Lenora E. Boehm (2008)

The Professional Conduct Committee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the facts

law as detailed below: Hearing Panel reports, the Professional Conduct Committee makes findings of fact and rulings of stipulation of facts and rules violated, the transcript of the March 18, 2008 hearing, and the Having reviewed the record, including Disciplinary Counsel's memoranda and exhibits,

question of an appropriate sanction only was held on March 18, 2008. stipulated as to Facts, Rules Violated, and Costs on February 11, 2008, and a hearing on the on December 4,2007, and Ms. Boehm submitted a response on January 4,2007. The parties The Attorney Discipline Office issued a Notice of Charges in the above-captioned matter

N. Page were absent. Oral argument was not requested. and was not present for the discussion or vote. Thomas P. Connair, Alan J. Cronheim, and David David N. Cole and James R. Martin participated by telephone. James J. Tenn recused himself Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, Gretchen Rule Hamel, Gerald A. Daley, and Richard H. Darling. matter. Members present included Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, On July 15, 2008, the Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the above-captioned

Gerald A. Daley' Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Alan J. Cranheim * non attorney member Thomas P. Conn air James J. Tenn, Jr. David N. Cole David N. Page' Toni M. Gray,' Vice Chair 603-224-5828 • Fax 228-9511 James R. Martin Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 0330 I Gretchen Rule Hamel Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Richard H. Darling'

potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating

consider in imposing sanctions:"(a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the

Coffey's Case, 15 p. 2 2 N.H. at 513. The Standards set forth a four part analysis for courts to

Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, it looks to them for guidance.

must take into account the severity of the misconduct." Id.

E.g., Coffey's Case, 15 p. 2 2 N.H. 503, 513 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted)."The sanction

the bar, preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and prevent similar conduct in the future."

purpose of the Court's disciplinary power"is to protect the public, maintain public confidence in

(199 p. 2 2) ("Standards") support the conclusion that Ms. Boehm should be publicly censured. The

Hampshire and the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

The Committee agrees with Disciplinary Counsel's assertion that both case law in New

1 p. 2 2, 200S (See Attachment"PCC 2").

mandatory diversion, the terms of which are set forth in the Final Hearing Panel Report of June

Committee concludes that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a public censure with

Having made the aforementioned findings and rulings, the Professional Conduct

p. 2 200S (See Attachment"PCC 1"). Cooperate, and S.4(a): Misconduct, as agreed to in the Stipulation submitted on February 11, Boehm violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4: Communications; S.1 (b); Failure to The Professional Conduct Committee finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms.

as agreed to in the Stipulation submitted on February 11, p. 2 200S. (See Attachment"PCC I"). p. 3 3

Committee finds this mitigating factor to be of little relevance, because matters involving

mitigation, while Ms. Boehm lacked a dishonest or selfish motive, Standard 9. p. 3 32(b), the

any aggravating and/or mitigating factors that affect the baseline sanction. With respect to

The final step in the analysis of an appropriate sanction is to determine whether there are

appropriately a public censure.

injury. Under the circumstances of this case the Committee finds the baseline sanction is

misconduct caused her client to suffer needless anxiety, a significant although unquantifiable

Ms. Boehm's misconduct caused no apparent harm to the merits of her client's case, her

communicate properly with her client. With respect to actual or potential injury to a client, while

The Committee finds that Ms. Boehm negligently violated her obligations to

censure.

injury to a client. In New Hampshire the most analogous sanction to a reprimand is a public

and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes injury or potential

The Standards assert that a reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent

considers the effect of any aggravating or mitigating factors on the ultimate sanction.").

whether they affect the baseline sanction. See id. ("After determining the sanction, [the Court]

fourth and final step in the analysis: the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors and

appropriate sanction"). Once the baseline sanction is determined, the Court then looks to the

applying these factors, the first step is to categorize the respondent's misconduct and identifY the

determining a baseline sanction. See Wolterbeek's Case, 152 N.H. 710, 714 (2005) ("In

The first three steps create the framework for characterizing the misconduct and

or mitigating factors." Standards § p. 3 3.0; Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. at 513. p. 4 4

Diversion are attached hereto as Attachment"PCC 2" and incorporated into this Order.

Counsel be required of Ms. Boehm. Disciplinary Counsel's Proposed Terms of Mandatory

addition to a public censure, a mandatory diversion program as proposed by Disciplinary

case a sanction will alter future professional behavior. Accordingly, the Committee finds that, in

the future. The public should be able to have some assurance that in cases such as the instant

were taken to remedy Ms. Boehm's management of her professional skills and office practices in

alerted to the past misconduct, the Committee believes clients would be further protected if steps

with the purposes of attorney discipline in New Hampshire to the effect that the public would be

public is appropriately protected from future violations. While a public censure is consistent

The Committee further believes that public censure is not sufficient to assure that the

episodes and to their similarity to the misconduct in this case.

Committee finds a public censure is warranted due both to the number of prior discipline

instances of failures to communicate with clients, as well as more serious infractions. The

a prior record, but her record is lengthy. Ms. Boehm's disciplinary history involves repeated

respondent's prior disciplinary history is an aggravating factor. Not only does Ms. Boehm have

issues of a similar nature to that present in this case. The ABA Standards make clear that a

Reprimands (#95-1 p. 4 40 and #98-002) and two of the Warnings (#99-028 and #99-030) involved

three prior Reprimands, and the Committee was especially troubled by the fact that two of the

lengthy disciplinary history. The Committee took note of Ms. Boehm's three prior Warnings and

The Committee does find that there is a significant aggravating factor. Ms. Boehm has a

respondents.

negligent failures of communication rarely involve a dishonest or selfish motive on the part of p. 5 5

File Lenora E. Boehm, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

July.Q...L, 2008 Margaret H. Ne son, Chair

in the investigation and prosecution ofthis matter. See, N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 37(19).

Ms. Boehm is assessed all costs and expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee

Robin Marble and Warren Marble, docket #04-M-0374.

Merrimack County Superior Court and was entitled: In the Matter of

Ms. Boehm to represent her in a divorce. The case was pending in

2. On or about August 22, 2006, Robin Marble (the Complainant) retained

Wright, 8 Court Street, Concord, New Hampshire 0330 p. 6 1.

this proceeding, Ms. Boehm operated her law office as Barnes, Boehm &

Ms. Boehm was admitted to practice in p. 6 1990. At all times material to

p. 6 1. Ms. Boehm is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire.

I. Stipulation of Facts

Boehm, hereby submit this Stipulation in the above-referenced case.

Disciplinary Counsel, Landya B. McCafferty, and Respondent, Lenora E.

p. 7 2006, was between Ms. Marble and paralegals in Ms. Boehm's office.

all contact between Ms. Marble and Ms. Boehm's firm after October p. 7 23,

1 p. 7 2. With the exception of the one email near the end of the representation,

otherwise communicate directly with Ms. Marble.

11. Ms. Boehm did not return any of Ms. Marble's telephone calls, or

office and sought to speak directly with Ms. Boehm.

10. Following that meeting, Ms. Marble made numerous phone calls to the

representation.

an email regarding Ms. Marble's request for her file near the end of the

did not have any further contact with Ms. Boehm, with the exception of

9. Following Ms. Marble's October p. 7 23 meeting with Ms. Boehm, Ms. Marble

Boehm of $50.00.

8. On November p. 7 20, 2006, Ms. Marble made a further payment to Ms.

discuss the case. The meeting lasted approximately one hour.

7. On October p. 7 23,2006, Ms. Marble met with Ms. Boehm at her office to

Boehm of $50.00.

6. On or about October p. 7 2, 2006, Ms. Marble made a further payment to Ms.

Ms. Boehm of $50.00.

S. On or about September 11, p. 7 2006, Ms. Marble made a further payment to

behalf of Ms. Marble in the case.

4. On or about September 7, p. 7 2006, Ms. Boehm filed an appearance on

a retainer.

p. 8 3. On or about August p. 7 22, 2006, Ms. Marble paid Ms. Boehm $3,000.00 as 3

retaining new counsel. regarding my case and the welfare of my children, I am Given !l I have had no response to any of my concerns

Ms. Boehm

15. In an email toMs. BoehmdatedFebruary21,2007,Ms. Marble wrote:

letter, although she may have asked one of her paralegals to respond.

14. Ms. Boehm did not directly respond to Ms. Marble's January 22,2007,

Robin Marble

Please contact me at 60 p. 8 3-548-4920

have not heard from you. but I have known [sic] way of knowing this, since I actively involved in this case. Perhaps you have been, I need to know when and if you plan to become

counseling records in her chambers. judge says after reviewing the Eventide Marriage probably be entering a plea, depending on what the attorney told them and the court that they will last contact with me indicated that Warren's defense [sic] questioning my motive. The prosecutor [sic] office defense to my knowledge isn't that he didn't do it but custody issue as his defense in the rape case. His case because Warren is trying to use the unresolved continued back in Nov. Then Jennifer continued the continued again. I don't even know who or why it was scheduled for Feb 20 assuming it doesn't get so when? What is the strategy? We have a hearing you going to become actively involved in this case? If entering your office months ago. My question is, are You were highly recommended to me prior to my

Hi Lenora,

the following:

1 p. 8 3. In a letter to Ms. Boehm dated January 22,2007, Ms. Marble included p. 9 4

Robin Marble Sincerely,

by April. Aug 2006 to the present. I would expect a full refund request a full refund of all money given to you from speaking to the New Hampshire Bar. [sic] I herby [sic] on behalf of my case with both new attorneys, and After reviewing the case records and work done by you

Hello Lenora,

19. In an email toMs. BoehmonMarch20,2007,Ms. Marble wrote:

counsel to get them to her. Sincerely, Robin Marble week. I will make arraignments with you, and new records. Please have these records ready for next records. However, you did not give me your copy of itemized invoice. You returned my copy of the case Hello Lenora, I am writing to again to request a copy of

18. In an email toMs. Boehm dated March 16,2007,Ms. Marble wrote:

17. Ms. Boehm did not respond to either of Ms. Marble's February 21 emails.

Robin Marble

with remaining funds. I also require an itemized invoice of my account along

Hi Lenora,

16. On that same date, Ms. Marble wrote the following email to Ms. Boehm:

Robin Marble Sincerely

sent to you on this date. A certified copy and an email copy of this letter will be

noon on Friday, Feb 23, 2007. funds from my account ready for me to pick up by Please have my records, evidence and any remaining p. 10 5

27. Allegations set forth above are incorporated by reference.

II. Stipulation as to Rules Violated

domestic relations case.

26. On or about that same time, Ms. Boehm fIled a withdrawal from the

on behalf of Ms. Marble.

2 p. 10 5. On or about March 26, 2007, Ms. Kuhn filed an appearance in the case

Boehm's failures to communicate.

Ms. Boehm with the Attorney Discipline Office alleging, inter alia, Ms.

24. In a letter dated March 20, 2007, Ms. Marble filed a grievance against

to represent her in the domestic relations case.

23. On or about March 14, 2007, Ms. Marble retained Sandra A. Kuhn, Esq.,

her file from Ms. Boehm's office.

22. Ms. Boehm's paralegal did, however, arrange for Ms. Marble to retrieve

retainer, or to Ms. Marble's request for an itemized bill for legal services.

her retainer, to her request for a refund of the balance of funds in her

21. Ms. Boehm did not respond to Ms. Marble's requests for a full refund of

Robin Marble

Please send me the bill and refund by April 9,2007. This is my fourth request for itemized bill and refund.

Hello Lenora,

20. In an email toMs.BoehmonAprill.2007.Ms. Marble wrote: p. 11 6

charge itself, have been withdrawn as a part of this stipulation.

32. The factual allegations underlying the Rule 8.I(b) charge, as well as the

evidence of a breach of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a)-(c).

31. Ms. Boehm's conduct as detailed above constitutes clear and convincing

or any other accounting.

Boehm as Ms. Boehm had never forwarded to Ms. Marble a bill, invoice

Kuhn, Ms. Marble did not know any details about her legal bill with Ms.

Boehm. At the time Ms. Marble terminated Ms. Boehm and hired Ms.

least four separate occasions; all of which went unanswered by Ms.

written requests to Ms. Boehm for information about her legal bill on at

communicate with Ms. Marble about her legal bill. Ms. Marble had sent

3~. Mr. Boehm further breached the foregoing duty by failing to

status of her case.

Marble's inquiries via email and telephone seeking information about the

29. Ms. Boehm breached the foregoing duty by neglecting to respond to Ms.

about the case.

comply promptly with Ms. Marble's reasonable requests for information

informed regarding the status of the subject marital matter and to

28. Ms. Boehm owed Ms. Marble a duty to keep Ms. Marble reasonably p. 12 7

Dated: Jll:lll:Ut1y _, 200B p."JJr- II

Professional Conduct Committee determines is appropriate in this case.

bound to the facts as stipulated, no matter what sanction the

35. Respondent understands that by signing this Stipulation, she is hereby

IV. Effect of Stipulation

Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

34. Ms. Boehm agrees to pay the expenses incurred by the Professional

III. Stipulation as to Costs

evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct B.4(a).

violated the above rules, there is necessarily clear and convincing

33. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Boehm

Lenora E. Boehm, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

JuneM,,2008

investigation and prosecution of this matter. Public Censure with Mandatory Diversion, and an assessment of all costs associated with the Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37A(I)(g)(4)-(8), the Hearing Panel recommends a

Mandatory Diversion, attached hereto and made part thereof. Upon consideration, the Hearing Panel hereby adopts Disciplinary Counsel's Proposed Terms of

a proposal on May 14, 2008, the Respondent, Lenora E. Boehm, Esquire, did not submit a plan. proposed mandatory diversion plans no later than May 23, 2008. Disciplinary Counsel submitted and Vahrij Manoukian. By Order dated May 13, 2008, the parties were ordered to submit Esqurre. Chair, Paul S. Moore, Esquire, Reporter, Richard E. Fradette, Esquire, Craig F. Evans following hearing panel members participated in deliberations: George H. Thompson Jr., This Final Report of the Hearing Panel is a follow up to a Report issued on March 24, 2008. The

Patrick F. Harrigan, Vice Chair (603) 224-5828 • Fax (603) 228-9511 Administrative Coordinator Robert C. Varney, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 • Concord, NH 03301 Holly B. Fazzino,

general; and b) receipt and filing of, and timely responses to, all

systems, and resources relating to:. a) client communications in

3. The focus of such audit shall be on Ms. Boehm's office practices,

undertaken.

approved by the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) before the audit is

recommendations of the consultant. The consultant must be

office management. Ms. Boehm shall implement any and all

office management practices by a professional consultant skilled in

arrange for and undergo, at her own expense, a formal audit of her

2. Pursuant to this mandatory diversion program, Ms. Boehm shall

program under Rule 37A(I)(g)( p. 14 1)(4)-(8).

proceeding shall be accompanied by a mandatory diversion

p. 14 1. The sanction imposed on Ms. Boehm in connection with this

Dated: __ ~, p. 15 2008

to fu.r-ther orders of the Committee.

to show cause why she should not be held in contempt and subject

brought before the Professional Conduct Committee on a petition

ADO to oversee her compliance therewith, Ms. Boehm shall be

the terms of the mandatory diversion, andj or fails to allow the

5. In the event that Ms. Boehm is unable or unwiIling to comply with

Committee in this matter.

within six months of the order issued by the Professional Conduct

and show proof of same to the ADO, in the form of a written report,

Boehm shall fully implement the consultant's recommendations

Boehm has implemented the consultant's recommendations. Ms.

the audit has been completed and whether and to what extent Ms.

contact the consultant to determine whether and to what extent

Committee in this proceeding. The ADO shall have the authority to

date of the sanction order issued by the Professional Conduct'

4. Ms. Boehm shall undergo the audit within three months of the

and any other individuals involved in her cases.

other forms of communications from the court, opposing counsel,