray,' Vice Chair 603-224-5828· Fax 228-9511 Julie A. Introcaso Benette Pizziment~ Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 0330 I Richard H. Darling' Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Gerald A. Daley'

Supplemental Notice of Charges dated August 4, 2010. 1 Record Tab II, signifies the Record of the Professional Conduct Committee. "Answer" signifies Respondent's Answer to the

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: preserve the integrity of the legal profession. See Rule 37(16)(f). suspension from the practice oflaw is necessary to protect the public and to petition, the Court finds that Attorney Vanim-Botting's immediate integrity of the legal profession. Based on the allegations of the PCC's necessary for the protection of the public and the preservation ofthe suspend an attorney from the practice of law if it deems suspension Attorney Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting. Rule 37(l6)(f) authorizes the Conrt to assented-to petition for three-year suspension from the practice of law of On December 8, 2009, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) filed an .

in LD-2009-0012, In the Matter of Jeanne M.Vanim-Botting: 3. On December 14, 2009, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued the following order

Georgia 30120. Record Tab 11, Answer at ~2.l address is White, Choate, Watkins & MJoczko, 100 West Cherokee A venue, Catersville, Her home address is 15 Rhodes Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30068 and her employment At Law, PLLC with an address of P.O. Box 2194, Conway, New Hampshire 03818. 2006. Ms. Vanim-Botting operated her law office as Jeanne Vanim-Botting, Attorney Hampshire is suspended. Ms. V anim-Botting was admitted to practice on May 22, 2. Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting is an attorney whose license to practice law in New

October 7, 2009, are incorporated herein by reference. l 1. All findings made by the Professional Conduct Committee by Order dated

clear and convincing evidence: The Committee has determined that the record supports the following factual findings by

I. FACTUAL FINDINGS p. 3 Page 3 of 13

The Committee on Professional Conduct shall pay the fees of Attorney Froburg,

operating accounts. Attorney Vanim-Botting was advised that if she failed to requests to tum over her client files and to provide information about her trust and Botting to contact Attorney Froburg and to comply with Attorney Froburg's On March 4,2010, an order was issued requiring Attorney Jeanne M. Vanim­

order in LD-2009-0012, In the Matter of Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting: 5. On March 29,2010, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued the following

Record Tab II at'11 4.

Attorney Discipline Office. first class and certified mail. A copy of the report shall also be provided to the A copy of Attorney Froburg's report shall be sent to Attorney Vanim-Botting by

order, an order will be issued scheduling a contempt hearing. by Attorney Froburg that Attorney Vanim-Botting has not complied with this Botting has complied with t.his order a.lld with her requests. If the cou..rt is notified has been contacted by Attorney V anim-Botting, and whether Attorney Vanim­ On or before March 19,2010, Attorney Froburg shall notifY the court whether she

until she complies. may be held in contempt and subject to sanctions, including incarceration, Vanim-Botting is cautioned that if she fails to comply with this order, she files and to provide information about her trust and operating accounts. Attorney this order and to comply with Attorney Froburg's requests to tum over her client Attorney Vanim-Botting is ordered to contact Attorney Froburg upon receipt of

and trust accounts as ordered by the court. Froburg has been lLl1able to take possession of Attorney Vanim-Botting's client files mail, but that Attorney Vanim-Botting has not responded. As a result, Attorney made numerous attempts to contact Attorney Vanim-Botting by telephone and describing her efforts to comply with the court's order. She reported that she has accounts. On February 16,2010, Attorney Froburg filed a report with the court Froburg to take possession of Attorney Vanim-Botting's client files and trust from the practice oflaw on an interim basis and appointed Attorney Alethea On December 14, 2009, the court suspended Attorney Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting

in LD-2009-0012, In the Matter of Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting: 4. On March 4, 2010, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued the following order

Record Tab 11 atJ 3.

ordered by the court. in the first instance, to be reimbursed by Attorney V anim-Botting unless otherwise p. 5 Page 5 of 13 trust accounts, a capias for Attorney Vanim-Botting's arrest shall issue. contact Attorney DeHart, or fails to arrange for the transfer of her files and Attorney Vanim-Botting has done so. If Attorney Vanim-Botting fails to notify the clerk of court by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, April 26, 2010, whether and trust accounts to Attorney DeHart without delay. Attorney DeHart shall on Monday, April 26, 2010, and arranges for the transfer of her client files General Counsel, Attorney Discipline Office, (603) 224-5828, by 12:00 noon arrest provided that Attorney Vanim-Botting contacts James DeHart, The court will delay the issuance of a capias for Attorney Vanim-Botting's

unable to attend the hearing. Georgia, was recovering from an emotional and mental breakdown, and was hearing was scheduled for April 23, 2010. She stated that she had moved to cause hearing. In the motion, Attorney Vanim-Botting incorrectly stated that the On April 22, 2010, the court received an emergency motion to continue the show

prepare a capias for Attorney VaTlim-Botting's immediate arrest. that Attorney Vanim-Botting was in contempt. The court then directed the clerk to Vanim-Botting failed to appear for the hearing, and the court entered a finding comply with the court's orders of March 4, 2010 and March 29, 2010. Attorney contempt and subject to sanctions, including possible incarceration, for failing to April 21, 2010, at II :30 a.m., to show cause why she should not be held in Attorney Jearme M. Vanim-Botting was ordered to appear for a hearing on

in LD-2009-0012, In the Matter of Jearme M. Vanim-Botting: 6. On April 22, 20 I 0, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued the following order

Record Tab 11 at ~ 5.

this order by first class and certified mail. A copy of Attorney Froburg's report shall be sent to Attorney Vanim-Botting with

incarceration, until she complies with this court's orders. be held in contempt and subject to sanctions, including possible Conrt on April 21, 2010, at 11:30 a.m. and to show cause why she should not Attorney Vanim-Botting is ordered to appear for a hearing at the Supreme

operating accounts. contacted her or complied with her requests related to her client files and trust and Attorney Froburg has notified the court that Attorney Vanim-Botting has not

incarceration, until she complies. whether she could be held in contempt and subject to sanctions, including comply with the order, a contempt hearing would be scheduled to determine p. 6 Page 6 of 13

$627.42 is approved. It shall be paid in the first instance by the Professional Payment of Attorney Froburg's invoice of March 19,2010, in the amount of

in LD-2009-0012, In the Matter of Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting: 8. On May 6, 2010, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued the following order

Record Tab 11 at ~ 7.

A further hearing will be scheduled upon return ofthe capias.

arrest, with bail set at $100.00, personal recognizance. Consequently, a capias shall be issued for Attorney Vanim-Botting's immediate

April 26, 2010, as was required by the Court's order of April 22, 2010. that Attorney V anim-Botting did not contact him by noon (or at any other time) on On April 26, 2010, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Attorney DeHart notified the clerk

accounts, a capias for Attorney Vanim-Botting's arrest shall issue. contact Attorney DeHart, or failed to arrange for the transfer of her files and trust so. The order concluded by stating that if Attorney Vanim-Botting failed to 4:00 p.m. on Monday, April 26, 2010, whether Attorney Vanim-Botting had done DeHart without delay. Attorney DeHart was ordered to notifY the clerk of court by and arranged for the transfer of her client files and trust accounts to Attorney Attorney Discipline Office, (603) 224-5828, by 12:00 noon on Monday, April 26, 2010, provided that Attorney Vanim-Botting contacted James DeHart, General Counsel, that it would delay the issuance of a capias for Attorney Vanim-Botting's arrest unable to attend the hearing. On April 22, 20 I 0, the court issued an order stating Georgia, was recovering from an emotional and mental breakdown, and was hearing was scheduled for April 23, 2010. She stated that she had moved to cause hearing. In the motion, Attorney Vanim-Botting incorrectly stated that the On April 22, 2010, the court received an emergency motion to continue the show

prepare a capias for Attorney Vanim-Botting's immediate arrest. that Attorney Vanim-Botting was in contempt. The court then directed the clerk to Vanim-Botting failed to appear for the hearing, and the court entered a finding comply with the court's orders of March 4, 2010 and March 29, 2010. Attorney contempt and subject to sanctions, including possible incarceration, for failing to April 21, 2010, at 11:30 a.m., to show cause why she should not be held in Attorney Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting was ordered to appear for a hearing on

in LD-2009-0012, In the Matter of Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting: 7. On April 29, 2010, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued the following order Record Tab II at ~ 6. p. 7 Page 7 of 13

further Rulings of Law by clearing convincing evidence.

The Committee incorporates by reference the prior Rulings of Law and makes these

proceedings that Respondent violated Rules 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 4.1 (a), 8.1 (a), 8.4(c) and 8.4(a).

The Respondent and the Attorney Discipline Office ("ADO") stipulated in the initial

March 29,2010, and April 22, 2010. Hampshire Supreme Court dated December 14, 2009, March 4,2010, 11. Ms. Vanim-Botting blatantly and willfully disregarded the orders of the New

Botting. December 14,2009 Order in LD-2009-0012, In the Matter of Jeanne M. Vanim­ 10. Ms. Vanim-Botting is in contempt of court regarding the

Record Tab 11 at ~ 9.

recommendation that Attorney Vanim-Botting be suspended for three years. whether the events that have transpired since the filing of the petition affect its This matter is remanded to the Professional Conduct Committee for it to consider

Attorney Vanim-Botting's arrest was issued on April 29, 2010. court to protect the interests of Attorney Vanim-Botting's clients. A capias for requiring her to contact Attorney Alethea Froburg, who was appointed by the Botting was fOll..l1d in contempt by the cou...rt for failing to comply wit.h orders Botting from the practice of law. After the petition was filed, Attorney Vanim­ assented-to petition for three year suspension of Attorney Jeanne M. Vanim­ On December 8, 2009, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) filed an in LD-2009-0012, In the Matter of Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting: 9. On June 15, 2010, the New Hampshire Supreme Court issued the following order

Record Tab 11 at ~ 8.

Rule 37(17). A redacted copy ofthe invoice shall be placed in the public file. confidential information. The invoice shall be placed in a confidential file. See The invoice contains documentation that contains the names of clients and other

PCC with this order. Vanim-Botting. A copy of Attorney Froburg's invoice shall be provided to the Conduct Committee (PC C), which may seek reimbursement from Attorney p. 8 Page 8 of 13

Year Suspension which was filed in the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

flagrant disregard for the proceedings following the filing ofthe Assented-to Petition for Three

based on Ms. Vanim-Botting's conduct referenced in our initial decision in conjunction with her

This judgment is different than our original recommendation of a three year suspension. It is

Conduct Committee concludes that the appropriate discipline in this matter is now disbarment.

Having made the above Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law, the Professional

of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). violations, there is clear and convincing evidence that she committed a violation 17. As a result of Ms. Vanim-Botting having committed the above-referenced

Rule 8.4(a): General Rule

(2004). This constitutes a violation of Rule 3.4(c). See Kersey's Case, 150 N.H. 585 New Hampshire Supreme Court found to constitute contempt of aforesaid orders. 16. There is clear and convincing evidence of the above-referenced conduct which the

ways specifically directed by the Court. directed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, as well as failing to act in other by failing to disclose information and files to Attorney Alethea 1. Froburg as December 14, 2009, LD-2009-0012, TT) the Matter of Jerome M. VHnim-Botting. tribunal, according to the New Hampshire Supreme Court's Order of 15. Ms. Vanim-Botting breached the duty to obey her obligation under the rules of the

no valid obligation existed. Order, and all subsequent Orders, is not an open refusal based on an assertion that 14. Ms. Vanim-Botting's refusal to comply with the Court's December 14, 2009

obligations under the rules of the tribunal. Hampshire Supreme Court, tribunal in this matter, the duty to obey any and all this matter, the Professional Conduct Committee, as Petitioner, and the New 13. Ms. Vanim-Botting owed the Attorney Discipline Office, as the complainant in

12. Allegations set forth above are incorporated by reference.

Rule 3.4(c): Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel p. 9 Page 9 of 13

(2007), quoting Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. 155, 160 (2005).

greater than the sanction for the most serious misconduct." Douglas' Case, 156 N.H. 613, 621

instance of misconduct among a number of violations; it might well be and generally should be

that the sanction imposed should at least be consistent with the sanction for the most serious

Standards, supra, §3.0. In instances of multiple charges of misconduct,"the ABA recommends

injury caused by lawyer's misconduct; (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors."

sanctions including"(a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual

Under the Standards, we are to consider a number of factors when recommending

Coffey'S Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005).

Implementing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) (Standards) for guidance. Grew's Case, supra at 365,

In reaching this decision, we use the American Bar Association Standards for

recommend that Ms. Vanim-Botting be disbarred.

which ultimately led to a finding of contempt, leaves this Committee no choice but to now

false. Her later conduct addressing the case in the New Hampshire Supreme Court, conduct

mislead the Attorney Discipline Office by making statements which she knew at the time were

creation of a fictitious story to account for her own misjudgments and her knowing attempt to

diversion of client funds for her own use, her deceit in dealing with opposing counsel, her

In making the recommendation for disbarment, we focus on Ms. Vanim-Botting's

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

the integrity of the legal profession, and the prevent similar conduct to the future." Grew's Case,

to inflict punishment, but rather to protect the public, maintain the confidence in the bar, preserve

In coming to this conclusion, we recognize that"the purpose of attorney discipline is not p. 10 Page 10 of 13

opposing party whose receipt of funds was delayed by approximately four months. Her conduct

These multiple violations and acts of dishonesty caused both real and potential injury to the

knowingly and with the intent to mislead opposing counsel and the Attorney Discipline Office.

basic duties of the legal profession. It is clear that Ms. Vanim-Botting violated these duties

The duties violated by this course of action are critically important and are among the

transactions to opposing counsel and the Attorney Discipline Office.

by converting her client trust funds for her own use and then by misrepresenting those

constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4(c) in that she engaged in repeated acts of dishonesty and deceit

involved deceit and the intentional misrepresentation of material facts. Her misconduct also

shortfall in her client trust account. These attempts to mislead the Attorney Discipline Office

the time were false. She created fictitious clients and falsely blamed them for creating the

attempting to mislead the Attorney Discipline Office by making statements which she knew at

required by the legal profession. Ms. Vanim-Botting then violated Rule 8.I(a) by knowingly

also violated Rule 4.1 (a) requiring full truthfulness to others - a mark of honesty and reliability

statements to opposing counsel in an attempt to cover her use of client funds, Ms. Vanim-Botting

and wrote a check on the trust account which was returned for insufficient funds. In making false

story to cover up the shortage. She failed to disburse the funds to her client when they were due

own and withdrew $3,000.00 for her own use. She then lied to opposing counsel and concocted a

Botting initially placed those funds in her client trust account, she then treated those funds as her

duty to maintain in a separate trust account. As we noted in our initial Order, while Ms. Vanim­

safeguard her client's property, property which had been entrusted to her and which she had a

In first instance, we consider the ethical duty Ms. Vanim-Botting violated by failing to p. 11 Page II of 13 5.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in any

seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice. conduct which does not contain the elements listed in Standard 5.11 and that 5.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in criminal

fitness to practice. deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's (b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud

these offenses; or another; or an attempt or conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any of distribution or importation of controlled substances; or the intentional killing of misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or theft; or the sale, includes intentional interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, (a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct a necessary element of which

5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

Maintain Personal Integrity." Standards §5.1 provides:

The applicable standard for misconduct involving deceit is §5.1, entitled"Failure to

and acts of dishonesty and deceit caused injury to both clients and the disciplinary process.

interfere with the proceedings in the New Hampshire Supreme Court. These multiple violations

knowingly and with intent to mislead opposing counsel and the Attorney Discipline Office and to

responsibilities of the legal profession. It is clear that Ms. Vanim-Botting violated these duties

The duties violated by this course of action are important and fundamental

repeated basis.

Attorney Froberg and finally failed to appear for New Hampshire Supreme Court hearings on a

possession of Ms. Vanim-Botting's client files and trust accounts, failed to provide those files to

Court when she failed to contact Attorney Froberg who was appointed by the Court to take

Vanim-Botting then knowingly disregarded her responsibilities to follow orders of the Supreme

thereby also caused injury to the legal profession and the Attorney Discipline System. Ms. p. 12 Page 12 of 13 Committee concludes that the appropriate sanction in this case is disbarment.

Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of this case, the Professional Conduct

Suspension in the Supreme Court.

of Ms. Vanim-Botting's conduct following the filing of the Assented-to Petition for Three Year

admission of her deceit and her apparent remorse, we decline to note these as mitigators in light

While having noted mitigating factors in our initial Order based on Ms. Vanim-Botting's

(t).

failed to address the needed transfer of her client files. See, Standards §9.31(b), (c), (d), (e) and

once she was ordered to provide files to Attorney Froburg, she disregarded her clients' needs and

offenses, involved her failure to comply with New Hampshire Supreme Court Orders and that

dishonest and selfish motives, included a pattern of misconduct which constituted multiple

aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the case. We note that her conduct involved both

Having determined that the appropriate sanction is disbarment, we also consider

'-'''' ~ -faiIin!! to resoond as required to an array of Supreme Court Orders.

combined with her flagrant conduct in failing to address the Supreme Court proceedings and her

Discipline Office. Her initial conduct which warranted a three year suspension must now be

This is true as it relates to her conduct with the trust accounts and her dealings with the Attorney

involving intentional deceit and dishonesty that seriously reflects on her fitness to practice law.

Section 5.11(b) is the applicable standard for Ms. Vanim-Botting's course of conduct

that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law. 5.14 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in any other conduct

adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law. other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that p. 13 Page 13 of 13

File JeanneM. Vanim-Botting Attorney Discipline Office Distribution:

June 1,<6, 20 11

Petition for Disbarment of Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting in the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

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

prosecution ofthis attorney discipline case. See, New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37(19).

to pay the expenses of the Professional Conduct Committee related to the investigation and

Rule 8.I(a), Rule 8.4(c) and Rule 8.4(a).lt is recommended that Ms. Vanim-Botting be ordered

Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule US(a), Rule 1.15(b), Rule 3.4(c), Rule 4.1 (a),

Hampshire Supreme Court that Jeanne M. Vanim-Botting be disbarred for violating New

For the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee recommends to the New