Sandra A. Kuhn (2012)

File

matter. Enclosedplease find the Professional Conduct Committee's decision in the above captioned

RE: Kuhn, Sandra A. advs. Kerryn Hyde # 09-063

Date: January19,2012

From: Holly B.Fazzino,Administrator tip Russell F.Hilliard,Esquire To: Julie A. Introcaso,DisciplinaryCounsel

Alan J.Cronheim Holly B. Fazzino, Administrator Thomas P. Connair * non attorneymember David N. Cole Richard D. Sager Susan R. Chollet* Jaye L.Rancourt Toni M. Gray,*Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 James R. Martin BenettePizzimenti,Vice Chair Concord,New Hampshire03301 Richard H.Darling* Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite102 Gerald A. Daley*

Services,P.C. to representher in adivorcematterentitled"Inthe Matter ofDaniel 2. On or aboutAugust 1,2007,Ms. Kerryn HyderetainedFamily Legal

Road, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. proceeding,Ms. Kuhn practicedlaw at Family LegalServices,P. C, 141 Airport Kuhn was admittedtopracticeon November 4, 1991.At alltimes materialto this 1. Ms. Kuhn is anattorneylicensed to practice law inNew Hampshire. Ms. convincingevidence. The Committee accepts the Stipulation, This establishes the following facts by clear and

rulings. Violations, andRecommended Sanction(the"Stipulation"),the PCC makes factual findings and Respondent'sand theAttorneyDisciplineOffice's("ADO's") Stipulationas to the Facts, the Hearings Committee Process. Upon further deliberation, includingconsiderationofthe The PCC consideredand granted the parties' Assented-ToMotion to Permit Waiverof recused.Benette Pizzimentiwas absent. JamesR. Martin,Jaye L.Rancourt,and RichardD. Sager.Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, was DavidN. Cole,Thomas P.Connair,AlanJ.Cronheim,GeraldA. Daley,RichardH. Darling, abovecaptionedmatter.Members presentincludedMargaretH. Nelson,Chair,SusanR. Chollet, On December 17,2011,theProfessionalConductCommittee(the"PCC")deliberatedthe

"FAMILYLEGAL" on behalfofMs. Hyde andsignedbyAnthonySantoro,Esq. hersignatureappears on theobjection.Rather,it issubmittedby Hutchinson's June16,2008, Motion forContempt.Neither Ms. Kuhn's name nor earlyas June26,2008,when hedraftedandfiledan objectionto Mr. workingatFAMILYLEGAL in2007,butbeganworkingon Ms. Hyde'scaseas 10. Mr. Santorohad limitedexperiencewithfamilylawwhen hebegan

Hyde's case. attorney at Family Legal Services, Mr. Anthony Santoro, to assist with Ms. 9. Although she would remain lead counsel, Ms. Kuhnenlistedanother

legal bill and the firm re-appeared on or about June24,2008. childsupportpayments.Ms. Hyde'smotherthereafterpaidthebalanceof the filedaMotionforContemptwiththecourtrelatingtoMs. Hyde'sfailuretomake 8. On June16,2008,counselforMr. Hutchinson,AttorneyJohnMacoul,

ofher legal bill. behalfofthefirmon oraboutJune5,2008,for,among otherthings,nonpayment FamilyDivisionon June2,2008.Mr. Chisholmfileda MotiontoWithdrawon 7. Ms. Kuhn filedan AppearanceascounselforMs. Hyde withtheDerry

Ms. Kuhn indicatedshewould reviewthefileand speakwithMs. Hyde. Servicesand askedhertoassumerepresentationofMs. Hyde goingforward,and 6. On May 24,2008,Ms. Hyde'smothercalledMs. Kuhn atFamilyLegal

from FAMILYLEGAL. had receivedfrom herhusband.She had notyetreceivedacopyoftheorders aboutherrightsand obligationsunderthetemporaryorders,acopyofwhichshe 5. Mr. Kalpakgianmet withMs. Hyde on May 23,2008,asshehadconcerns

caseprior to leaving forvacation. had briefedAttorneyGreg Kalpakgian,alsoofFamilyLegalServices,aboutthe case.ThoseordersweremailedtoMr. Chisholmon May 21,2008.Mr Chisholm 4. On May 20,2008,JudgeMichaelRyan issuedtemporaryordersinthe

Hyde attheparties'TemporaryHearingon March 27,2008. FamilyLegalServices("FAMILYLEGAL"). Mr. ChisholmrepresentedMs. 3. Initially,Ms. Hyde'scasewas handledby AttorneyKevinChisholmof

m^l^^ Sr"^ Kenyn J-(Hutchinson)Hy^".(DenyFamilyDivision#2007-M-300). p. 4 Page 3 of13

with a notation and directive on the bottom to take careofit. Attorney Santoro the Court onNovember 12,2008. Ms. Kuhn gave the letter toAttorneySantoro Kuhn telling her that he had not yet received the financialaffidavitasorderedby 19. On November 21, 2008, Mr. Macoul mailed and faxed a letterto Ms.

16,2008. discovery.Ms. Kuhn did not forward the Request to Ms. Hyde until December ProductionofDocuments that was to bepresentedto Ms. Hyde as partofroutine 18. On November 20,2008,Mr. Macoul sent Ms. Kuhn a Request for the

orderand requestingprompt productionofthe financialaffidavit. letter to Ms. Kuhn on November12,2008,advising heroftheCourt'sspecific file an update (sic) financial affidavit within 7 days." Mr. Macoul also sent a 2008,conference,the Court(Moore,J.)specificallyordered,"Respondent shall 17. In thePretrialConferenceReportissuedfollowingthe November12,

required byFamily DivisionRule 2.16. preparedfor the Augusthearing,but did not bringtherequiredfinancialaffidavit appearedon behalf of Ms.Hyde. He hadamended the pretrial documents 16. AttheNovember 12,2008,pretrialconference,Mr. Santoroonceagain

Final Pretrial Conference for November12,2008. 15. In its PretrialConferenceOrderofAugust25,2008,the Courtscheduleda

theletterwas mailedtoMs. Kuhn. Mr. Santorodidnotrespond. dayaskingthathe forwardacompletefinancialaffidavitforMs. Hyde. A copyof Kuhn on behalfofMs. Hyde. Mr. Macoul faxeda lettertoMr. Santorolaterthat 14. At theAugust25,2008,pretrialconference,Mr. SantoroappearedforMs.

expense form. was prepared,butitwas incompleteasitdidnotincludeMs. Hyde'smonthly PretrialStatementforsubmissiontothecourt.An updatedFinancialAffidavit Santoroaboutthecase,preparedan outlineforhim forthehearing,and prepareda 13. SometimepriortotheAugustconference,Ms. Kuhn spokewithMr.

thathad beenaddressedintheJuly3 letter. and aNoticeofHearingschedulingaPretrialConferenceforAugust25,2008, relatingtohercaseincludinganothercopyoftheParentingPlanissuedinMay 12. On July8,2008,Mr. SantorosentMs. Hyde anumberofdocuments

hearingon August25,2008. haddeferreditsrulingon theMotionforContemptuntilthetimeofthepretrial 11. Ms. Kuhn informedMs. Hyde by letterdatedJuly3,2008,thatthecourt p. 5 Page 4of13 request to Mr. Macoulaskingfor an additional seven days. that Ms. Hyde had notproducedany ofthe documents. Mr.Santorofaxed a deadline for thecourt-orderedproductionofdocuments was January30,2009,and 26. On January29,2009, Mr. Macoul alertedMr. Santoro to the factthatthe

January6,2009. a personal check to Mr. Macoul made payable to DanielHutchinsonon ordered by thecourton the Motion for Contempt and ToCompel. Ms. Kuhn sent informing her that he had not yet received the $250.00 tocoverattorney'sfees as 25. On January5,2009,Mr. Macoul sent a letter to Ms. Kuhn by mail and fax

requestedmaterials. Ms. Kuhn and herclientadditional time until January 30, 2009, toproducethe for theProductionofDocuments as requestedby Ms. Kuhn. The Court allowed 24. On December 17,2008, Mr. SantorofiledtheMotion to Extend Deadline

requesteddocuments she had in her possession as quickly aspossible. Request forProductionofDocuments to Ms. Hyde asking that sheprovideany extend thedeadlines.On that same day, Ms. Kuhn forwarded a copyofthe discoverydeadlinesin the case and,ifthey had not passed, tosubmita motion to Documents on November 20,2008. She asked Mr. Santoro to review the Santoro telling him that she had received Mr. Macoul's Request for Productionof 23. Alsoon the16thofDecember,Ms. Kuhn sentaninternale-mailtoMr.

was denied on December18,2008,as "untimely filed" (Moore, J.). a copyof his objection andincludedtheinitialmotion.Mr. Santoro's objection Respondent'sMotionforContemptand To Compel. Mr. SantorosentMs. Hyde it wasnot yetnoticedto theparties,Mr.Santorofiledan Objectionto the 22. On December 16,2008,unawareof theCourt'srulingthepreviousday,as

the parties onDecember 22, 2008. 31,2008,"or a show causehearingwill bescheduled."The Order was noticedto feesintheamountof$250.00,and furtherorderingthattheybe paidby December Macoul'sMotionforContemptand toCompel,awardingthePetitionerattorney's Macoul. However,on December 15,2008,theCourt(Moore,J.)grantedMr. Hyde'supdatedfinancialaffidavittothecourtwithcopiesofthesame toMr. 21. Thatsame day,December 1,2008,Mr. SantoromailedacopyofMs.

findingofcontempt,alongwithanawardofsanctions,feesand costs. Compel statingthathe had notyetreceivedthefinancialaffidavit.He requesteda 20. On December 1,2008,Mr. Macoul filedaMotionforContemptand To

her needto sign an updatedone. met withMs. Hyde on November 28,2008,relativetothefinancialaffidavitand p. 6 Page 5of13

appraisertoaccessthemaritalhome inordertopreparean appraisal,"whichwill priortoMay 8,2009,and determineamutuallyagreeabletimeforMs. Hyde's discoveryby theend oftheweek,make modificationsoradditionstowitnesslists 5,2009.Followingtheconference,theCourtorderedbothpartiestoproduce 34. Ms. Kuhn participatedintheTelephonicStructuringConferenceon May

dated May4,2009. needforaccessto thehome for thispurpose,toMs. Kuhn in twoseparateemails communicatedMs. Hyde'sinterestinhavingthisappraisalcompleted,andthe desireto have her ownappraisalpreparedfor use at the finalhearing.He Macoul. Mr. SantorohadalreadyspokenwithMs. Hyde who expressedher thehearing,and toldMs. Kuhn abouttheappraisalhe had receivedfrom Mr. 33. On May 4,2009,Mr. SantorobriefedMs. Kuhn relativetotheissuesfor

Mr. Santoro. supplementedhisPretrialStatementwiththeCourt,and acopyof thatwas sentto Santorostatingthat heintendedto use thesame attrial.Mr. Macoul also 32. On May 1,2009,Mr. Macoul sentanappraisalof themaritalhome toMr.

June 8,2009. counsel on May5,2009,in advanceofthe final hearing that was to commence 31. The Court ordered that a Telephonic Structuring Conference be held with

for an appraisal on theparties'real estate. issue. On March24,2009, Mr. Santoro spoke with Ms. Hyderelativeto the need Macoul. Mr. Santoro wrote to Mr. Macoul relativeto the realestatevaluation contacted himregardingthe valuationoftheparties'realestatetoprovideto Mr. 30. On March 16,2009,Mr. Santoro'snotations to the fileindicateMs. Hyde

receivedfrom her. ramificationsofnon-production, as allofthe requireddocuments had not been 29. On February13,2009,Mr. Santoro wrote to Ms. Hyderelativeto the

informationto Mr. Macoul onFebruary3,2009. requestfor documents as ordered by theCourt.Mr. Santoro forwarded that faxedseveraldocumentstoFamilyLegalServicesinanattempttosatisfythe 28. Ms. Kuhn thereaftercalledMs. Hyde,and onFebruary2,2009,Ms. Hyde

about thestatusofthematter. Santorofaxeda copyof therequeststoMs. Hyde andnotifiedMs. Kuhn viaemail informedMr. Santorothatshehad notreceivedtherequestsinthemail.Mr. 27. On January29,2009,Mr. Santorofollowedup withMs. Hyde who p. 7 Page 6of13

43. The case went to trialon June 8,2009.

Hutchinson. $280,000.00, approximately $40,000.00 higher than the appraisal prepared for Mr. mailed on June1,2009 (May 31,2009,being a Sunday). Theappraisalwas for forwardedthesame to Mr.Macoul by letter dated May31,2009, which was 42. On May 28, 2009, Mr. Yanco provided the appraisal to Mr.Santorowho

appraisal should have been completed and submitted by May25,2009. 41. In lightoftheCourt'sstructuring conference orderofMay 5, 2009, the

contactinformation.A copy ofthe letter was sent to Ms. Hyde. contactMr. Hutchinson to initiatetheappraisaland providedMr. Hutchinson's 40. On May 21,2009, Mr. Santoro sent a letter to Mr. Yancoaskingthat he

responded. arrange access to the marital home. He further stated that Mr. Yanco had not Ms. Hyde'sbenefit,hisclienthadcontactedMr. Yanco onMay 12thinaneffortto his belief that he and his client were not responsible for arranging the appraisal for 39. On May 19th,Mr. Macoul sentalettertoMs. Kuhn tellingherthatdespite

copy ofhis realestatelicenseto Mr. Macoul. He also sent anemail to Mr.Yanco. the marital home.AttorneySantoro then sent Mr.Yanco's curriculumvitae and a contactMr. Yanco but that Mr.Yanco maycontacthis client directly for accessto 38. Mr. Macoul responded that same day indicating that he did not intend to

agreeable to yourclient." make arrangementswith[Yanco]to performan appraisal at a time that is businessaddress and phone numberforMr. Yanco. In his letter he stated, "Please 37. Mr. Santorosenta lettertoMr. Macoulthatsame dayprovidingthe

including Mr. Yanco. PretrialStatement,whichincluded,among otheritems,thenames ofwitnesses 36. On May 8,2009,Ms. Kuhn preparedamore exhaustiveSupplemental

appraiserfor Ms.Hyde's home, as a witness in the case. behalfofMs. Hyde. Inithe indicatedan intentiontocallPeterYanco,the 35. On May 7,2009,Mr. SantoropreparedarevisedPretrialStatementon

FinalHearing."(Moore, J.). be submittedon an expeditedbasisno laterthantwo weeks priortotheparties' p. 8 Page 7 of13

schedulea time tomeet with Ms. Hyde todiscussa Motion forReconsideration. and discussedthe Order with Ms. Kuhn atwhich time Ms. Kuhn instructedhim to 52. Mr. SantorocalledMs. Kuhn at the Dover officeofFamily Legal Services

Ms. Hyde todiscussitwith her. the office, and put a copyofit in the mail to Ms. Hyde. On July1,2009,he called 51. On June 30,2009, Mr. Santoro became aware thatthe FinalOrder was in

that she neverreceivedany message about the call. She left a message for Ms. Kuhn to call herimmediately.Ms. Kuhn would testify 50. After reviewing the Final Order, Ms. Hyde attempted to reach Ms. Kuhn.

receivedher copyoftheOrder from him. explained to Mr.Santorothat her ex-husband had his copy and that she had that Family Legal Services had not yet received a copyofthe Final Order. She received a copyofthe Final Order. She then called Mr.Santorowho advisedher 49. Ms. Hyde was informedby her ex-husband, Mr.Hutchinson,that he had

Court within10 daysofthe dateofthe NoticeofDecision. Clerk's NoticeofDecisionclearlystatedthatobjectionsmust be filed with the 48. The Court issued itsfinalordersin thedivorcecase on June25,2009.The

testimony from her own funds. foraseconddayoftrialtestimony.Ms. Kuhn paidfortheseconddayof surroundingpreparationand disclosureofhisappraisal,Mr. Yanco had toappear 47. Due to the lengthoftime it took the trial court to resolve the issue

Mr. Yanco'sappraisaland toprepareand testifyattrial. $762.00representingthefeechargedby Mr. Macoul'sexpertappraisertoreview Afterthecase,Mr. SantoroforwardedachecktoMr. Macoul intheamountof order,theCourtsanctionedAttorneySantoroandorderedhim topaysanctions. At Ms. Kuhn'sdirection,Mr. Santoroagreedtoacceptasanction.Initsfinal Mr. Yanco'sappraisaloracceptingasanctionforthelateproductionofthereport. theappraisal,theCourtofferedMr. Santorothechoiceofexcludingevidenceof 46. AfterinquiringofMr. Santoroaboutthecauseforthedelayinproducing

Macoul objectedbasedon counsel'slateproductionofYanco'sappraisalreport. 45. When itcame timetocallMr. Yanco asawitnessforMs. Hyde,Mr.

as to the valueofthe marital residence. Hyde. Mr. Santorocross-examinedtheappraisercalledby Mr. Macoul totestify 44. BothMs. Kuhn and Mr. Santoroappearedatthetrialon behalfofMs p. 9 Page 8 of13

representingMs. Hyde in herdivorcecase. 61. Ms. Kuhn had a duty to act with reasonablediligenceand promptnessin

the Respondent violated the following RulesofProfessional Conduct. The PCC accepts the Stipulation and accordingly finds clear and convincing evidence that

StipulationIfU 1-59 at 1-12.

Motion was denied. Mr. Santoro is no longer employed by FamilyLegal. Motion to Reconsider. There was no reason given by the Court for why the arguing that it was not timelyfiled.On July15,2008,Judge Moore denied the 59. On July 8, Mr. Macoul filed an Objection to the Motion toReconsider

reviewed theMotion to Reconsider beforeitwas filed. insurancecoverageand otherissues. There is noindicationthat Ms. Kuhn ever askingthatthe courtreconsideritsrulingsrelativetofault,childsupport,medical 58. On July 7,2009,the next day, Mr. Santoro filed theMotion with the court

themorning.Mr. SantorodraftedtheMotiontoReconsiderthatevening. Courthad closedandinstructinghim tofilea MotiontoReconsiderfirstthingin scheduledthemeetingwithMs. Hyde on theeveningof thedeadlineafterthe mentioningthatthefilingdeadlinewaspassedthatday,herfrustrationthat he 57. At some pointlaterthatevening,Ms. Kuhn spokewithMr. Santoro,

Ms. Hyde expressedherdesirethat the firm file such amotion. firmwouldfilea MotiontoReconsideraskingtheCourttoaddressthoseissues. support,and divisionofthe parties'businessassets. Ms. Kuhn mentioned the Ms. Hyde statedherconcernsaboutthecourt'sordersrelatingtofault,child 56. On Monday, July6,2009,Mr. Santoroand Ms. Kuhn met withMs. Hyde.

Ms. Hyde to come in to discuss the Motion for Reconsideration. 55. Mr. Santorohad setup ameetingfor6p.m.on Monday, July6,2009,for

FinalOrder. some remainingissuesregardingtheparentingplanand otherprovisionsofthe 54. On July5,2009,Mr. Macoul sentalettertoMs. Kuhn seekingtoresolve

FinalOrder. 53. On July1,2009,Mr. Macoul filedaMotionforPartialClarificationofthe p. 10 Page 9of13

68. The stipulated facts setforthaboveareincorporatedby reference.

Rule 5.1(b): Responsibilitiesof Ms. Kuhn as Supervisory Lawyer

ofa violationofRule 1.3. 67. Ms. Kuhn's conduct in this caseconstitutesclear and convincingevidence

own expert.The Courtdidhoweverhearthetestimonyandconsiderthereport. reportpriorto trial,placingherclientatriskof notbeingallowedtopresenther whichcreatedunnecessarydelaysthatresultedin thelatefilingof theappraiser's Ms. Kuhnassignedthe task to Mr.Santoro,ratherthan handling the issue herself, inordertopreparehisappraisaland toproducea reporton anexpeditedbasis. arrangefor Ms. Hyde'sappraiser,PeterYanco,to appearat the maritalresidence TelephonicStructuringConferenceOrderrequiringthepartiestopromptly 66. Finally,Ms. Kuhn failedto actdiligentlyinresponseto the Court's

Documents in atimelyfashion. deadlineswhen shefailedtoprovideMs. Hyde withtheRequestforProductionof representationofMs. Hyde. Ms. Kuhn caused the need for anextensionof 65. Further,Ms. Kuhn had anobligationtoactwithdiligenceinthe

deadline for filing had passed. FinalOrderinMs. Hyde'scasewas submittedtotheCourttheday afterthe denied by the Court as untimelyfiled.Also, the Motion to Reconsider the court's was filedby Mr. Santorobeyondthe10-daymotiondeadlineand subsequently ObjectiontoMotionforContemptand To Compel,signedDecember16,2008, behalfofMs. Hyde werefiledinatimelymanner.However,theRespondent's 64. Ms. Kuhn hadan obligationtoseetoitthatallmotionsand objectionson

Ms. Kuhn paid the fees. Ms. Hyde forfailingtofileacompleteand updatedfinancialaffidavitasrequired. and an orderforthepaymentofattorney'sfeeswereenteredby theCourtagainst notcomplywiththeCourt'srulesand ordersinthisregard.A findingofcontempt withtheCourt'sNovember 12,2008,PretrialConferenceReport.Ms. Kuhn did Conference,theNovember 12,2008,FinalPretrialConference,and incompliance completefinancialaffidavitpreparedfortheAugust25,2008,Pretrial 63. Ms. Kuhn had an obligationunderthecourtrulestohavean updatedand

discovery,disclosureand filingdeadlinesinMs. Hyde'scase. associate,Mr. Santoro,Ms. Kuhn beingleadcounselin the casemissedcertain 62. Throughherown neglect,inadvertence,orinadequatesupervisionofher p. 11 Page 10of13 Court]considerstheeffectofany aggravatingormitigatingfactorsontheultimatesanction."). whethertheyaffectthebaselinesanction. See,e.g.,id. ("Afterdeterminingthesanction,[the fourthand finalstepin theanalysis:theexistenceofany aggravatingormitigatingfactorsand appropriatesanction.").Afterthebaselinesanctionisdetermined,theCourtthenlookstothe applyingthesefactors,thefirststepistocategorizetherespondent'smisconductand identifythe determininga baselinesanction. See,e.g.,Wolterbeek'sCase, 152 N.H. 710,714(2005)("In 365 (2007).The firstthreestepscreatetheframeworkforcharacterizingthemisconductand (d)theexistenceofaggravatingormitigatingfactors. Standard 3.0; Grew's Case, 156 N.H. 361, lawyer'smentalstate;(c)thepotentialoractualinjurycausedbythelawyer'smisconduct;and analysisfortheCommitteetoconsiderinimposingsanctions:(a) the dutyviolated;(b)the ImposingLawyer Sanctions (1992)(the"Standards"). The Standards setfortha fourpart The Committee looks for guidance to the American BarAssociation's Standardsfor

Stipulationfflj61-73 at12-15.

Rule 8.4(a). above Rules, there isnecessarilyclear andconvincingevidenceofa violationof 73. Because thereisclearand convincingevidencethatMs Kuhn violatedthe

convincingevidenceofa violationofRule 5.1(b). 72. Ms. Kuhn's lackofadequatesupervisionin this caseconstitutesclear and

various times in the case, causing potential harm to Ms.Hyde's interests. Hyde resulted inunnecessarydelays, missed deadlines andadditionallitigationat terminate hisinvolvementwith the case throughout therepresentationofMs. 71. However, Ms.Kuhn's failure to adequatelysupervise Mr. Santoro or

the diligentrepresentationofa client. conformedto the Rules ofProfessionalConduct,includingthose rulesrelatingto superviseMr. Santoro,and make reasonableeffortstoensurethathisconduct 70. As part of her duties ascounselfor Ms.Hyde,she had an obligationto

diligence inrepresentingMs. Hyde. writtenappearanceon herbehalf,Ms. Kuhn had aresponsibilityto act with 69. AfterhavingassumedresponsibilityforMs. Hyde'scaseandfilinga p. 12 Page 11 of13 Censure. Section4.43usestheterm"Reprimand."The mostanalogoussanctioninNew HampshireisaPublic

injury to a client. withreasonablediligenceinrepresentingaclient,and causesinjuryorpotential 4.43 Reprimand1isgenerallyappropriatewhen alawyerisnegligentanddoesnotact injury to a client. (b) alawyerengagesinapatternofneglectand causesinjuryorpotential or potentialinjury to a client; or (a) a lawyerknowinglyfailstoperformservicesforaclientand causesinjury 4.42 Suspensionisgenerallyappropriatewhen: causes serious orpotentiallyseriousinjuryto a client. (c) a lawyerengagesin apatternofneglectwithrespectto clientmattersand orpotentiallyserious injury to a client; or (b) a lawyer knowinglyfailstoperformservices for a client and causesserious injuryto a client; or (a) alawyerabandonsthepracticeandcausesseriousorpotentiallyserious 4.41 Disbarment is generallyappropriatewhen:

4.4 entitled "LackofDiligence" provides asfollows: Indeterminingabaselinesanctionhere,the Standards offermaterialguidance. Standard Ms. Kuhn's negligence. Committeewereespeciallytroubledby thecontemptcitationenduredby herclientas aresultof placed the interestsofherclientat risk. It should be noted that severalmembers ofthe thecasewas adverselyaffected,Ms. Kuhn'snegligenceprolongedthelitigationprocessand misconduct.Althoughthereisno evidencetosuggestthattheoutcomeofany materialissuein The thirdprongrequiresanalysisofthepotentialoractualinjurycausedby Ms. Kuhn's negligence. parties agree, and the Committee concurs, that Ms. Kuhn's misconduct was the resultof The secondprongof thethree-parttestrequiresanalysisofMs. Kuhn'smentalstate.The ensure that the lawyer she was supervising conformed to the Rules. representationof herclient.Additionally,sheviolatedherdutytomake reasonableeffortsto Underthefirstprongof theanalysis,Ms. Kuhn violatedherdutyofdiligencein her p. 13 Page 12 of13

Reprimand. Section4.14usestheterm"Admonition."The mostanalogoussanctioninNew Hampshireisa

associatedwiththeinvestigationandprosecutionof thismatter. The Stipulationrequires,and theCommitteeordersthatMs. Kuhn payallcosts V. COSTS

Basedon theStipulationand theaboveanalysis,theCommitteeimposesaReprimand. IV. SANCTION

aggravatingandmitigatingfactors,suggestthatthesanctionofReprimandisappropriate. partiesagree,andtheCommitteeconcurs,thatthefactsinthiscase,combinedwithabalanceof As tothefourthpronginthesanctionanalysiscontemplatedunderthe Standards, the thismatterMs. Kuhn was cooperativeand forthcoming. selfishordishonestmotiveisamitigatingfactor.Throughouttheinvestigationand resolutionof attend.Thiswarningservesas anaggravatingfactorinMs. Kuhn'scase.The absenceof a failuretoensurethatherclientwas made awareofacourthearingthattheclientwas expectedto basisforthewarningwas Ms. Kuhn'sfailuretoensureaccuratebillingoflegalservicesand her warningtoMs. Kuhn inthematterof Kuhn, SandraA. advs.Tammy Morrissette # 07-011. The On January10,2008,theComplaintScreeningCommitteeissuedanon-disciplinary ofthelegalwork beingcompletedby Mr. SantoroonMs. Hyde'sbehalf. representationofMs. Hyde wouldhave,by necessity,includedadequateandeffectiveoversight negligentsupervisionresultedinalackofdiligenceon thepartofMr. Santoro.Diligenceinthe Admonitioninthe Standards). Ms. Kuhn'sfailuretosupervisealsowarrantsaReprimandasher associatedwithanegligentviolation,warrantingabaselinesanctionofReprimand(analogousto Forthepurposeofthisanalysisunderthe Standards, Ms. Kuhn'sconductismostclosely

potentialinjury to a client. withreasonablediligenceinrepresentinga client,andcauseslittleor noactualor 4.44 Admonitionisgenerallyappropriatewhen alawyerisnegligentanddoesnotact p. 14 Page 13 of13

File RussellF.Hilliard,Esquire Julie A. Introcaso, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

SupervisoryLawyer,and 8.4(a):Misconduct. violatingN.H. R. Prof.Conduct1.3:DiUgence,5.1(b):ResponsibilitiesofMs. Kuhn as Fortheabovereasons,theCommitteeissuesaReprimandtoSandraA. Kuhn for VI. CONCLUSION