H. Paul Carroll (2012)

from thedefendantsfrom Januaryof1988 throughDecember 3,2001, and that physicians.The complaintallegedthattheclienthad soughtmedical treatment on theclient'sbehalfagainstBeth IsraelDeaconess Medical Center,Inc., and two 3. On July 16,2004, therespondentfiled a civilcomplaintinSuffolkSuperiorCourt

prepare, sign and have the client sign a writtencontingentfeeagreement. malpracticeaction on acontingentfee basis. At no time did therespondent 2. In Julyof2004, therespondentagreed torepresenta clientin amedical

insurance,forthefollowingmisconduct. 1999. He receiveda public reprimand,conditionedon hisobtainingmalpractice 1. H. Paul Carrollwas admitted to the Bar ofthe Commonwealth on December 13,

Court issued an Orderremanding the matter to theCommittee "forissuanceofa publiccensure." the Certified Copy to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. On August 20,2012,the Supreme Paul Carroll. On January18,2012,pursuantto Supreme Court Rule37(12),the ADO forwarded DisciplineOffice("ADO") a CertifiedCopy ofan Orderimposinga PublicReprimand upon H. On January13,2012, theMassachusettsBoard ofBar OverseerssenttheAttorney

LisaWellman-Ally. Alan J.Cronheim, Richard H. Darling,James R. Martin,Richard D. Sager and Vice Chair, Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, Susan R.Chollet,David N. Cole,Thomas P.Connair, captioned matter. Members present included Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, BenettePizzimenti, On November 20, 2012, theProfessionalConduct Committee deliberatedthe above

Alan J. Cronheim Holly B. Fazzino,Administrator Thomas P. Connair * non attorneymember David N. Cole Susan R. Chollet* LisaWellman-Ally Toni M. Gray,* ViceChair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 Richard D. Sager Benette Pizzimenti,Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 James R. Martin MargaretH. Nelson,Chair 4 Chenell Drive,Suite 102 Richard H. Darling*

14, 2005. guaranteedby thecurrentdeadline.The fourthmotion was allowedon January SuffolkCounty SheriffsOfficeand was informed thatservicecould not be assertedthathe had on thatday contactedtheCivilProcessDivisionofthe time until January31,2005. In supportofthe fourthmotion,therespondent 2005. Ratheron thisdate, he filed afourthemergency motion toenlarge,this 7. The respondentdid notservethecomplainton thedefendantsby January 14,

amended complaint.The thirdmotion was allowed on December 22, 2004. assertionthathe was obtainingexpertassistanceindraftinga more complete theofficesofRisk Management were closed. Therespondentalsorepeatedhis defendants,but thatservicewas unable to beperfectedby December 19,2004, as liaison, whorepresentedthat he would likely be able to accept service for all the motion,therespondentassertedthat he hadrecentlycontactedBeth Israel'slegal motion toenlarge,thistime untilJanuary14, 2005. Insupportofthethird 2004. Rather,on December 22, 2004, therespondentfiled athirdemergency 6. The respondentdid notservethecomplainton thedefendantsby December 19,

motion was allowed on December 7,2004. assaultedon November 3, 2004, and unable to work fortwo weeks. The second complete amended complaintand alsoassertedthathe had been violently repeatedhisassertionthat he wasobtainingexpertassistanceindraftinga more time untilDecember 19,2004. Insupportof thesecond motion,therespondent 2004. Rather,on thatdate he filed asecond emergency motion toenlarge,this 5. The respondentdid notservethecomplainton thedefendantsby November 19,

"drafta more completeAmended Complaint." and identifiedanotherto"explainthecomplicatedmedical issues"so hecould complaint"[i]nordertopreserveplaintiffsclaims"and had retainedone expert supportofthismotion,therespondentassertedthathe had filed a"skeleton" Time For ServiceuntilNovember 19,2004, which was grantedthatday. In October 19,2004, therespondentfiled anEmergency Ex ParteMotion to Enlarge filing, or byOctober 14, 2004, asrequiredby Mass. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(j). On 4. The respondentdid not serve thecomplainton thedefendantswithin90 daysof

2001. sufferingfrom CysticFibrosisby othersatBeth IsraelHospitalby October of civilcomplaint,he was aware that theclienthad finallybeen diagnosedas infectionsand furtherinjuryand deterioration."When therespondentfiled the plaintiffhas sustainedpermanent damage and isnow susceptibletofurther infectionwhich resultedinpermanent damage toPlaintiffslungssuch that the "theDefendants failed todiagnosePlaintiffsCysticFibrosisand pulmonary p. 3 Page 3 of5 for hisfailureto make timelyserviceofprocessunder Mass. R. Civ. P.Rule 4(j). Civ. P.Rule 60(b). It alsoruledthat therespondenthad not provided good cause respondenthad not filed hismotion tovacatein atimelymanner under Mass. R. dismissaland orderingthedismissalofthecomplaint.The courtruledthatthe Appeals Court issueda decisionreversingtheordervacatingthejudgment of thecourt'sdenialoftheirmotion forreconsideration.On January7,2009, the thecourtdeniedthemotion. The defendantsappealedto theAppeals Court from court'sallowanceofthemotion to vacate. Therespondentfiled anoppositionand 13. On August 18,2006, thedefendantsfiled amotion forreconsiderationofthe

to make serviceon the defendants. hospitalsecurity.This motion was grantedand therespondentwas given20 days refusedby thehospitaland thedeputysheriffwas escortedoffthepremisesby severalattemptson March 4, 2005 toeffectuateservice;and thatservicewas serviceon behalfofthedefendants;thata SuffolkCounty deputy sheriffmade he hadpreviouslycontactedBeth Israel'slegalliaison,who had agreedtoaccept togetherwith an affidavitin support. Therespondentassertedin hisaffidavitthat 12. On June 28,2006, therespondentfiled expartea motion to vacatethedismissal,

the clientto make informed decisions. case and failed toexplaintheoptionsto theextentreasonablynecessarytopermit respondentfailed to keep the clientreasonablyinformedaboutthe statusofthe June of2006. From at least Mayof2005 throughatleastJulyof2006, the 11. The respondenttook no actionto seekrelieffrom thedismissalofthecaseuntil

alldefendants. prosecution.On May 31, 2005, ajudgment ofdismissalwas enteredinfavorof serviceofprocess.On May 23, 2005, thecourtdismissedthecaseforlackof defendantsby March 5, 2005, andsough no furtherenlargementsoftime for service.The respondentmade no otherattemptsto servethecomplainton the request,toserveprocesson thedefendants,butagentsofthedefendantsrefused 10. On March 4,2005, a SuffolkCounty deputysheriffattempted,at therespondent's

February28,2005, extendingthe time forserviceuntilMarch 5,2005. withinthe time frameallowedby theCourt."This motion was allowed on enlarge,thistime assertingthat he"has not yetbeen able tocomplete service 2005. Rather,on February22, 2005, he filed asixthemergency motion to 9. The respondentdid not servethecomplainton thedefendantsby February 15,

fifthmotion was allowed on January31,2005. thatservicehad not been completed becauseofrecentinclementweather. The until February15,2005. In supportofthe fifthmotion,therespondentasserted 2005. Rather,on thatdate, he filed a fifthemergency motion toenlarge,thistime 8. The respondentdid not servethecomplainton thedefendantsby January 31, p. 4 Page 4 of5

For all the reasons stated above, theCommittee herebyimposes a Public Censure.

administera publicrespondentto therespondent. December 12,2011, the board voted toacceptthestipulationofthepartiesand to imposed conditionedon therespondentobtainingmalpracticeinsurance.On rulesviolationsand ajointrecommendation that asanctionofpublicreprimandbe 5. This mattercame before the BoardofBar Overseerson astipulationoffacts and

malpracticeinsurance. became time-barredby the statuteoflimitations.The respondenthad no 4. In aggravation,as aresultoftherespondent'slackofdiligence,theclient'sclaims

make informeddecisions,therespondentviolatedMass. R. Prof. C. 1.4(a) and (b). ofhis case and toexplainthematterto theextentnecessarytopermittheclientto 3. In failingtomaintainreasonablecommunications with theclientabout thestatus

1.3and 8.4(d)and (h). actionin atimelymanner, therespondentviolatedMass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2(a), 2004 civilaction,and in failing to seek tovacatethedismissalofthe2004 civil 2. In failing to make serviceofprocess on thedefendantsin atimelymanner in the

therespondentand theclient,therespondentviolatedMass. R. Prof. C. 1.5(c). 1. In enteringinto acontingentfeeagreementthat was not inwritingand signedby

September 15, 2009. thedefendants.Judgment was entereddismissingtheclient'sclaimson respondent.The courtallowedthemotion todismissfor thereasonsadvanced by statutesofreposeand oflimitations,and anoppositionto themotion by the 1,2009, thedefendantsfiled ajointmotion todismissbased upon theapplicable obtainedserviceofprocesson the threedefendantsin thenormal course.On June containedsimilarclaimsto those made in the firstactionin 2004. Therespondent SuperiorCourt on theclient'sbehalfagainstthe samedefendants.The complaint 14. On January27, 2009, therespondentfiled asecond civilcomplaintinSuffolk

complaint. On February 18,2009,judgment enteredin thesuperiorcourtdismissingthe p. 5 Page 5 of5

File RichardY. Uchida,Esquire Thomas V. Trevethick,General.Counsel Distribution:

December \ /? ,2012 _

The Respondentshallpay allcostsoftheinvestigationand prosecutionofthismatter.