Keri J. Marshall (2012)

attorney in New Hampshire for 25 years. Hearing Transcript ("Trans."), 2. The Respondent,KeriMarshall("Marshall")has been a practicing

to theremaining charges. from the Attorney Discipline Office ("ADO"). The following facts pertain submission ofan erroneousaffidavitas well as her response to arequest standardofconductand (2) violationofRule 8.1concerningMarshall's Marshall'ssupervisionofherstaffso as to ensure they met anattorney's Charges that reduced the claims to (1) violationofRule 5.3, concerning On the eveofthe hearing, however, the ADO filed an Amended Noticeof professional conduct violationsagainst the Respondent, Keri Marshall. 1. The ADO filed a NoticeofCharges that included several alleged

This establishes the facts by clear and convincing evidence. The facts are as follows: The Committee voted to accept the findingsoffact as found by the Hearing Panel Report. I. FINDINGS OF FACT The Committee makes factualfindingsand rulingsad detailedbelow: Strickhartwere alsopresent. Richard Y.Uchida,Esquire, Counsel for theRespondent.Keri J. Marshall, Esquire and Gladys Oral Argument waspresentedby James L. Kruse, AssistantDisciplinaryCounsel and Wellman-Ally. Gerald A. Daley was absent. Alan J.Cronheim was recusedand was not present. Cole, Thomas PConnair,RichardH. Darling, James R. Martin,RichardD. Sagerand Lisa Chair, BenettePizzimenti,Vice Chair, Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair,Susan R. Chollet,David N. Argumentand deliberated the above matter.Members present included MargaretH. Nelson, On October 16,2012,theProfessionalConduct Committee (the"Committee") heardOral

Alan J. Cronheim Holly B. Fazzino,Administrator Thomas P. Connair * non attorneymember David N. Cole LisaWellman-Ally Susan R. Chollet* RichardD. Sager 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* MargaretH. Nelson, Chair 4 ChenellDrive,Suite 102 Gerald A. Daley*

CONTINUE and, as such,Petitioner'smotion was not"assentedto." Id. prior toPetitioner'sfilingofherASSENTED TO MOTION TO motion,Shepard contendedthat he "was neitherconsultednor contacted continue a hearing scheduled for that September.Exhibit20. In that In a pleading datedAugust 18,2008,Shepard filed hisown motionto

call toShepard was evermade. Trans.V. I at 5. beginningofthehearingin thisproceeding,thepartiesstipulatedthat no motion statedthathe had been contactedand did indeed assent. Id. At the though,dissonantwithstandardofficepractice,nothing in the bodyofthe letterto thecourt,reflectedthe motionashavingDanielShepard'sassent, August 20,2008. Exhibit19. Themotion'stitle,as wellas thecover PortsmouthFamily Division, seeking to continue ahearingscheduled for In July2008, Marshall filed an"AssentedtoMotion to Continue" in the

charged or not. Id. at 21, 74. testified that they billedforeachtask they complete whether it was to be thattime anddescribeit. Id. at11,70.Both Mackey andParlatore notationsofthecall,thoughtheirbillingrecordsforthe day mightcapture member's telephonecall; at the timeoftheseevents,staffmade no other A statementofassent within the bodyofthemotion memorializedthestaff responsibility to contactthe other side and seekassent.Trans. V.I at 9, 69. the staffmember who transcribeda motion-to-continuebore the 5. Though notformallywritten,standardoffice policygenerallyrequiredthat

days per week, perParlatore'spart-timearrangementwithMarshall. whichkeptMackey occupiedfulltimeand Parlatoreoccupiedpartsoftwo office by 4:30a.m. and spentup toseveralhoursdictating,thefruitsof dictation. Trans. V.I at8,68. On a typical day,Marshallarrived at her At all relevant times, both served primarily to transcribe Marshall's 2011 and Rebecca Mackey, from 2005 into2011. Trans,V.Iat 6-8, 67. 4. Among other staff,Marshallemployed KathyParlatorefrom 1999 into

himself.Trans,Volume I ("V.I"), at 221. and sanctions. Id. at16. AfterJanuary,2008,DanielShepardrepresented bitterand became protractedand involvedseveralmotionsforcontempt indivorceproceedingsagainstherhusband,Daniel.The proceedingsgrew 3. In late2005/early2006,MarshallundertooktorepresentPatriciaShepard

marital andcivillitigation. Id. at 80. Hampshire. Id. at11-12.Marshall'spracticeincludes estateplanning, solepartnerofMarshallLaw Office locatedin East Kingston,New Volume II ("V. II") at10).Marshallhas spentmostofherpracticeas the p. 3 Page 3of12

ParlatoresignedtheNovember 5 affidavitunderpenaltyand painof Assentedto Motion toContinue."Exhibit2 atBates75, paragraph 2. of11:30AM and spoke withMr. Shepardand securedhis assentforthe Mr. Shepardon oraroundthedateofJuly2,2008attheapproximatetime November 5,2009. Exhibit 3.Parlatore'saffidavitswore: "Itelephoned Marshallmet his challenge, enclosing an affidavitofParlatoredated Exhibit2 atBates 60. In aletterto theADO dated November 12,2009 challengedMarshalltoprovidean affidavitdirectly fromParlatore. which she attestedconcerningwhatParlatoredid or did not do.Shepard PatriciaShepard'saffidavitrevealedno foundationfortheinformationto

indicatesthathe did assent." Id. Shepardand securedhisassent,"and,further,that"the staff member Marshall LawOffice,Kathy Parlatore,indicates that she telephoned Mr. PatriciaShepard,paragraph24 ofwhichreiteratedthat"a staff memberof 9. Marshall included with her April 3 letter anaffidavitfrom her client,

Id.

the disputed motion to continue,Marshallwrotethat: 8. MarshallrespondedtoShepard'scomplaint.Exhibit 1. With respectto

motion. Id. from Marshall'sofficehad contactedhim or thathe assentedto the and that he assented. Id. Sheparddisputed thatParlatoreor anyone else representationsto theFamilyDivisionthatherstaffhad contactedShepard Shepardincludedamong hismyriadclaimsMarshall'sprior ("ADO") by lettertofilea complaintagainstMarshall.Exhibit1. 7. On March 5,2009,Shepardcontactedthe Attorney Discipline Office

Shepard'sassent that this matterarises. theobjection.Trans.V. I at86-7.It is outofthedisputeconcerning obtainedassent, but does notrecallMarshallquestioning her at the timeof 20. ParlatoretestifiedthatMarshall asked her about whether she had thatKathyParlatoreofherofficehad securedShepard'sassent.Exhibit staffhad contactedShepardandhe assentedto the motion, andfurther, 6. Marshallrespondedwith anobjection,among otherthings,statingthather p. 4 Page 4of12

(2)whetherMarshallhad anyotherrecordsat her office that might assumed was atypographicalerrorand re-submither affidavit, and d. DeVito asked Marshall(1) to haveParlatorecorrect what DeVito

have occurredon July 24. Id. allofthat, Marshallconcludedthat Parlatore's call to Shepardmust the instructions for the motion on July 24. Trans. V. I at 28.With worked on July 23 and 24 andthatMarshallwould have dictated dictation,revieweda calendar, and toldDeVito thatParlatorehad noticedateofJuly 22,explainedher officeproceduresconcerning acknowledgedthat the date could not be correct given the hearing continuancepertained. Id.; Trans. V. I at 281. Marshall have obtainedShepard'sassent and the hearing notice towhich the particular,thediscrepancybetween the dateParlatoreswore to c. DeVito asked Marshall about the ParlatoreAffidavitand, in

many as ten to twelve different topics. Trans V. II at 45. consternationofMarshall. Id. at 294-96. The interviewcovered as who played an active role in the interview to the hindsight Present also was an extern in theADO named Mary Beth Misluk 2010, DeVito and Marshallmet atDeVito'soffice. Id. at278-79. attorney subject to the complaint to meet with her. Id. On April 7, V. I at 271.DeVito'sreviewtypicallyincludesinvitingthe her job includes evaluating complaints such as Shepard's. Trans. b. Janet DeVito servesas AssistantGeneral Counsel forthe ADO and

repeating words to the effect that "it is no big deal." Id. at 97. to Parlatore, Marshall allayed Parlatore'sconcernsin partby the date and she signed the affidavit. Trans. V. I at 94.According In any event,Parlatoretestified that she assumedMarshallchecked Parlatore's affidavits,Mackey'stestimonysupportedParlatore's. however, as set forth below, with respect to at least oneof Marshall denied any such conversations, e.g., Trans. V. II at107, ifthe continuance at issue pertainedto the medical issue. Id. V. I at 92-3.Parlatorerepeatedly testified that she asked Marshall needing a continuance based on aclient'smedical reason. Trans. and had in hermind an associationbetween callingShepard and and Marshall,Parlatorelacked certainty about the dateofthe call thereafter in which the disputedShepardmotion arosebetween her a. Parlatoretestifiedthatwiththisaffidavit,as with everyinstance

Exhibit19. which the continuance pertained did not issue until July22,2008. Shepard- July2,2008- couldnot becorrect:the noticeofthehearingto perjuryand Mackeynotarizedit, but thedateParlatoreswore shecalled p. 5 Page 5of12

in theaffidavit.Trans V. I at 39.While Parlatoreultimatelydid signthe thetestimony,describing howParlatoreexpressed concern about the date dateofher contact to Shepard. Trans. V. I at 100.Mackey corroborated the second affidavitcaused her concern because she was not sure ofthe and even credibilityon some issues,Parlatoretestifiedunequivocallythat V. I at 282-83.What is more, though Parlatore'stestimonylackedclarity that he hadneverbeen contacted,much lessgivenhis assent. Kg, Trans other issues, on the motion to continue andShepard'spersistent contention forcorroboratingevidence. The ADO left no doubtofits focus, among 10. Yet Marshall had good reasonto turn herofficeupside down in a search

clerk could produce the necessary information. Id. at 54, 85. employee; indeed,Marshallwas not certainwhether her billing but Marshall did not at that time request suchinformationfrom her employ a billing clerk whopossessesthe facilityMarshalllacks, electronic billingrecords.Trans.V. II at 51-3, 85. Marshall does she lacks the facility with computers to allow her to browse her records since she does not keep copiesofbills in client files and In fact, Marshall lacked the capability toreviewmuch ofherbilling records or other materials thatmighthave shed light on the issue. immediatelyafter the meeting withDeVito,time sheets,billing such recordsexistedfor her to search,Marshall did not review, affidavit.Trans V. I at 285.Though Marshallacknowledged that Parlatore's call to Shepard other than thesecond Parlatore f. At thetime,DeVito received no corroboratingevidenceof

herunderstandingwas not correct.Exhibit6. did not requireanythingfurtherand asked DeVito to advise herif Parlatoreaffidavit,Marshall stated herunderstandingthatDeVito procedure." Id. atparagraph4. In her letter enclosingthe second priorto filing motions tocontinue.I followed the office calling Mr. Shepard as it is theofficepolicy to requestconsent 2008, it was in fact July24,2008,"Id. atparagraph2, and "I recall affidavitwhereinI stated that I contacted Mr. Shepard on July 2, swore that "[t]here was a typographical errorinmy previous reflecteda few revisions from the first, but, in particular,Parlatore second Parlatoreaffidavit.Exhibit6. The second affidavit e. By letter datedApril13,2010,Marshallforwardedto DeVito a

V. I at 305. made a verybroadrequestto bring me anything she had."Trans. at 283.As DeVito characterized it,"[i]t'smy recollectionthat I searchfor any proof that the calltoShepardactuallyoccurred. Id. at 282.Marshallexpresseddoubt, but DeVitoencouragedher to confirmthat a call to Shepardhad actually been made. Trans. V. I p. 6 Page 6of12

establishestherulesviolationsby clearandconvincingevidence.The violationsare asfollows: TheCommitteevotedtoaccepttherulingsoflawasfoundbytheHearingPanelReport.This

PCC Record Tab 21 (Hearing Panel Report) pp. 1-8.

probably never occurred. a telephonecall toShepard,and (3)thephonecallMarshallhadasserted disputedmotion tocontinue,(2) nobillingrecordsor time sheetsrevealed investigation revealed that (1)Mackey,not Parlatore, prepared the earlier. Trans V. II at148,156;Exhibit 9 (Bates1114-1116).Marshall's should have conducted in responseto the ADO's April requestifnot Marshall to finally conduct theinvestigationthat the Panel finds she when she reviewed the reportofParlatore's police interview, prompted 13. That revelation,which Marshalllearned for the firsttime in May 2011

Id. losing her job should she not complywith Marshall's affidavit requests. signedthe affidavitbecauseshetrustedMarshalland also that shefeared Shepard. Id. Among otherreasons,Parlatoretold the officer that she confessedthatinfactshe could not confirm thatshe made the callto story, but, when confrontedwith certain implausibilities inherent, OfficerinterviewedParlatore.Exhibit13. At first,Parlatorestuckto her swearing" atMarshall'soffice. On October6,2010,a Kingston Police Kingston Police Departmentwhere he filed a complaint alleging "false issue, Daniel Shepard continuedto agitate, moving from the ADO to the 12. Though Marshalldidnothingfurtherto get to the bottom of theShepard

earnest for anything that might bear on the immediate issue. technical viewoftheADO's request, but would conduct a search in Presumably, in that situation, an attorneywould not take a very limited and includedwhether Marshall'sofficeever contactedhim forhisassent. ADO was investigatinga complaintagainsther and that the ADOfocus "anycorroboratingevidence"a broadterm,butMarshallknewthat the toShepard.Thatcontention,however,lackspersuasiveforce.Not onlyis her to requestofParlatore"anycorroboratingevidence"ofParlatore's call meetingon theParlatoreaffidavitissuereflectonly that the ADO asked examinationofDeVito, thatDeVito'sand herextern'snotesofthe 11. For her part, Marshall appearstocontend,through hercounsel'scross

surprising. and there, evenifshe remained unawareofParlatore'sconcern, is affidavit,Marshall'sdisinclinationto get to the bottomofthe issue then p. 7 Page 7 of12

she submitted a second Parlatoreaffidavitthatcontinued inthefictionalassertion her records that would have shed light on the alleged Shepard call. As a result, directedParlatoreto do so, andmade no seriousefforttofindotherevidencein to correct the misapprehension. Instead, she simply revised the affidavit or appearthatMarshall,confrontedby onemistakenaffidavit,took any serioussteps in a position to have discovered that theShepardcall never occurred. It does not ADO's broad request for any other evidenceof the call to Shepard, put Marshall misapprehensionto be theproductof atypographicalerror, theerror,coupledwith fact that the call never happened at all. While Marshall may have believed the the recordsin her officethatwould have ledhernot to acorrecteddate,but to the Marshall knewofthe misapprehension but failed to conduct the typeofreviewof misapprehension"known" toMarshall,the second affidavit did in that by then, In this regard, evenifthe first Parlatore affidavit did not create a

misapprehension concerning the dates recited in the Parlatore affidavit. evidencethatMarshallviolatedRule 8.1(b) by failing tocorrecta thesecond sentenceofRule 8.1(b), the Panel finds byclearand convincing 8.1(b)charge.While it may beacademicsincethe Panel has found a violation of positionthat, through that charge,putMarshallon notice of the alternate Rule observes that it did charge Marshall with a violationofRule 8.1(a), and takes the of a specific charge precludes the Panel from anyfinding.In response, the ADO the hearing concerning sanctions, Marshall's counsel contended that the absence based on a failure todisclosea fact necessary tocorrecta misapprehension,and at The ADO did not specifically charge Marshall with an 8.1(b)violation

persuasive. Parlatoreaffidavitasked DeVito tocontactherifshe needed anythingelse, are not correctedParlatoreaffidavit,and (2) that the cover letterenclosingtherevised fact defenses, that (1)DeVito'srequest was very narrow andsoughtonly a Parlatore prepare a second affidavit and submit that to the ADO). Her after-theon the alleged Shepard call, Marshall did virtually nothing (other than to have to search formuch laterMarshallfound and produced) thatwould have shed light affidavit,ratherthanconducta searchfor records(which,when finallymotivated responseto DeVito's request for evidencethat would corroborate Parlatore's that the ADO has proved this violation by clear and convincing evidence. In respondto a lawful demand forinformationfrom the ADO and the Panel finds The Amended NoticeofCharges refers specifically to an alleged failure to

disciplinaryauthority. knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand forinformationfrom a known by the person to have arisen in the disciplinary proceedings, or by Rule 8.1(b) by failing to disclose a fact necessary to correct amisapprehension Rule 8.1(b)comprisestwo disjunctivecomponents. An attorneyviolates

correctthemisapprehension,evenifthroughherown lackofdiligence,fallswithintheplainlanguageoftherule. be enoughifthelawyerknows thatthemisapprehensionhasariseninthematter.Underthatconstruction,Marshall'sfailureto correct.Thus,oneconstructionoftherulewould notrequirealawyerto"knowingly"failtodiscloseafactnecessary.Itwould 1Notably,by itsterms,thefirstsentenceofRule8.1(b)doesnotincludea"knowing"componentwithrespecttothefailureto

disciplinaryproceedingslikelywould nothaveoccurredat all. misrepresentationin theFamilyDivisionand ADO proceedings;indeed, made. Had such a system been inplace,Marshallwouldnot haveperpetuatedthe challenged,Marshallcouldnoteasilyconfirmwhethera call hadactuallybeen state- anylawyerin a busyofficecouldmake thaterror.The issue is that, when practice " Id. The issueis notthatthemotionwas filedin itsambiguous Trans. V. II at 50. Marshall acknowledged "I absolutely can seethat'snot a good times,Mackey would transcribean entiretape prior to making a call for assent. memorialized. Marshallherselfexpressed surprise atMackey's testimony that, at themotion,enhancingthelikelihoodthat assentmight not be attained or more,those calls did not always occurcontemporaneouslywith thetranscribingof motion itself, in other words, exposes the flaw inMarshall'ssystem. What is "assented to" lacked any such statement in the bodyofthe motion. The disputed in the motions themselves. Yet the disputed Shepard motion, whileentitled practicecalledfor staff to makethe callsand fortheoutcomesto bememorialized they had calledforassent.At the timeof theShepardincident,Marshall's office a notation in the file - through which she and her staff could later confirm that Marshall violated Rule 5.3(a) by failing to have in place a system - such as

compatible with the professionalobligationsofthe lawyer. reasonableassurance that theperson'sconduct is ensurethatthe firm has ineffectmeasures giving authority in a lawfirm...shall make reasonable efforts to Rule 5.3(a) provides that a lawyer with managerial

convincing evidence as follows. Conduct. The Panel finds that Marshall violated Rule 5.3(a) and (b) byclearand efforts to ensure that herstaffsconduct comports with the RulesofProfessional subordinate non-lawyers, and requires, generally speaking, that a lawyer make Rule 5.3 imposesrequirementson managingattorneys with respect to their

it.1 consciousness then at her fingertips with some effort, that would have corrected knew oftheADO's misapprehension and failed to disclose a fact,ifnot in her - amisapprehension- that a call toShepardeveroccurred.In short, Marshall p. 9 Page 9of12

4. Are there any aggravating or mitigating circumstances?

misconduct? (Was there a serious or potentially serious injury?); and 3. What was the extent ofthe actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's

or negligently?); 2. What was the lawyer'smentalstate? (Did the lawyer actintentionally,knowingly,

system, or the profession?); 1. What ethical duty did the lawyerviolate? (A duty to a client, the public, the legal

step analysis, namely: Responsibility, StandardsforImposingLawyer Sanctions (1992) ("Standards"), there is afour- In accordance with theAmerican Bar Association'sCenter forProfessional

PCC Record Tab 21,Hearing Panel Reportpp. 9-13.

violatedRule 8.4(a). By virtueofthe above violations, the Panel also finds that Marshall

to thevariousParlatoreaffidavitswas rushed and notdesignedtoensureaccuracy. was accurate to the bestofParlatore'sunderstanding.Instead,theprocessthat led that by failing to take reasonable measures to ensure that what Parlatore swore to certainofthecontents,even dates. Yet, in hersupervisorycapacityshe didjust by signing an affidavit- a sworn document- in which she was not absolutely been obtained. Marshall could not comply with her ownprofessionalobligations documented those measures when responding to an allegation that no assent had staffto confirm that they actually did contact the other side for assent and put in place a system that would have allowed Parlatore or any otherofMarshall's had beenobtained.Yet in her supervisory capacity she didjustthat by failing to Court and opposing parties by claiming assent when she could not be sure assent obligations.Marshall could not comply with her professional obligations to the ensure thatParlatore'sconduct was compatible withMarshall'sown professional MarshallviolatedRule 5.3(b) because she failed to make any realeffortto

the professionalobligationsofthe lawyer." to make"reasonableeffortstoensurethat theperson'sconduct iscompatiblewith Rule 5.3(b) requires a lawyer with supervisory authority over a non-lawyer

2Entitled"KeriJ.Marshall'sMemorandum to theProfessionalConductCommittee.

disciplinaryAuthority. See HearingPanelReport,pp.10-12. determinedMarshallknowinglyfailedtorespondto alawfuldemand forinformationfroma thanknowinglyasthestandardreflectsit." HearingPanelReportat 15.Yet,thePanel R. Prof.Conduct8.1(b)and 5.3(a)and (b),butrather"Marshallactedmore outofnegligence determinedtheactionsofMarshallwerenot"knowingly"forthepurposeofviolationsofN.H. Withthatbeingsaid,theCommitteeisdeferringtothefindingsofthePanelwhereinit

cooperation. ADO's investigationisnotto beconstruedas asubstituteforherrequired counsel.Similarly,herexpressionofremorseoverherresistanceto the Shepardwellbeforeshewas likelyadvisedtodo sobyherlearned AlthoughnotrequiredbytheRules,sheshouldhaveapologizedtoMr. c. Finally,Marshallappearedtofailtotakeresponsibilityforhermisconduct.

augmentedby herdemeanoratthehearingbeforetheCommittee. annoyancethanamatterofprofessionalresponsibility,whichwas isapparentshetreatedherdealingswiththe ADO asmore ofan b. Her failuretofullycooperatewiththe ADO isevidentfromtherecord.It

extentofbeingprecludedfromclaimingignoranceorinexperience. in theprofession.Clearlyany lawyerwith thistenureis skilledto the a. Marshallhassubstantialexperiencein thepracticeoflaw, having25years

2. AggravatingFactors.

contextoftheheateddivorceproceedingsin whichthey werebothembroiled. themore accurate,thenMr. Shepardwouldhavebeendeemed a liar,especiallywithinthe doubtregardingMr. Shepard'shonestyand integrity.Clearlyifthecourtdeemed herstorytobe availablerecordsand failuretoproperlyquestionheroffice staffleadto theexistenceofan airof Shepardinparticular.Marshall'sarguablylackadaisicalapproachtoresearchingherown readilymisconduct,the CommitteefindsMarshall'sactionscausedharm to thelegalprofession,and Mr. 1. As to the extentoftheactualorpotentialinjury caused by the lawyer's

following numbered caveats. Uchidain his October16,2012 memorandum2 ("Memorandum") to the Committee, with the The Committeegenerallyconcurswith theanalysisand argumentsprofferedby Mr.

expenses in investigating andprosecutingthismatter. affidavitofclarification/explanationto therelevantCircuitCourt,andreimbursethe ADO forits publiccensure,withtheconditionthatsheengagean officemanagementconsultant,providean AssistantDisciplinaryCounselKruserecommendssuspension.Mr. Uchidaadvocatesfora Duringitsdeliberations,theCommitteeconsideredall levelsofpossiblesanctions. p. 11 Page 11 of12

indicated. involvementofthisCommittee,and possiblyfurtherremedialmeasuresand/orsanctions,are engagementtoindicatewhetherMarshallhasachievedsatisfactoryresults,orwhetherfurther thisCommitteeat theendof theinitialorextendedtermof theofficemanagementconsultant's oftheofficemanagementconsultanton thesame termsand conditions.The ADO shallreportto proficiencyorcompetencyrequired,theADO may requireup toanothersixthmonth engagement Marshall'scompliancewiththisparagraph.IftheADO isnotsatisfiedMarshallhasachievedthe consultantshallprovideareporttotheADO attheconclusionofthe6month periodindicating softwareupon whichherofficeandstaffrelyforday-to-dayoperations.The officemanagement operationofherofficebillingprogram,and achievealevelofcompetencyintheoperationofall managementtechniquestoensureMarshall- especiallybeingasolepractitioner- isproficientin foraperiodofnotlessthansixmonths,and shallconcentrateon thedevelopmentofoffice laterwiththeADO - to belacking.Therefore,theofficemanagementconsultantshallbeengaged - specificallywithregardtocommunicationswithopposingcounseland thecourtsystem,and measureisindicated.The CommitteespecificallyfindsMarshall'sofficemanagementoversight hasvoluntarilyagreedtothisremedialmeasure,andtheCommitteeconcurstheneedforsucha censure,anofficemanagementconsultantapprovedby AssistantDisciplinaryCounsel.Marshall Marshallshallengage,at herexpenseandwithin30daysof thedateofthispublic

Public Censurepursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 37A,1(E)(1)(d).

against Marshall: Basedupon thereasonssetforthabove,theCommitteeissuesthefollowingsanction

certain remedialmeasure,isappropriate. aggravatingandmitigatingfactors,suggestthat thesanctionof PublicCensure,along with Nonetheless,theCommittee concurs the facts in this case,combined with a balanceof

the workingsoftheTimeslipsprogram software. relatively easily produced at any time, given areasonablelevelofcompetency and knowledgeof frustration for the ADO,especiallywhen the records werediscovered,and found to have been This lackofattentionMarshallgave to theADO's inquiry wasclearlya sourceof

Timeslips billingprogram software were not consulted earlier in the ADOinvestigativeprocess. records, it remains amystery to theCommittee why others havinggreaterproficiencyin using the times. Although Marshall apparently did not possess sufficientcomputer acumen to retrieve such failing to providerequestedrecordswhen, in fact, such records werewithinhercontrolat all Parlatore/Shepardincident in the first instance,andsubsequentlydealing with the ADO by Committeewas skepticalofthe degreeofdiligenceemployed by Marshall in dealing with the better position to assess witness demeanor and other indiciaoftrustworthiness.However, the The Committee defers to the Panel on the issueofcredibility, as the Panel is in a much p. 12 Page 12of12

File RichardY. Uchida,Esquire James L. Kruse,AssistantDisciplinaryCounsel Distribution:

J. Marshallfor violating N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b), 5.3(a), 5.3(b), and 8.4(a). For allofthe above reasons, the Professional ConductCommittee publiclycensures Keri

Respondentfor the investigation and prosecutionof this matter. andprosecutionofthis matter. TheCommitteeconcurs,and hereby orders costs to be paid by the The Respondent has voluntarily agreed to pay all costs associated with the investigation

considered themwhen imposing sanctions). (2003) (noting thatalthoughthe Court has never formally adopted theseStandards,the Court has Hampshire Supreme Court and with the Standards.See, e.g., Shillen 's Case, 149 N.H.132,139 This sanction is in accord with the purposeofattorneydisciplineas described by the New

with thecourt. copyof theaffidavitshallbetransmittedto theADO andMr. Shepardconcurrentwithitsfiling shallcorrect the record as to Mr.Shepard'slackofassent to the relevantmotion to continue. A Shepardand DanielShepard 670-2005DM-00522. The affidavit shall be written with candor and explanationtothe10thCircuitCourt,PortsmouthFamilyDivision In theMatterofPatricia Marshallshall file, within 30 days of the date of this public censure, an affidavitof