Peter A. Riley (2012)

medical and counseling records.

The Committee granted the Assented-To Motion for Protective Order with regard to all

agreement between her office and Mr. Riley.

Assistance Program, was also present, and spoke about the drug testing aspect of the monitoring

Peter A. Riley, Esquire, who was present. Cecie Hartigan, Esquire, Director, NH Lawyers

represented the Attorney Discipline Office ("ADO"), Jeffrey H. Karlin, Esquire, represented

L. Rancourt was recused and also absent. James L. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel,

Richard H. Darling; James R. Martin, and Richard D. Sager. Alan J. Cronheim was recused. Jaye

Gray, Vice Chair; Susan R. Chollet; David N. Cole; Thomas P. Connair; Gerald A. Daley;

members were present: Margaret H. Nelson, Chair; Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair; Toni M.

deliberated the above captioned matter. The entire record was also reviewed. The following

On April 17, 2012, the Professional Conduct Committee heard Oral Argument and

Riley, Peter A. advs. Attorney Discipline Office #09-024

Alan J. Cronhehn Holly B. Fazzino, Administrator Thomas P. Connair • non attorney member 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 Benette Pizzhnenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 0330 I Richard H. Darling> Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Gerald A. Daley'

in his vehicle. In addition, Mr. Riley alleged that Ms. Fay may be placing their son to attend an intensive outpatient program (lOP) and to install a breathalyzer device specifically denied drinking while driving the parties' son, but Mr. Riley offered Request for Emergency Hearing. Mr. Riley denied alcohol or dmg abuse, and 6. On November 25,2008, Mr. Riley,pro se, responded to Ms. Fay's Petition with a

guardian ad litem (GAL). alcohol abuse evaluation and attend substance abuse counseling, and appointing a parenting rights conditioned on his sobriety, requiring Mr. Riley to undergo an temporary primary responsibility for their son to her, limiting Mr. Riley's been drinking while driving with their son. Ms. Fay sought an order assigning 5. Ms. Fay alleged in her Petition that Mr. Riley was an alcoholic and that he had

aware of the dates of Mr. Riley's trip. the time of filing, Mr. Riley was in Florida assisting his mother Ms. Fay was filed a Petition for Divorce and Request for Ex Parte Orders against Mr. Riley. At 4. On November 24,2008, Ms. Fay, through her attorney, Celeste M. Christo, Esq.,

all owned by the Riley Family Real Estate Tmst. resided in Seabrook, New Hampshire. Mr. Riley and Ms. Fay had three properties, 3. Mr. Riley and Ms. Fay had one adopted child. Before their separation, they

the office on or about November 24, 2008, the date she filed for divorce. an office in Seabrook, New Hampshire. Ms. Fay voluntarily stopped working at and Ms. Fay practiced law together as Riley and Fay, PLLC. The film maintained lawyer and a member of the Massachusetts bar. For a number of years, Mr. Riley 2. Mr. Riley was man-ied to Melissa J. Fay, Esq., who is also a New Hampshire

Seabrook, New Hampshire. proceeding, Mr. Riley has maintained a law office at 855 Lafayette Road, Massachusetts, where he was also admitted in 1995. At all times relevant to this October 30, 1995. Mr. Riley is also a member of the bar of the Connnonwealth of Hampshire lawyer who has been a member of the bar of New Hampshire since 1. Respondent, Peter A. Riley, Esq., of Seabrook, New Hampshire, is a New

convincing evidence.

Connnittee accepts the Stipulation of facts. The following facts are established by clear and

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

I. FINDINGS OF FACT p. 3 Page 3 of22

and files. Mr. Riley sought to protect records (including IOLTA account misappropriating firm funds, forged checks, and taken celiain financial records was using. Mr. Riley claimed that Ms. Fay had been mishandling and that he did so because Ms. Fay had denied him access to the office computer she monitoring program on the computer without advising Ms. Fay, but represented at a hearing on the issue, Mr. Riley acknowledged that he installed the software 12. Mr. Riley, through counsel, objected to Ms. Christo's Motion. In his objection and

information, including Ms. Fay's private email cOll'espondence with her attorney. computer used by Ms. Fay that afforded him access to all passwords and Ms. Christo claimed that Mr. Riley installed a"spyware" program on the office 11. On February 17,2009, Ms. Christo filed a Motion to Prohibit Computer Access.

parties' request to appoint a GAL. interests and the orderly distribution of marital assets." Mastel' Cross denied the accusing each other (and the Court) of ill motives, focus on [the child's] best cautioned both parties to"tone down the tenor of their pleadings and instead of except that his parenting time on weekends was expanded. The Court also 10. On December 31, 2008, the Court denied Mr. Riley's Motion for Reconsideration,

reiterated the request for the appointment of a GAL. bad faith, knowing that Mr. Riley would be out of state at the time. Mr. Riley also taking a substantial amount of marital property, and filing for ex parte relief in Ms. Fay had acted in bad faith by planning her move out of the marital home and Reconsideration of the Court's December 5, 2008, order. MI'. Riley claimed that 9. On December 19,2008, MI'. Riley,pro se, filed a timely Motion for

appoint a GAL. later found in contempt by Master Foley in October 2000.) The Court did not employment. (Notwithstanding this order, Ms. Fay remained unemployed and was who was unemployed at the time, was directed to make a diligent search for was to continue paying all of the parties' expenses and child support. Ms. Fay, voluntarily emolled. Further, pending a hearing on temporary orders, Mr. Riley Court also ordered Mr. Riley to complete an IOP, in which he had already making responsibility for the child, but limited Mr. Riley's parenting time. The 8. By order dated December 5, 2008, the Court granted the parties' joint decision­

Esq., and Ms. Christo appeared for Ms. Fay. Division on December 3, 2008. Mr. Riley was represented by Keri J. Marshall, 7. Marital Master Philip D. Cross convened a hearing at the Portsmouth Family

parenting arrangements. Riley argued that there should be no changes to the parties' existing joint at risk because of her condition requiring the use of a"mood stabilizer" drug. Mr. p. 4 Page 4 of22 adopted much of the Petitioner's parenting plan without the benefit of an a. A GAL is required in this case to address parenting issues. The Court has

argrnnents are summarized, in proi, as follows: with the Court's May 18,2009, temporary order on parenting. Mr. Riley's 19. On May 26,2009, Mr. Riley filed a Motion for Reconsideration in connection

in light of the Court's orders regarding his share of the parties' financial burden. Marshall's withdrawal. According to Mr. Riley, he could no longer afford counsel 18. On May 26, 2009, Mr. Riley filed apro se appearance, followed ShOlily by Ms.

time. drugs, and to submit to sobriety checks at the beginning and end of parenting attend AA meetings, to abstain from consuming any alcohol or non-prescribed a schedule of parenting and visitation by the parties and ordered Mr. Riley to authority, with primary residential custody remaining with Ms. Fay. The Court set 17. Under the parenting plan, the parties were awarded joint decision-making

the financial burden to Mr. Riley. The Court did not appoint a GAL. responsibility for the parties' personal and business expenses, assigning most of addressed the division of assets and family debt, as well as Mr. Riley's decree with attached parenting plan and temporary support order. The Court 16. On May 18, 2009, the Court issued a scheduling conference order and a temporary

evidence to support her accusation that [Mr. Riley] may still be abusing alcohol." Mr. Riley's parenting time. It denied the request, finding that she had"little 15. In its March 27, 2009, order the Court also ruled on Ms. Fay's request to reduce

unaware of the program's capacity to access email as not credible. an invasion of privacy. FUliher, the Court rejected Mr. Riley's claim that he was computer used by Ms. Fay without telling her was unreasonable, unjustified, and 14. The Court found that Mr. Riley's installation of special software in the office

conduct. Court was critical of the parties' efforts to convince the Court of each other's bad Ms. Fay's Motion to Prohibit Computer Access and her request for costs. The 13 . On March 27, 2009, the Court ruled on the pending motions. The Court granted

subpoenas. the spyware on grounds that the infonnation had been obtained with invalid the admissibility of infonnation obtained and submitted by Ms. Christo regarding spyware program would give him access to such account. Mr. Riley also disputed law finn. Mr. Riley denied any knowledge of Ms. Fay's email accoont or that the infonnation, other financial records, and client files) critical to the operation of the p. 5 Page 5 of22 recording an affidavit to correct the record (and providing notice of same to the of her mother, Joanne. Mr. Riley indicated that he was considering filing and acknowledged" the execution of these documents which Ms. Fay signed on behalf 24. Mr. Riley acknowledged in his letter to Ms. Christo that he"wrongfully

belonging to her parents, Joanne and Cyril Fay, in E. Falmouth, Massachusetts. recorded in 2002 and a quitclaim deed recorded in 2005, both relating to property Registry of Deeds that Ms. Fay had forged. Mr. Riley was referring to a POA Riley indicated that there were documents on record at the Bamstable County 23. On May 28, 2009, Mr. Riley wrote to Ms. Christo regarding various issues. Mr.

"the competence and impartiality of Master Cross in deciding certain issues ...." by a judge who is present to hear the evidence. Mr. Riley also raised an issue as to he had a constitutional right to have the material facts in the divorce adjudicated Heard by Judicial Officer (Motion for Hearings by a Judge). Mr. Riley argued that 22. On May 26, 2009, Mr. Riley filed apro se Motion to Have All Future Hearings

his request for a GAL, to no avail. the respondent and his parenting time with his Son." (sic). Mr. Riley reiterated continued lies, devious and illegal behavior in this matter, all to the detriment of Further, Mr. Riley alleged that"the Court has cast a blind eye on the Petitioner's counsel had made additional misrepresentations regarding property issues. through his desk; she had misappropriated business funds, and she and her connection with the support issue by sneaking into Mr. Riley's office and going Fay was"a liar and a thief' because she had obtained certain documents used in his Motion for Reconsideration regarding support. Mr. Riley claimed that Ms. 21. Mr. Riley filed a detailed reply (dated June 15,2009) to Ms. Christo's objection to

objected. Court's May 18,2009, temporaly order regarding support, to which Ms. Christo 20. On May 26, 2009, Mr. Riley also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the

29. By order of June 9, 2009, the COUlt granted a Motion for Clarification filed by

appointment of a GAL. propelty issues were denied. The COUlt also denied Mr. Riley's request for the conflicted with his allotted parenting time. Other requests regarding SUppOlt and Mr. Riley, the COUlt'S order requiring his attendance at lOP aftercare meetings clarifY its order to address a conflict in scheduling of parenting time. According to was no evidence and no positive readings on his car breathalyzer), but it agreed to Riley's conduct and use of alcohol (with respect to which Mr. Riley claims there confirmed that it granted more parenting time to Ms. Fay, in part, because of Mr. Motions for Reconsideration regarding parenting and support. The Court 28. By order of June 9, 2009, the Court disposed of Mr. Riley's May 26, 2009,

27. The Court denied Mr. Riley's Motion for Hearings by a Judge.

Massachusetts and the Federal Government out of thousands of dollars ...." alleged in connection with the forgery that Ms. Fay had"defi'auded the State of recording might also affect Mr. Riley's ability to practice law. Mr. Riley further Petitioner forged the Petitioner's mother's signature to" even though such a acknowledged telling her that he intended to"correct the deed and POA that the whim." Mr. Riley denied threatening Ms. Fay, as Ms. Christo alleged, but [his] son, and the COUlt'S continued pandering to the Petitioner's each and every fundamental constitutional rights as they relate to his ability to spend time with by the"Court's continued bias against him, the continued violation of for Hearings by a Judge, stating that the increase in tension in the case was caused 26. On June 10, 2009, Mr. Riley filed a reply to Ms. Christo's objection to the Motion

over as much as possible." Mr. Riley has denied making these statements. that Mr. Riley told Ms. Fay that he would"make a mess of her life and screw her care because he will affect her ability to practice as well." Ms. Christo also alleged POA and told Ms. Fay that"if it results in his inability to practice law, he doesn't Ms. Christo alleged that Mr. Riley threatened to expose conduct relating to the Hearings by a Judge, arguing that Mr. Riley was engaging in vexatious litigation. 25. On June 4, 2009, Ms. Christo filed an objection to Mr. Riley's pro se Motion for

had spoken to Ms. Fay on May 27, 2009, regarding this issue. attorney both in Massachusetts and New Hampshire." Mr. Riley continued that he the divorce and custody issues pending before this Court, and my obligations as an "appropriate authorities") because he felt he had such a responsibility"in light of p. 7 Page 7 of22 "complicit in that." mother's name, Ms. Fay had engaged in"fraudulent acts," and Mr. Riley was very difficult times in their lives. He acknowledged, however, that, by signing her Mr. Riley represented that he was trying to help Ms. Fay and her parents during time, Ms. Fay's mother was"unable to comprehend even the simplest ofmatters." notarized signatures entered by Ms. Fay on behalf of her mother, and that, at the Fay had forged. Mr. Riley testified that he had drafted the documents and telling Ms. Fay that he had obtained documents at the Registry of Deeds that Ms. less than two hours notice and with little time to prepare, Mr. Riley acknowledged 34. At the June 17,2009, hearing, which, according to Mr. Riley, was convened on

Ms. Christo appeared for Ms. Fay. Mr. Riley appeared pro se. 33. On June 17,2009, the Court convened· a hearing on Ms. Fay's Verified Petition.

would ever physically harm Ms. Fay. take such action. Mr. Riley denies ever making any statements indicating that he Mr. Riley's alleged threat to bum the building did not believe Mr. Riley meant to the area to take another job. Evidence later produced revealed that the witness to before he has to sell it and give Melissa half ofthe proceeds;" and to move out of own parental rights; to"bum the [parties' commercial] building to the ground threats to"hurt" Ms. Fay and make her"suffer;" to file a petition to terminate his Fay felt posed a risk to the safety of their child. The alleged behavior included Riley had engaged in increasingly threatening and tlOubling behavior which Ms. requested that Mr. Riley undergo a psychological evaluation, alleging that Mr. time and decision-making authority regarding the child. Ms. Christo also ("Verified Petition"), requesting a temporary suspension of Mr. Riley's parenting 32. On June 17,2009, Ms. Christo filed another Verified Petition for Ex Parte Relief

child and the financial responsibilities imposed on him by the Court. the file the petition, because of the limitations placed on his access to the parties' was in considerable emotional and financial distress at the time he undertook to Riley withdrew the Petition before it was docketed. According to Mr. Riley, he Rights was to cause the Court to appoint a GAL. After speaking with counsel, Mr. 31. Another of Mr. Riley's"primary goals" in filing the Petition to Terminate Parental

suited at that time and in light of the Court's orders. parenting orders, he believed the child's adoptive mother [Ms. Fay] was better deficiency or mental illness" and inability to cope with the Court's financial and Riley's] Parental Rights. Mr. Riley alleged that, due in part to his own"mental 30. On June 16,2009, Mr. Riley sent to the probate court a Petition to Terminate [Mr.

and thus whether there was any cause to require execution of another release. by Mr. Riley regarding whether he had been referred by the lOP for an evaluation p. 8 Page 8 of22

notarizations. Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Medicaid to make them aware of the false 40. Mr. Riley sent a copy of the Riley Affidavit to the Insurance Fraud Division of the

references for each. peliaining to the Fays' E. Falmouth propeliy, with the registry book and page Affidavit made specific reference to the 2002 POA and the 2005 quitclaim deed the Affidavit of Peter A. Riley, dated June 17,2009 (Riley Affidavit). The Riley 39. On June 22,2009, Mr. Riley recorded at the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds

Committee and expected to recuse himselffrom the pending case. Cross) indicated that he intended to make a referral to the Professional Conduct to terminate his own parental rights was not filed in good faith. The Court (Master information despite the Court's order of June 9, 2009; and e) Mr. Riley's petition under the Court's order; d) Mr. Riley had declined to sign a release of medical constitutional rights, notwithstanding the substantial parenting time afforded Mr. Riley had accused the Court (Master Cross) of bias and violating his Ms. Fay; b) Mr. Riley had accused Ms. Christo of being a"pathological liar;" c) Court found that a) Mr. Riley had engaged in threatening behavior as alleged by suspending Mr. Riley's parenting rights, pending a psychological evaluation. The 38. Following the hearing, the Court issued an order dated June 17,2009, temporarily

Master Cross claimed he had worked on the case as a GAL. examined Master Cross, before he was appointed to the bench, regarding hours on your part against me." Mr. Riley cited an old case in which he had cross­ the Court's rulings limiting his parenting were"due to a certain level of bias on--­ effectively depriving him of his relationship with his son. Mr. Riley claimed that equal time with his son and claimed that Ms. Fay's false accusations were 37. With respect to parenting time, Mr. Riley reiterated at the hearing his prayer for

interlocutory appeal of the Court's prior order. alcohol treatment, and he said he would not execute such a release, pending an about circumstances warranting an additional release of records pertaining to his alia, a statement from Robin Ells, reiterated his position that Ms. Christo had lied whether she's a pathological liar or what the deal is ...." Mr. Riley, citing, inter representations of fact made by Ms. Christo that"Attorney Christo-I'm not sure 36. At the June 17,2009, hearing, Mr. Riley alleged with respect to certain

that." was in Florida. Mr. Riley argued that"but this Court doesn't seem to care about Fay's"lies" and her"calculated" plan to file for ex parte relief while Mr. Riley would suffer emotionally through this process, just as he had, as a result of Ms. 35. At the June 17,2009, hearing, Mr. Riley also admitted that he hoped Ms. Fay p. 9 Page 9 of22

misconduct in unrelated domestic cases). Hampshire Legislature (Petitions for Redress of Grievances alleging f. Master Cross is the subject of three complaints pending in the New

statements of the events and circumstances in this matter." respect to which Master Cross"blindly accepted the Petitioner's false e. Master Cross's bias comes fi'om Ms. Fay's original ex parte petition, with

with the statement that he was referring the Respondent to the PCC." conclusions which led to his biased diatribe against the Respondent ending d."Master Cross was patently and objectively wrong in each of his ...

with his son for more than two months-it is"unconscionable." c. Master Cross's rulings have prevented Mr. Riley from having any contact

control and lacks the competence to be a Marital Master." petition to telminate parental rights showed that"Master Cross is out of about whether Mr. Riley actnally appeared in probate court to file a b. Master Cross's consideration of disputed testimony and offers of proof

disrepute." Cross was clearly biased in the case and"brought the judiciary into in contempt and stating his intention to withdraw from the case. Master a. Master Cross did not recuse himself from the case after finding Mr. Riley

June 17,2009, Order. Mr. Riley's arguments included the following: 43. On June 24,2009, Mr. Riley filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's

due to her terminal illness and dementia." anticipated that ... Joanne ... would have to enter into a full time nursing facility to defraud the government ... insofar as both ... Melissa ... and her father, Cyril ... understand that the purpose behind the execution of both of these documents was 42. Mr. Riley also made the following statement in his Affidavit:"I further

documents due to her advanced dementia. understanding the purpose, intent or any consequence of executing these further stated that, based upon his personal knowledge, Joanne was not capable of Joanne was present when Mr. Riley notarized and witnessed the deed. Mr. Riley notarized the forged signatnres on both documents at Cyril's request; and that had prepared the documents at the request of Ms. Fay's father, Cyril Fay; that he a quitclaim deed that was backdated to October 25, 2000. Mr. Riley stated that he signatnre (Joanne Fay) on a POA in November 2002, and again in March 2005, on 41. Mr. Riley stated in his Affidavit that he witnessed Ms. Fay forge her mother's p. 10 Page 10 of 22

County Massachusetts, Registry of Deeds. Mr. Riley also testified that he sent emotionally, and physically; and both documents were recorded at the Barnstable execution of both documents, Joarme was severely debilitated mentally, benefits; both documents were falsely notarized by Mr. Riley; at the time of concern about Joaune going into the hospital and receiving state and federal Fay; the deed was backdated by Mr. Riley at Cyril's request, possibly out of by him on behalf of Ms. Fay's parents; the documents were both forged by Ms. 50. Mr. Riley testified in deposition that the POA and quitclaim deed were prepared

49. On January 15,2010, Mr. Riley was deposed.

48. On July 20, 2009, Brian Kenyon, Esq., entered an appearance for Mr. Riley.

appointing a GAL. 47. On July 20, 2009, the Court approved Master Foley's recommended order

the Professional Conduct Committee. during the June 17,2009, proceeding that he intended to make a referral to d. the Master suspended Mr. Riley's parenting rights after having stated

his disdain for the Respondent;" sClUtiny so as to maintain his control over the case and continue to effect interests of the child appears to be an attempt to insulate his lUlings from c. the Master's"refusal to appoint a GAL to evaluate what is in the best

Respondent's name to thousands of dollars of checks with impunity;" and the lUg the clear and unambiguous fact that the Petitioner forged the b. as a result of such predisposition, Master Cross"ignored and swept under

testified about the Spectorpro software;" the date ofthe March 23, 2009, hearing during which the Respondent a."Master Cross harbored a bias and prejudice against the Respondent from

Vacate included the following: March 23,2009 (Motion to Vacate). Mr. Riley's arguments in his Motion to 46. On June 30, 2009, Mr. Riley filed a Motion to Vacate All Orders Issued after

was assigned to the matter. Master Cross recused himself from the proceeding and Master Robert J. Foley 45. Master Cross filed a referral to the ADO on June 18,2009. On June 30, 2009,

denying Mr. Riley's Motion for Reconsideration of the June 17,2009, Order. 44. On June 30, 2009, the Court approved Master Cross's recommended order p. 11 Page 11 of22

POA. e. Mr. Riley served as notary when Melissa Fay signed Joanne's name on the

document. understanding the pUlpose, intent, or any consequences of executing the d. Mr. Riley believed at the time of execution that Joanne was not capable of

Joanne's signature as grantor. c. Mr. Riley believed at the time of execution that Ms. Fay was forging

POA. b. Mr. Riley witnessed Melissa Fay signing Joanne's name as grantor on the

Falmouth, Massachusetts. attorney-in-fact to handle matters relating to jointly held property in E. attorney (POA) for Joanne Fay, naming her husband, Cyril Fay, as the a. In or about November 2002, Mr. Riley prepared a limited durable power of

52. Mr. Riley breached that duty, as follows:

fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Rule 8.4(b) and (c).

not to commit a criminal act or otherwise engage in conduct involving dishonesty,

51. Mr. Riley owed a duty to the parties, legal profession, the Court, and the public

following violations by clear and convincing evidence:

as to the N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct that were violated. The Stipulation establishes the

The Respondent and the ADO have stipulated and the Committee accepts the Stipulation

Stipulation As To Facts, Rule Violations, and Sanction, at 1-17.

Massachusetts and Medicaid. copies of his Affidavit to the Insurance Fraud Division ofthe Commonwealth of p. 12 Page 12 of22

executed on October 25, 2000. Mr. Riley's presence, Mr. Riley notarized the deed as ifit had been q. Notwithstanding the actual date of execution of the deed in March 2005, in

deed to October 25, 2000. p. At Cyril's request, Mr. Riley changed the stated date of execution on the

license had expired. o. Mr. Riley knew at the time of execution that his Massachusetts notary

grantor on the quitclaim deed. n. Mr. Riley served as a notary when Melissa Fay signed Joanne's name as

Joanne's signature on the deed as grantor. m. Mr. Riley believed at the time of execution that Melissa Fay was forging

executing the document. capable of understanding the purpose, intent, or any consequences of I. Mr. Riley believed at the time of execution that Joanne Fay was not

and Cyril Fay. Joanne's name on the quitclaim deed as grantor in the presence of Joanne k. On or about March 22, 2005, Mr. Riley witnessed Melissa Fay signing

E. Falmouth to her husband, Cyril Fay. quitclaim deed conveying Joanne Fay's interest in jointly held property in j. In or about March 2005, at the request of Cyril Fay, Mr. Riley prepared a

and acknowledgment of the POA. i. Mr. Riley was complicit in"fraudulent acts" comprised of the execution

be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. h. Mr. Riley should have known at the time of execution that the POA would

11,2002. g. The aforesaid POA was recorded at the Registry of Deeds on December

and meaning of the document and that it was her"free act and deed." falsely attested to taking Joanne's oath that she understood the contents f. Mr. Riley falsely attested to the execution of the POA by Joanne; he also p. 13 Page 13 of22

Order of June 17,2009, included allegations, as follows: b. Mr. Riley's June 24, 2009, Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's

Mr. Riley then claimed that"[t]his court doesn't seem to care about that." "calculated" plan to file for ex parte relief while Mr. Riley was in Florida. through the litigation process, just as he had as a result of her"lies" and Mr. Riley acknowledged his desire that Ms. Fay should suffer emotionally Parte Relief, seeking temporary suspension of Mr. Riley's parenting time, a. During the June 17, 2009, hearing on Ms. Fay's Verified Petition for Ex

55. Mr. Riley breached that duty as follows:

engage in conduct intended to disrupt the tribunal.

54. Mr. Riley owed a duty to conduct himself in a professional manner and not to

or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8A(b) and (c).

Riley engaged in a criminal act. and/or conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,

53'. The conduct described herein represents clear and convincing evidence that Mr.

acknowledgment, and dating of the deed. v. Mr. Riley was complicit in"fraudulent acts" comprised of the execution,

2005, by Cyril Fay. u. The quitclaim deed was recorded at the Registry of Deeds on March 22,

documents that the deed would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. t. Mr. Riley knew or should have known at the time of execution of the

s. Mr. Riley falsely signed the document as"witness" to Joanne's signature.

date of execution. acknowledgment that the execution was her"free act and deed," and to the r. Mr. Riley falsely attested to the execution of the deed by Joanne, to her p. 14 Page 14 of22 of Deeds and sent copies to government offices charged with investigating d. Mr. Riley recorded the Riley Affidavit at the Barustable County Registry

on the part of Ms. [Melissa] Fay." clearly evidence ofthe falsehood and the-in my opinion-fraudulent acts 2002 POA and 2005 deed] of the importance of those documents I think is Joanne Fay's incapacity,"for her [Melissa Fay] to sign documents [the c. At the June 17,2009, hearing, Mr. Riley represented that, in light of

thousands of dollars, and her license to practice law may also be at issue." "defi:auded the State of Massachusetts and the Federal Government out of b. In his reply pleading of June 10,2009, Mr. Riley alleged that Ms. Fay had

notified the"appropriate authorities." offered to discuss such matters before he recorded the affidavit and while there were substantive issues outstanding in the divorce proceeding, forged by Ms. Fay (the 2002 POA and 2005 quitclaim deed). Mr. Riley, affidavit to"cOiTect" the registlY record which contained documents counsel of May 28, 2009, Mr. Riley stated that he was inclined to file an a. In communications with Ms. Fay on May 27,2009, and by letter to

disruptive advocacy by the following:

56. Mr. Riley also breached his duty by engaging in over-zealous, emotional, and

Respondent." control over the case and continue to effect ( sic) his disdain for the an attempt to insulate his rulings from scrutiny so as to maintain his to Mr. Riley, Master Cross's"refusal to appoint a GAL ... appears to be name to thousands of dollars of checks with impunity." Further, according clear and unambiguous fact that the Petitioner forged the Respondent's because of his bias, Master Cross"ignored and swept under the rug the c. In Mr. Riley's June 30, 2009, Motion to Vacate, Mr. Riley alleged that

iii. Master Cross's finding on the issue whether Mr. Riley actually

misconduct and determining a baseline sanction. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303. After the

The first three parts of the analysis create the framework for characterizing the

613,621 (2007»; Standards § 3.0.

and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." Id. (quoting Douglas' Case, 155 N.H.

the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct,

forth a four part analysis for courts to consider in imposing sanctions:"(a) the duty violated; (b)

("Standards''), it looks to them for guidance. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303. The Standards set

the Supreme Court has not adopted the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

account the severity of the misconduct. See Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503,513 (2005). Although

in the future." E.g., Conner's Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). Any sanction should take into

confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and prevent similar conduct

The purpose of the Court's disciplinary process is"to protect the public, maintain public

Stipulation As To Facts, Rule Violations, and Sanction at 17-23.

violation of Rule 8.4(a)..

8.4(b) and (c), and 3.5, there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence ofa

59. Because there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Riley violated Rules

58. There is clear and convincing evidence ofa violation of Rule 3.5.

impugn the integrity of the tribunal.

57. Mr. Riley's conduct, as described herein, disrupted the proceedings and tended to

insurance and Medicaid fraud. p. 16 Page 16 of22 these offenses; or attempt 01' conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit any of of controlled substances; or the intentional killing of another; or an misappropriation, or theft; or the sale, distribution or importation of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, of which includes intentional interference with the administration (a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct a necessary element

5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:

Section 5.1: Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity

sanction:

The following provisions of the Standards offer some guidance in determining a baseline

the Barnstable County (Mass.) Registry of Deeds.

he falsely attested to the execution of the 2002 POA and the 2005 deed, which were recorded at

the public record and caused potential harm to the title of the Fays' E. Falmouth propeliy when

reputation of the legal profession and to the adjudicative process. Mr. Riley's actions undelmined

Under the third prong of the sanction analysis, Mr. Riley caused harm to the integrity and

zealous and iD'esponsible litigation tactics, and impugning the integrity of the presiding Mastel'.

fraudulent execution and recording of the 2002 POA and 2005 quitclaim deed, pursuing over-

rather than one of negligence. Mr. Riley breached these duties by knowingly facilitating the

Under the second prong of the analysis, Mr. Riley's mental state was one of knowing,

matters, and professionalism and respect for the adjudicative process and the tribunal.

connection with the execution of legal documents, fairness and integrity in the pursuit of litigated

Under the first prong of the analysis, Mr. Riley violated duties of honesty and integrity in

sanction. Id.

the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors and whether they affect the baseline

baseline sanction is determined, the COUli then looks to the fourth and fmal part of the analysis, p. 17 Page 17 of22

2 Section 5.14 uses the tenn"Admonition." The most analogous sanction in New Hampshire is a Reprimand. , Section 5.13 uses the tenn"Reprimand." The most analogous sanction in New Hampshire is a Public Censure.

instance of neglect in determining whether submitted statements or 6.14 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated

adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding. injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an remedial action when material information is being withheld, and causes determining whether statements or documents are false or in taking 6.13 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in

causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding. and causes injury or potential injUly to a party to the legal proceeding, or information is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action, statements or documents are being submitted to the court or that material 6.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that false

significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding. potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or deceive the court, makes a false statement, submits a false document, or 6.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with the intent to

Section 6.1: False Statements, Fraud, and Misrepresentation

conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer's fitness to practice law. 5.14 Admonition2 is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in any other

practice law. misrepresentation and that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to any other conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 5.13 Reprimand' is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in

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

adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice. dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously (b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct involving p. 18 Page 18 of22

interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding. of the proceeding, and causes significant or potentially significant witness, judge, or juror with the intent to influence or affect the outcome ( c) improperly communicates with someone in the legal system other than a

interference with the outcome ofthe legal proceeding; or serious injUly to a party, or causes significant or potentially significant affect the outcome of the proceeding, and causes serious or potentially (b) makes an ex parte communication with ajudge or juror with intent to

interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding; or serious injury to a party, or causes significant or potentially significant (a) intentionally tampers with a witness and causes serious or potentially

6.31 Disbatment is generally appropriate when a lawyer:

Section 6.3: Improper Communications with Individuals in the Legal System

interference with a legal proceeding. no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes little or no actual or potential instance of negligence in complying with a court order or rule, and causes little or 6.24 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated

party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding. with a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or other 6.23 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently fails to comply

party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding. violating a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or a 6.22 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that he or she is

potentially serious interference with a legal proceeding. causes serious injury or potenti\illy serious injury to a party or causes serious or order or rule with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and 6.21 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court

Section 6.2: Abuse of the Legal Process

legal proceeding. party, or causes little or no adverse or potentially adverse effect on the learning of its falsity, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a documents are false or in failing to disclose material information upon p. 19 Page 19 of22

Standards contemplate consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.

disbarment. However, the Parties agree that disbarment is not wan-anted in this case. The

Under the Standards (§ 5.1) the baseline sanction for the Rule 8.4 violation could be

potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. violates a duty owed as a professional, and causes little or no actnal or instance of negligence in determining whether the lawyer's conduct 7.4 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated

injUly or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes 7.3 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently engages in

potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. conduct that is a violation of a duty as a professional and causes injury or 7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in

potentially serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional with the intent 7.1 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in

Section 7.0: Violations of Duties Owed as a Professional

outcome of the legal proceeding. legal system, and causes little or no actnal or potential interference with the instance of negligence in improperly communicating with an individual in the 6.34 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an isolated

interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding. system, and causes injury or potential injury to a party or interference or potential whether it is proper to engage in communication with an individual in the legal 6.33 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in determining

proceeding. causes interference or potential interference with the outcome of the legal communication is improper, and causes injury or potential injury to a party or with an individual in the legal system when the lawyer knows that such 6.32 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in communication p. 20 Page 20 of 22 practice and to report to the ADO on a quarterly basis regarding Mr. assigned to a lawyer mentor, approved by the ADO, to monitor Mr. Riley's during the period of the aforesaid stay of suspension, Mr. Riley shall be iv. Upon reinstatement in the bar and resumption of practice at any time

monitoring program. iii. Mr. Riley shall bear the expense of the rehabilitation, counseling and

pm1icipation in the program. set forth herein of all records and information associated with his others charged with monitoring his compliance with any of the conditions ii. Mr. Riley shall execute a release authorizing disclosure to the ADO and

LADC. stated his desire to continue to work with Frederic J. White, LICSW, Monitoring Agreement. In connection with such contract, Mr. Riley has those set forth in the New Hampshire Lawyer Assistance Program ADO. The terms and conditions of the contract shall be comparable to rehabilitation, counseling and monitoring program, to be approved by the i. Mr. Riley shall enter into and comply with a contract for an alcohol

b. Stay of the remaining period of suspension is conditioned upon the following:

period following final approval. period to be stayed and subject to imposition at any time during the three year a. Two year suspension: one year to take effect on April 6, 2012, and the remaining

recommend the following:

The Committee accepts the sanction stipulated by Mr. Riley and the ADo and voted to

proceeding is his substantial experience in the practice of law.

An aggravating factor bearing on Mr. Riley's conduct during the course of the divorce

apparently suffering from severe mental and emotional stress which clouded his judgment.

remorseful about such conduct. During the course of the divorce proceeding, Mr. Riley was

Mr. Riley's misconduct in 2002 and 2005 was undertaken for personal gain, and he is genuinely

June 20 I 0 under Rule 3.3 regarding overstating a position to the court. There is no evidence that

A mitigating factor is that Mr. Riley has no prior discipline, save for a warning issued in p. 21 Page 21 of22

remaining one year period of suspension is stayed for a period of three years after final order of

date Mr. Riley closed his practice in anticipation of his suspension. The imposition of the

a Petition for Two Year Suspension. One Year to take effect on April 6, 2012, retroactive to the

For the reasons stated above, the Committee directs the Attorney Discipline Office to file

the Stipulation and the Monitoring Agreement.

taken the steps to rehabilitate himself. It is expected that he will fully comply with the tenus of

The Committee's acceptance ofthe recommended sanction recognizes that Mr. Riley has

his conduct in violation of Rule 3.5, dated March 16, 2012. c. Mr. Riley has written a detailed and sincere letter of apology to Master Cross for

stay, provided there are no complaints or motions pending at that time. whether Mr. Riley has successfully complied with the conditions ofthe viii. Disciplinary Counsel shall notify the Committee at the end of the stay

suspension. provide a basis for imposing any remaining portion of the stayed on an expedited basis. A finding of misconduct from that complaint shall that post date the order in this case, the ADO will process that complaint following final approval of this stipulation, and that arises out of events vii. If the ADO receives a complaint against Mr. Riley within three years

should not be imposed. by clear and convincing evidence) why the balance of the suspension required to show cause before the Committee (bearing the burden of proof vi. Upon violation of any of the foregoing conditions, Mr. Riley shall be

appropriate. order to verify compliance at any time, the ADO may investigate as v. The ADO will monitor Mr. Riley's compliance with this Stipulation. In

any time. Services of such mentor shall be paid for by Mr. Riley. Riley shall authorize the mentor to communicate freely with the ADO at obligations under the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Riley's capacity to perfonu legal services in compliance with his p. 22 Page 22 of22

File Jeffrey H. Karlh;t, Esquire James L. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

investigation and prosecution of this matter.

The Committee accepts the Stipulation that the Respondent shall pay all costs ofthe

Rule 37(14).

the Court. Reinstatement after the initial one year period is subject to