William R. Battles (2007)

New Hampshire with a mailing address of P.O. Box 1757, North Conway, New 2. At all relevant times hereto Mr. Battles has maintained a law practice in North Conway, 1. MI'. Battles was admitted to the New Hampshire Bar in 1976. James 1. DeHart. findings of fact as stipulated to by the Respondent, William R. Battles, and General Counsel, The Professional Conduct Committee determined that the record supports the following

Sanction. Charges. Further, the Committee approved the Stipulation as to Facts, Rules violated and Motion to Pennit Waiver of the Hearings Committee Process, including the issuance of Notice of The Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration, granted the Assented to

telephone. James R. Martin was absent. Gretchen Rule Hamel and David N. Page. Ellen 1. Arnold and David N. Cole participated by Vice Chair, Alan J. Cronheim, Gerald A. Daley, Thomas P. Connair, Richard H. Darling, Committee consisted of Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, Toni Gray, referenced matter pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37A(III)(d)(2)(B). The On February 20, 2007, the Professional Conduct Committee considered the above­

Alan J. Cronheim Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Thomas P. Connair • non attorney member David N. Cole David N. Page' Ellen L. Arnold James R. Martin Toni M. Gray,' Vice Chair 603-224-5828. Fax 228-9511 Gretchen Rule Hamel Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Richard H. Darling' Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Park Street, Suite 304 Gerald A. Daley'

the three year statute of limitation would not run prior to July 24, 2004. infonning the Larsens that the sellers were not going to close the transaction. Therefore, would have accmed not earlier than July 25, 2001, the date of the broker's letter first matter and determined that it appeared that the cause of action for specific perfotmance 14. After receiving the deposit, Ml'. Battles reviewed all the documentation related to the check was deposited in Mr. Battles' trust account. 13. In January of 2002, Ms. Larsen sent Mr. Battles a check for $7,500 as a retainer. The against the sellers for specific perfonnance. 12. Thereafter, Mr. Battles and Ms. Larsen had a telephone conversation about proceeding were sufficient to meet his obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. 11. Up to this point, the regularity of communications between Mr. Battles and his clients 10. Attempts to get a further explanation were not successful. necessary to transfer title to the parcel. attorney had concluded that the sellers could not receive the town and state approvals 9. By late July of 200 1, the broker for the sellers notified the Larsens that the seller's issues were never resolved. extending the date for the sellers to obtain subdivision approval until January 1, 2001, the 8. Although the parties executed an amendment to the purchase and sale agreement approval as required. 7. By August 15, 2000, it was clear that the sellers had not obtained the subdivision place 15 days thereafter. premises on or before August 1, 2000. It was contemplated that the closing would take 6. The purchase and sale agreement required the sellers to effect the final subdivision of the executed. 5. After an extended period, a 13 page purchase and sale agreement was negotiated and 4. There were issues involving road access to the lot. Hampshire, where they planned to eventually build a retirement home. Windsor, Connecticut. The Larsens were attempting to purchase a lot in Brutlett, New 3. In late 1999, Mr. Battles began representing Sue W. Larsen and John Larsen of South Hampshire, 03860-1757. p. 3 Page 3 of4 by violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. 22. It is also agreed that the above violations constitute a violation of the general rule, 8.4(a), violated Rules 1.4(a) and 1.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 21. Mr. Battles failure to communicate with his clients over a prolonged period of time

Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence. Conduct Committee concludes that William R. Battles violated the following Rules of Having found the above-listed facts by clear and convincing evidence, the Professional

in purchasing the property. and had been advised that under the circumstances the Larsens were no longer interested 20. By mid-August of2003, Mr. Battles had spoken with the Larsens' Connecticut attomey communication. 19. By letter dated July 27, 2003, Ms. Larsen set out her concems about the lack of performance had been filed. 18. The Larsens did not know the status of the matter or that no action for specific report what he was doing and the problems he had encountered. 2002, and August, 2003. Mr. Battles did not initiate any communications to his client to 17. Ms. Larsen reported that Mr. Battles did not take or retum her calls between January offer insights which would solve the problem. with significant experience in real estate litigation. None of the attomeys were able to 16. During the months that followed, Mr. Battles discussed the situation with other attomeys sellers' obligation to constmct the road and utilities. was not going to approve the subdivision without adequate arrangements for securing the could not be legally conveyed without subdivision approval. The Bartlett Planning Board existed for a specific perfOlmance action but that a problem existed because the land specific perfonnance. By the fall of 2002, he became concemed that the legal framework 15. During the spring and summer of2002, Mr. Battles researched the issues related to p. 4 Page 4 of4

File Sue W. Larsen William R. Battles, Esquire James 1. DeHart, General Counsel Distribution:

Sanctions. Standard 1.3. and is consistent with the purposes of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer 27. It is agreed that a reprimand is the appropriate sanction, in light of the mitigating factors,

valuable lesson and I am satisfied with the outcome. lack of communication which led to the complaint. I believe we both leamed a do not agree with the outcome due to differing experiences, we did discuss the We discussed the issues conceming the sale of the Bartlett property and while we part:

26. By letter dated June 15, 2005, Ms. Larsen attempted to withdraw her complaint stating, in 25. Mr. Battles has been cooperative with the Attomey Discipline Office. or selfish motive. 24. Mr. Battles failure to properly communicate with his clients did not involve a dishonest 23. Mr. Battles has no history of prior discipline.