Edward F. Pasquina Jr. (2012)

October 20, 2011. Those repotis are summarized below.

Hearing Panel Report of February 25,2011, and the Second Hearing Panel Report of

As to the charges against Mr. Pasquina, the PCC accepts the facts found in the Reissued

with Warnings.

Kobuszewski and Disciplinary Counsel. A subsequent Order was issued fmding No Misconduct

Kobuszewski. On January 21, 2011, the PCC accepted a Stipulation that was entered into by Mr.

Procedurally, this matter involved two respondents, Mr. Pasquina and William J.

Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, and Richard D. Sager were absent.

Gerald A. Daley; Richard H. Darling; James R. Matiin, and Jaye L. Rancomi. Benette

M. Gray, Vice Chair; Susan R. Chollet; David N. Cole; Thomas P. Connair; Alan J. Cronheim;

above captioned matter. The following members were present: Margaret H. Nelson, Chair; Toni

On January 17,2012, the Professional Conduct Committee (the"PCC") deliberated the

Al'-'IENDED SIX MONTH SUSPENSION STAYED FOR ONE YEAR

Pasquina, Edward F Jr. advs. Attorney Discipline Office # 09-032

Alan J. Cronheim Holly B. Fazzino, Administrator Thomas P. Conaair • non attorney member David N. Cole Richard D. Sager Susan R. Chollet* J aye L. Rancourt Toni M. Gray,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 • Fax 228-9511 James R. Martin Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Richard H. Darling* Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite I 02 Gerald A. Daley*

to both motions. On December.9, 2010, Hearing Panel Chair Richard E. Fradette, Esquire,

Motion to Dismiss, alleging a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Disciplinary Counsel objected

November 26, 2010, and concu!1'ently filed ills answer to the Notice of Charges. He also filed a

Mr. Pasquina moved for additional time to answer the Notice of Charges on

Finding ofNo Misconduct but with Warnings as to Mr. Kobuszewski dated January 21,2011.

January.18, 2011, the PCC deliberated, following willch it issued, then co!1'ected and reissued, a

Dismiss with Warning, willch they amended and re-filed on January 13, 2011. On

December 27,2010, Disciplinary Counsel and Mr. Kobuszewski filed an Assented-to Motion to

Mr. Kobuszewski answered the Notice of Charges on November 15, 2009. On

October 18,2010, arising out of that matter. The two matters were assigned to a single docket.

Counsel Jennifer B. Sargent issued separate Notices of Charges as to both attorneys on

CV-90, with the alleged assistance of local counsel William J. Kobuszewski. Disciplinary

Hampton District Court on April29, 2009, captioned Walter Vickery v. Joseph Tuccolo, No. 09-

matter arose out of Mr. Pasquina' s (a Massachusetts attorney) filing a writ of summons in

Special Justice Mark F. Weaver refe11'ed tills matter to the PCC on June 18, 2009. The

B. Procedural Background

Pasquina's subsequent conduct before the Attorney Discipline Office ("ADO").

summons at Hampton District Court on April29, 2009, under Mr. Kobuszewski's name, and Nfr.

3.3(a)(1), 3.4(c), 8.4(c), 8.1(a) and 8.4(a). These charges arise from ills filing of a writ of

Mr. Pasquina is accused of violating New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct

A. Summary of Charges

I. FINDINGS OF FACT p. 3 Page 3 of21

Hem·ing Panel to consider and respond to particular questions framed to the Panel.

the ADO and the respondent, the PCC remanded the matter for further proceedings before the

Hearing Panel Report and its recommendation as to sanction, and the arguments of counsel for

The PCC held Oral Argument on May 17, 2011. After consideration of the Record, the

which is dated.February 25, 2011, and is the document the PCC reviewed.

on Februmy 9, following which it issued, then reissued, a Hem·ing Panel Repmi, the latter of

witnesses. The Panel received no stipulations. The Panel deliberated after the hearing and again

Exhibits 1-18 and Proposed Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law and heard the testimony offive

The Panel held a Final Hearing in this matter on January 28, 2011, at which it viewed

additional charges appearing in paragraphs 123 through 136 therein.

Consolidated Notice of Charges as to Edward F. Pasquina, Jr. dated Janumy 13, 2011, minus the

granted. As a result, the charges presented to the Panel consisted of the Amended and

charges. Disciplinary Counsel later withdrew the additional charges by motion, which the PCC

the Chair's other rulings with respect to discovery and the reconsideration of the additional

the additional charges, but the Hearing Panel Chair denied that motion on January 18 in light of

then reconsidered. On January 14,2011, Mr. Pasquina moved to continue the hearing because of

additional charges against Mr. Pasquina, which the Hearing Panel Chair initially permitted, but

Hearing Panel Chair's intervention was required. Disciplinmy Counsel also moved to add

Disciplinmy Counsel and Mr. Pasquina thereafter engaged in discovery, as to which the

the basis that the Hearing Panel does not make jurisdictional rulings.

granted Mr. Pasquina's motion for additional time to answer, but denied the motion to dismiss on p. 4 Page 4 of21

of a New Hampshire attorney. She asked him it he had filled out the writ of summons and he

once again Ms. Lamie waited on him. He stated that he wanted to file his"complaint" on behalf

The next day, April29, 2009, lVfr. Pasquina returned to the court's counter window and

meet with Judge Francis J. Frasier. See Section D(l) concerning that meeting.

him to speak with a judge in the courtroom. He accepted that offer and entered the courtroom to

summons form. Ms. Lamie testified that lVfr. Pasquina became ang1y with her and she invited

not. She told him that he would also need to file a pro hac vice motion. She gave him a writ of

disagreed. She asked if he were a member of the New Hampshire bar, and he said that he was

needed to file a civil"complaint." She told him that he also needed to file a"civil writ," and he

· April28, 2009, she waited on Mr. Pasquina at the court's counter window. He told her that he

Ms. Lamie has worked in the Hampton District Court for fourteen years. On

1. Diane Lamie

Pasquina. A summary of each witness' testimony follows.

Special Justice Mark F. Weaver, Mr. Kobuszewski, Wesley Prevost, James L. DeHart, and Mr.

Answer, Exhibits 1 through 18, and the testimony of the following witnesses: Diane Lamie,

The hearing panel reviewed the entire record, consisting of the Notice of Charges and

C. · Hearing Panel Final Hearing -Witnesses

deliberated on January 17, 2012.

The Panel issued its Second Hearing Panel report dated October 20, 2011, which the PCC

second hearing based on the PCC remand, at which the Hearing Panel considered the Stipulation.

Violations, and Recommended Sanction. On October 14, at which time the Hearing Panel held a

On September 26, the ADO and Mr. Pasquina executed a Stipulation as to Facts, p. 5 Page 5 of21

admission in which lv1r. Kobuszewski was to serve as local counsel was then pending. Judge

Coiui for a criminal trial in another umelated matter. Mr. Pasquina's motion for pro hac vice

On May 27, 2009, Mr. Kobuszewski and Mr. Pasquina appeared at the Hampton District

on the statements of Ms. Lamie, Clerk Clark, and Judge Frasier (directly or indirectly).

the court house on April28, 2009 was Judicial Referee Francis J. Frasier. Judge Weaver relied

file documents with the Hampton District Court on April 28 and 29, 2009. The judge present at

Judge Weaver was not party to any of the activity surrounding Mr. Pasquina's attempts to

another case, and his subsequent May 28, 2009, order dismissing the Vickery case.

chambers with Mr. Pasquina and Mr. Kobuszewski on May 27, 2009, initially with respect to

Judge Weaver testified about his involvement with the Vicke1y case, his meeting in

2. Han. Mark F. Weaver

actually did rely upon her characterization of Mr. Pasquina's demeanor in making its findings.

The Panel found Ms. Lamie's testimony to be credible. The Panel neither needed to nor

Tuccolo, No. 09-CV-90.

Clerk of Hampton District Court, she docketed the documents as Walter Vicke1y v. Joseph

receipt. Mr. Pasquina did not file a pro hac vice motion. After seeking the advice of John Clark,

a check from Mr. Pasquina written on his business account for the filing fee and issued him a

the writ and the"complaint" contained a signature for"William J. Kobuszewski." She accepted

handed Ms. Lamie a writ that he had filled in by hand along with his typed"complaint." Both

it out within her line of sight at a desk by the door of the clerk's office. lvfr. Pasquina then

summons. She testified that he then took out a blank writ of summons from his folder and filled

responded"no." She told him that she would not accept a"complaint" without a writ of p. 6 Page 6 of21

Reissued Finding~ 2, and his agreement on March 23, 2009, to serve as local counsel with Mr.

stipulated facts include his admission to practice law in New Hampshire and Massachusetts,

resulted in the Reissued Finding ofNo Misconduct but with Warnings as to him. Those

In his testimony Mr. Kobuszewski affirmed that he stipulated to a number of facts that

3. William J. Kobuszewski

of the conversation between Judge Frasier and Mr. Pasquina on April28, 2009.

the Panel, including Mr. Kobuszewski's and Nfr. Pasquina's testimony, exhibits, and a transcript

when making the May 28, 2009, order, he did not have access to all of the evidence available to

witness what transpired with Mr. Pasquina at the clerk's office on April28 and 29, 2009~ and

Vickery case was suppmied by District Court rules. The Panel noted that Judge Weaver did not

The Panel found Judge Weaver's testimony to be credible and that his dismissal of the

and continued that trial to allow the defendant to retain new counsel.

sign a writ of summons. Judge Weaver also denied the pro hac vice motion in the crinllnal case

that under District Comi rules only a New Hampshire attorney or one admitted pro hac vice may

relied in part on his understanding that on April28, 2009, Judge Frasier had aletied Mr. Pasquina

because no valid attorney of record had signed the writ of summons. In his order Judge Weaver

Judge Weaver dismissed the Vickery case on the basis that it was improperly filed

Mr. Kobuszewski's name to the Vickery pleadings.

Kobuszewski's name to pleadings initiating a civil matter. Mr. Pasquina admitted that he signed

Judge Weaver that he had given Mr. Pasquina pennission on the telephone to sign Nfr.

them about the circumstances sunounding the filing in the Vickery case. Mr. Kobuszewski told

Weaver testified that he called Mr. Pasquina and Mr. Kobuszewski into his chambers and asked p. 7 Page 7 of21

the case in its entirety. Id at 142.

Kobuszewski stated that Mr. Pasquina did not mention that Mr. Kobuszewski would take over

between Massachusetts and New Hampshire practice in filing and serving civil lawsuits. Nfr.

well. ld at 154, 161, 183. In that call, NIT. Kobuszewski also discussed some differences

168-70, 173. He recalled telling NIT. Pasquina during the call to file a pro hac vice motion as

Mr. Pasquina's handwriting included the notation"asst" which could mean"assented." ld. at

"under agency," and that the signature of Mr. Kobuszewski's name on the writ of summons in

filed with the court." ld. He stated that he gave NIT. Pasquina permission to sign his name

Kobuszewski testified"As in-state attorney in a pro hac vice motion, not in its entirety as it was

him permission to sign my name in that context." Jd When asked"in what context," Nfr.

Transcript at 140-41. NIT. Kobuszewski testified that"I do remember talking to him and giving

clerk's office would not let him do so, and the statute of limitations was going to expire.

that he had another case in Hampton District Court"for pro hac vice," he had tried to file it, the

afternoon on April 27. He said that in that call Mr. Pasquina stated he was calling from court,

NIT. Kobuszewski testified that he received a telephone call from NIT. Pasquina late in the

motion until May 22, after&fr. Kobuszewski reminded him to do so. Jd. ~~ 13, 14.

continued the Enslow trial to May 27. Jd ~ 11. Mr. Pasquina did not file his pro hac vice

in Federal Court" and would be filing his pro hac vice motion"shotily". Id ~ 10. The Court

and moved to continue the Enslow trial, noting that NIT. Pasquina was"engaged in a major trial

v. Enslow, No. 441-2009-CR-0043), Jd.~ 9. The next day Nfr. Kobuszewski filed his appearance

Pasquina in a driving while intoxicated criminal matter pending in Hampton District Court (State p. 8 Page 8 of21

the merits of the case.

permission without speaking with Mr. Vickery or reviewing the special declaration or assessing

Pasquina to contemporaneously file a pro hac vice motion. lvfr. Kobuszewski gave that

permission to lvfr. Pasquina to sign his name on the Vickery writ of summons, but also told Mr.

more serious sanction, from the PCC. The Panel found that Mr. Kobuszewski gave telephonic

notes that his testimony tracked his statements made in a stipulation that led to a wanung, but no

Overall, the Panel found lvfr. Kobuszewski's testimony to be credible, although the Panel

he wanted, and that Mr. Pasquina intended to settle the case himself. !d. at 145.

Pasquina responded that he had not done so but invited Mr. Kobuszewski to complete service if

Kobuszewski testified, he asked Mr. Pasquina whether he had made service of process. Mr.

with Mr. Kobuszewski's name, and the statement of Ms. Lamie. Id at 134-36. After that, Mr.

packet of materials relating to the Vickery matter, including the pleadings Mr. Pasquina signed

Enslow trial. Nfr. Kobuszewski testified that Clerk John Clark showed him for the first time a

On May 27lvfr. Kobuszewski and Mr. Pasquina arrived at Hampton District Court for the

situation. !d. at 17 6.

reference to the matter and said"oh, it's your case," which Nfr. Kobuszewski said was never the

received them. !d. at 146, 181. He testified that a woman in Mr. Pasquina's office found a

office a few days later, asking for copies of the documents from the civil matter, but never

Pasquina on April28 or the next day. !d. at 163, 178. He testified that he called Mr. Pasquina's

Mr. Kobuszewski denied that he had a follow-up telephone conversation with Mr. p. 9 Page 9 of21

Vickery matter as local counsel with Mr. Pasquina acting pro hac vice. I d. at 107, 115.

what he had heard from Mr. Kobuszewski: that Mr. Kobuszewski was going to serve in the

Kobuszewski. Jd at 114. Mr. DeHart found Mr. Pasquina's story notable in that it contradicted

that could be settled with a couple of telephone calls so would not be a lot of work for Mr.

case. I d. at 106-07. Mr. DeHart testified that Mr. Pasquina told him that this was a small case

Enslow case. Mr. Pasquina told him that he was not planning to be admitted pro hac vice in that

matter but instead wanted to give him the case as a reward for his local counsel service in the

told him that he was not looking to have Mr. Kobuszewski serve as local counsel in the Vickery

Mr. DeHart testified that he met with Mr. Pasquina on February 23,2010. Mr. Pasquina

February 2, 2010, written offer to meet in person. Ex. 10, 11.

on July 21 or August 26, 2009. Ex. 6, 8. Mr. Pasquina did accept Mr. DeHart's

matters. He testified that Mr. Pasquina did not respond substantively to requests for information

outlined for the Panel the procedure his office follows when investigating attorney discipline

Mr. DeHart testified that he was the Attorney Discipline Office's General Counsel. He

5. James L. DeHart

refenal testimony not specific enough to be helpful.

at 202-03,222. The Panel found Mr. Prevost's character testimony of limited use and the tort

Mr. Pasquina told Mr. Kobuszewski that he would"refer" an unspecified tort matter to him. ld

present during a conversation between Nfr. Pasquina and Mr. Kobuszewski during which time

for Mr. Pasquina based upon many years of personal experience. He also testified that he was

Mr. Prevost is an attorney admitted in Massachusetts. He testified as a character witness

4. Wesley Prevost p. 10 PagelO of21

Pasquina testified that he then got his secretary to change the signature lines on the"complaint"

entirely to JVIr. Kobuszewski. He called Mr. Kobuszewski and related the change to him. Mr.

The next morning, April29, Mr. Pasquina changed his mind and decided to refer the case

Kobuszewski told him that Mr. Pasquina could sign his name"on all the pleadings."

discussed how writs of summons are filed in New HampshiJe and how they are served. l'vir.

Mr. Pasquina testified that after he left the court he called Mr. Kobuszewski. The two

him that he could not file a case without a New Hampshire lawyer. Id. at 236, 250.

treated her rudely, and was trying to joke with her. She brought him to Judge Frasier, who told

prevent the statute of limitations from running. He spoke with Ms. Lamie but did not believe he

April28, 2009, to the Hampton District Court to file, not intending to handle the case but to

quickly. Mr. Pasquina stated that he drafted a"complaint" and hand delivered it on

New Hampshire. The statute of limitations was about to expire so he had to get the case filed

l'vir. Pasquina thought that the collision had occurred in Massachusetts, but it had occuJTed in

Mr. Pasquina testified that Walter Vickery's auto negligence matter then came to light.

Mr. Kobuszewski $1,500.00 for his local representation in the case.

to"get a New Hampshire lawyer to sit with me." Id at 235. Mr. Pasquina testified that he paid

lawyer but Mr. Enslow wanted to use l'vir. Pasquina, so Mr. Pasquina told him that he would need

District Court. He first suggested to l'vir. Enslow that he refer the case out to a New Hampshire

Enslow, paid him $3,000 to defend a driving while intoxicated charge pending in Hampton

Mr. Pasquina testified on his own behalf. He stated that an ongoing client, Russell

6. Edward F. Pasquina, Jr.

The Panel found Mr. DeHart's testimony to be credible. p. 11 Page 11 of21

with Mr. Kobuszewski on April28, and his general account of what transpired in the clerk's

commence an action in the Vickery case, his general recollection of the telephone conversation

The Panel found Mr. Pasquina's testimony about the Enslow case, the urgency to

responding because he did not know whether it had jurisdiction over him. !d. at 261.

With respect to his interaction with the ADO, :tvir. Pasquina testified that he delayed in

motion. !d. at 243-44.

Vickery pleadings. Mr. Pasquina testified that there was no mention at that time of a pro hac vice

Pasquina there was a problem with the way in which Mr. Pasquina had signed his name on the

District Court on May 27 when they arrived to try the Enslow case. Mr. Kobuszewski told Mr.

Mr. Pasquina then testified that he saw Mr. Kobuszewski in the parking lot of Hampton

the rules. !d. at 281.

sign the pleadings himself, but he thought the clerk's office might see it as a way to circumvent

not as an attorney. !d. at 254-55, 280, 290. He testified that he considered getting Mr. Vickery to

:tvir. Pasquina maintained that he filed the Vickery pleadings as an agent for:tvir. Kobuszewski,

plan was to have Mr. Kobuszewski make a few telephone calls to settle the case. !d. at 242-43.

signature on the writ to show it was not his signature. !d. at 241-42. Thereafter, Mr. Pasquina's

back to Ms. Lamie with the"complaint." He testified that he wrote"assented" next to the

that he needed a writ, so he filled out the writ in the clerk's office in plain sight and handed it

needed to file a pro hac vice motion. He responded that"all I am is a courier." She also told him

According to his testimony, at the court on April29 Ms. Lamie told Mr. Pasquina that he

whether he told Mr. Vickery about Mr. Kobuszewski's involvement. !d. at 289.

to Mr. Kobuszewski and went back to Hampton District Court. ld at 240. He did not recall p. 12 Page 12 of21

The judge then said"you might grab a New Hampshire lawyer that will just agree with you to

discussed the jurisdictional limits of the district and superior courts and the right to a juq trial.

committee. Because they've rewritten that mle, and it's veq strict." Id The judge then

might-it could ultimately be dismissed. You could have an issue with the professional conduct

attomey to file the writ now. He said"But if you sign it as an out -of-state attorney, I believe you

Mr. Pasquina responded"that's true. !d. at 4. Judge Frasier told him to get a New Hampshire

unless he files such a motion. Id Judge Frasier told him that he is"acting as an attomey" and

"read the whole rule, sir" relating to pro hac vice motions, and that"there's nothing I can do"

Friday or over the weekend." Exhibit 3 at 3. Judge Frasier told wfr. Pasquina that he should

expiring"and pending me acquiring New Hampshire counsel, which I agree to do promptly,

recorded as saying that he wants to file a"complaint" because the statute of limitations is

Judicial Referee Francis J. Frasier and Mr. Pasquina. In that conversation, Mr. Pasquina is

The Panel received the transcript of an April 28 tape recorded conversation between

1. Transcript of Exchange with Judge Frasier-Exhibit 3

The Panel found that certain exhibits submitted at the fmal hearing deserved special note.

D. Hearing Panel Final Hearing-Exhibits

rely upon wfr. Kobuszewski's New Hampshire bar admission to buy him some time.

consequences arising from the delay, hoped to settle the case in the near future, and plarmed to

matter until the eve of the expiration of the statute oflimitations, was concerned about the

Kobuszewski credible. The panel concluded that Mr. Pasquina delayed filing suit in the Vickery

with Mr. Kobuszewski on April29 or his alleged intent simply to tum the case over to Mr.

office on April 28 and 29 credible. The Panel did not fmd his testimony about his conversation p. 13 Page 13 of21 violation ofN.H. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c). If so, does this change the purporting to be signed by another but actually signed by him constitutes a these facts to determine whether the Respondent's attempt to file documents Panel finds these facts true, the Committee requests that the Hearing Panel review indicated"assented." See Hearing Panel Report at 10. Assuming that the Hearing pleadings appear to bear the"asst" notation, which the Hearing Panel found Vickery case. See Disciplinary Counsel's Exhibits 12-13. Neither of these Comt to file the Plaintiffs Complaint and Notice of Appearance of Counsel in the 1. Mr. Pasquina apparently was not allowed by the staff of the Hampton District Hearing Panel to address the following specific questions: circumstances of this matter the PCC remanded the matter for further proceedings before the counsel for the ADO and the respondent at oral argument, based on its equity power and the Record, the Hearing Panel Report and its recommendation as to sanction, and the arguments of Oral Argument before the PCC was held on May 17,2011. After consideration of the E. PCC Remand

the $125 filing fee in the Vickery matter and received a receipt from the clerk in his name.

Mr. Pasquina wrote a check to the Hampton District Court on his law firm's account for

3. Pasquina Check and Receipt-Exhibits 14 and 15

Kobuszewski were also actually signed by Mr. Pasquina, but without any additional notation.

believed meant"assent." The"complaint" and the appearance with the alleged signature of Mr.

office. The writ endorsement line contains a notation that appears to read"asst," which the Panel

signature was actually signed by Mr. Pasquina on April29 at the Hampton District Court clerk's

The hand written writ of summons form that includes Mr. Kobuszewski's alleged

2. Vickery Pleadings -Exhibits 12 and 13

the rule relating to pro hac vice admissions. Id at 7.

up early tomonow" to get someone to sign the writ. He again told J\tir. Pasquina to take a copy of

reach him. I've tried both cases up here." Id. at 5-6. Judge Frasier advised Mr. Pasquina"to get

sign the writ today." Mr. Pasquina responded:"No, I have one in mind. I haven't been able to p. 14 Page 14 of21

Pasquina attempted to mislead the court on April 29 as to who actually signed them, although the

signatures appear to be similar to that on the writ of summons and there is no indication Mr.

considering Exhibits 12 and 13 in the context of the events of April29 in finding that the

also considered the parties' Stipulation at~ 93, and that it had reached the same result in

that the events of April28 fmm the basis for a violation of Rule 8.4(c). In so finding the Panel

with his own name appearing, the Panel found it could not find by clear and convincing evidence

credibly testified that on April 28 the documents he planned to file contained signature blocks

signature block for Mr. Kobuszewski appearing on the subject documents and that Mr. Pasquina

Because the Panel found that there was no evidence in the record that there was any

involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

without any specific notation of assent (Exhibit 13) constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4( c); i.e.,

Pasquina's action of signing Mr.Xobuszewski's name to a"Complaint" and an appearance

focused on Exhibits 12 and 13 and Rule 8.4(c). The Hearing Panel first addressed whether lvlr.

Following the remand, based on the PCC's questions the Second Hearing Panel report

F. Second Hearing Panel Report Order on Motions at 2.

January 28, 2011. presentation of cumulative evidence previously presented to the Hearing Panel on testimony or evidence that is referenced in the Motion to Remand and to exclude The Hearing Panel Chair shall have the discretion to rule on admissibility of any is for this limited purpose, rather than for the purpose of relitigating this matter. to rule violations or its recommendation as to sanction in this matter. The remand determine whether this further evidence impacts the Hearing Panel's judgment as that the purpose of the remand is to consider the referenced evidence and to Respondent's Motion to Remand. The parties and the Hearing Panel are advised 2. The remand hearing shall be limited to the issues and evidence referenced in

Hearing Panel's recommendation as to sanction? p. 15 Page 15 of21

him with"billing call details". Stipulation'If 42, Stipulation Exhibit E. 4. Mr. Pasquina's office telephone service arrangement with Verizon did not supply

out. Take no further action". Stipulation'If 43, Stipulation Exhibit F. 3. A notation on l'vfr. Pasquina's Vickery file that states in part"Case will be referred

Stipulation Exhibits A and B. counsel, not Mr. Pasquina, will handle the case. Stipulation'lf'lf 23-29, 35, filed with Hampton District Court which essentially state that New Hampshire Mr. Pasquina's office computer showing two versions of a draft motion never 2. Documents retrieved from Mr. Pasquina's office file and from a backup disk from

Exhibit G,'If 11. the New Hampshire court had rejected the filing. Stipulation'If 46, Stipulation Hampshire lawyer with a Polish-sounding name would take over the case, because 1. The sworn affidavit of Mr. Vickery stating that Mr. Pasquina told him that aNew

found significant:

The Stipulation includes new facts with respect to the Rule 8.1 (a) violation the Panel

to Mr. Kobuszewski on April29, 2009. First Report, pp. 6, 8, 10, 12-13.

Judge Frasier, and the absence of records of a telephone call that Mr. Pasquina testified he made

false based on l'vfr. Kobuszewski's testimony, the transcript of Mr. Pasquina's discussion with

case to Mr. Kobuszewski as of Apri129, 2009. The Panel determined that this statement was

him at the February 23,2010, meeting: that l'vfr. Pasquina planned to tum over the entire Vickery

In its First Reissued Report, the Panel chose to believe Mr. DeHart as to what l'vfr. Pasquina told

Hearing Panel with respect to the violation of Rule 8.l(a) and the parties' Stipulation as to facts.

respondent's counsel, Peter Beeson, submitted with his Assented-to Motion to Remand to

In considering the PCC's second question, the Panel focused on new information the

knowing and flagrant violation of court rules.

Panel found that his behavior, including his execution of Exhibits 12 and 13, constituted a p. 16 Page 16 of21

obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no

Rule 3 .4( c) states in petiinent part:"A lawyer shall not ... (c) knowingly disobey an

8.1 (b) on the following bases:

considering the parties' Stipulation, the PCC finds that Mr. Pasquina violated Rules 3 .4( c) and

considering the above stated facts found by the Hearing Panel in its two hearings, and

therefore, on the Panel's Reissued Final Hearing Report and its Second Hearing Panel Report,

The PCC agrees with the Hearing Panel's conclusions and findings on remand. Based,

Rule 8.l(b).

As a result, the Panel found by clear and convincing evidence that Nfr. Pasquina violated

Stipulation~~ 73-75.

Mr. Pasquina's other statements made during their February 23, 2010, meeting.

attorney. Had that draft motion been submitted, Mr. DeHart could have considered the truth of

motions to Mr. DeHart showing Mr. Pasquina's intent to refer out the case to a New Hampshire

importantly, the Stipulation includes an admission that Mr. Pasquina failed to produce the draft

information during Mr. DeHmi's investigation of the case. Stipulation~~ 67-71. More

The Stipulation includes admissions concerning Mr. Pasquina's delays and failure to produce

Pasquina violated Rule 8.1 (b) by failing to respond to a demand for information from the ADO.

The panel also considered that the parties stipulated to an alternate charge that lvfr.

statement of material fact to Mr. DeHart on February 23,2010.

that it could not find clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Pasquina knowingly made a false

Based on those facts and reconsidering other facts already in the record, the Panel found p. 17 Page 17 of21

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

Standards lists the following factors for consideration in imposing sanctions:"(a) the duty

for guidance. Feld's Case, 149 N.H. 18,28 (2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 815 (2003). The

not adopted the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions ("Standards"), it looks to them

Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503, 512-13 (2005). Although the New Hampshire Supreme Court has

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

offending attorney. Rather, its purpose is to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the

The FCC is mindful that attorney discipline is not intended to inflict punishment on an

Pasquina also violated Rule 8.4(a).

Based on the above violations, the FCC finds clear and convincing evidence Mr.

violated Rule 8.1 (b).

information. Accordingly, the FCC also finds clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Pasquina

cooperate with the ADO through failing to respond to lawful and appropriate requests for

disciplinary authority[.]" The record is replete with instances of Mr. Pasquina's failure to

. . . (b) knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or

connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not

Rule 8.l(b) states in pertinent part:"An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in

admitted pro hac vice to file his lawsuit constitutes a knowing violation of Rule 3 .4( c).

hac vice despite Judge Frasier having specifically told him in advance that he needed to be

actions in connection with signing Mr. Kobuszewski' s name to a pleading when not admitted pro

valid obligation exists." The FCC fmds clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Pasquina's p. 18 Page 18 of21

§ 9 .22. By the same token, the mitigating factors set forth in the Standards also are largely

Standards except for Mr. Pasquina's substantial experience in the practice oflaw. Standards

pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, or other factors to be considered when applying the

As to aggravating and mitigating factors, Mr. Pasquina's infractions did not constitute a

dismissed as untimely files.

admission in New Hampshire caused his client actual harm because the client's case was

record also establishes that iVIr. Pasquina's attempt to shortcut the rules goveming pro hac vice

information from a disciplinary authority conceming alleged professional misconduct. The

obligation under the rules of a court and the duty to respond appropriately to demands for

info1mation was also knowing. Both duties are clear: the duty not to knowingly disobey an

as to its jurisdiction over him indicates that his failure to respond to the lawful demand for

need to respond to the ADO's lawful demand for information on the basis that he was not clear

violation of Rule 3.4 was knowing. Furthermore, given Mr. Pasquina's assertion that he did not

Judge Frasier prior to filing the subject pleadings in the Hampton District Court, Mr. Pasquina's

Standards§ 6.22. In this case the record establishes that given Mr. Pasquina's colloquy with

party, and 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 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that he or she is

entitled"Abuse of the Legal Process":

6.0, entitled"Violations of Duties Owed to the Legal System," states as follows in its Subsection

The Standards offers guidance with respect to the appropriate baseline sanction. Section

Section 3.0.

misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." Standards, supra, p. 19 Page 19 of21

this proceeding and outcome. . shall disclose the Hampton District Court's denial of his pro hac vice motion and Hampshire at any time, in the associated affidavit or other pleadings .Mr. Pasquina 5. If Mr. Pasquina subsequently moves for pro hac vice admission in New

Overseers or equivalent authority. 4. The above stayed suspension shall be reported to the Massachusetts Board of Bar

the one year in which he is prohibited from practicing law in New Hampshire. days of the assessment or the stay of the suspension shall be lifted and added to 3. .Mr. Pasquina is assessed the costs of this proceedings, to be paid within thirty

agreement. Hampshire as explicated above for a period of one year, and his fulfillment of that conditioned on .Mr. Pasquina's agreement that he shall not practice law in New 2. Pursuant to the parties' voluntaty stipulation, the stay of the suspension is

period of six months. This suspension shall be stayed for one year. 1. .Mr. Pasquina is suspended from the practice oflaw in New Hampshire for a

orders as follows:

law, the parties' stipulation, and the purposes of attorney discipline in New Hampshire, the PCC

Taking into consideration the above four part Standards analysis, New Hampshire case

Stipulation~ 115, at 31.

parties or claims and shall not appear in any such capacity before any coutt in New Hampshire.

or assist anyone else in the practice of law in connection with any case involving New Hampshire

condition ofthis stay would be that, for a period of one year, .Mr. Pasquina shall not practice law

suspension that is stayed for one year. The parties have further voluntarily stipulated that the

parties have stipulated that the baseline sanction of suspension should be reduced to a six month

Apparently, in recognition of Mr. Pasquina's violation of the rules and Standards, the

inapplicable to .Mr. Pasquina's circumstances. See Standards§ 9.32. p. 20 Page 20 of21

this matter.

Mr. Pasquina shall pay all costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of V. COSTS

steps taken by Mr. Pasquina to comply with the above requirements. courts, and others, and maintain complete and organized records of the b. Retain copies of all notice letters issued to clients, opposing counsel,

as of the date of this Order. administrative jurisdictions in which Nlr. Pasquina is admitted to practice pursuant to Paragraph (7) above, and (ii) a list of all state, federal, and a. Provide the ADO with: (i) copies of all notice letters issued to clients

9. On or before 30 days of the effective date of this Order, Mr. Pasquina shall:

any specific matter. necessary to conclude the matter, and request an extension of time to complete shall advise the PCC of the nature of each such matter, the length of time Hampshire practice but which can be concluded shortly thereafter, Mr. Pasquina reasonably be concluded by the above required closing date for his New 8. If in connection with the previous paragraph Mr. Pasquina has matters that cannot

property. which they are entitled, calling attention to any urgency for obtaining the files or represented in pending matters all original file contents and other property to and transfer of their files and make available to all New Hampshire clients being need new counsel after that date, and shall instruct them regarding the handling practice by a date no later than 30 days from the date of this Order, that they will this Order and shall advise them that he will be closing his New Hampshire New Hampshire clients Mr. Pasquina shall apprise his New Hampshire clients of within 14 calendar days of the effective date of this Order. In his written notice to 7. Nlr. Pasquina shall comply with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 37(13)(a)

matters for new or existing clients in New Hampshire. 6. Upon the effective date of this Order, Mr. Pasquina shall not take on any new p. 21 Page 21 of21

File Peter G. Beeson, Esquire James L. Kruse, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

8.4(a). If all of the conditions of the stay are met, the suspension shall not be imposed.

year as to Edward F. Pasquina's violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c), 8.l(b), and

For all of the above reasons, the Committee issues a six month suspension, stayed for one