Robert R. Bennett (2004)

File Donald McGrath Robert R. Bennett, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Esquire Distribution:

July 6,2004

the Rules of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Robert R. Bennett, Esquire shall be entitled to appeal the findings or sanction in accordance with

N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a), 1.4(c), 1.4(a), 1.4(c), 8.4(a).

Bennett, Esquire, for violating the following Rules: For all of the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee Reprimands Robert R.

them when imposing sanctions"). that, although the Court has never formally adopted these Standards, the Court has"considered Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991). See~, Shillen's Case, 149 N.H. 132, 139 (2003) (noting sanction is also in accord with the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Standards for accord with the purposes of attorney discipline. See~, Feld's Case, 149 NH 19,28 (2002). This been violated, and the appropriate discipline in this matter is a Reprimand. This sanction is in The Professional Conduct Committee concludes that the Rules of Professional Conduct have

attached hereto and made part thereof, are supported by clear and convincing evidence. findings contained in the Hearing Panel Report and the Stipulation As To Facts and Sanction Having reviewed the record, the Professional Conduct Committee concluded that the factual

Facts and Sanction dated March 16,2004. referenced matter, including the Hearing Panel Report dated May 12,2004 and Stipulation As To On June 15,2004, the Professional Conduct Committee reviewed the record in the above­

Bennett, Robert R. advs. Donald McGrath # 01-027

these attempts. attempt[s]" to contact Mr. BENNETT by telephone, but Mr. BENNETT did not respond to experienced difficulty communicating with Mr. BENNETT. Mr. McGRATH made"many 4. Between that jail visit and Mr. BENNETT's withdrawal on April 3, 2001, Mr. McGRATH

upon receiving any paperwork, Mr. BENNETT would forward it to Mr. McGRATH. paperwork on Mr. McGRATH's case. However, Mr. BENNETT told Mr. McGRATH that, informed Mr. McGRATH of his appointment and explained that he had not yet received any BENNETT met with him at the Rockingham County House of Corrections. Mr. BENNETT 3. Shortly after the court appointed Mr. BENNETT to represent Mr. McGRATH, Mr.

BEN.i~DTT withdrew. Mr. BENNETT represented him on that charge until April 3, 2001, the date on which Mr. 2. In October 2000, Mr. BENNETT was appointed to represent Mr. McGRATH on that charge.

1. On September 12, 2000, Mr. McGRATH was incarcerated on a Burglary charge.

Disciplinary Counsel as to facts and sanctions which provided as follows: Prior to hearing, the Respondent, ROBERTR. BENNETT entered into a Stipulation with Bar

March 1, 2004. The following Panel was selected: A complaint was referred to this Panel pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37A(III)(b)(4) on

discussed above, constitutes a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a) and 1.4(c). telephone between the October 2000 appointment and the April 2001 withdrawal, as A. Mr. BENNETT's failure to respond to Mr. McGRATH's"many attempts" to reach him by

following rule violations could be shown by clear and convincing evidence: The Respondent ROBERT R. BENNETT and Bar Disciplinary Counsel also stipulated that the

the jury trial was scheduled for the week of April 23, 2001. 14. The final pretrial conference in Mr. McGRATH's case was scheduled for April 13 , 2DO 1, and

McGRATH's arraignment. contain any information related to the uncharged criIl1e Mr. BENJ'-mTT mentioned at l\:1r. gave Mr. McGRATH paperwork related to his Burglary charge. That paperwork did not 13. It was not until the date of Mr. BENNETT's withdrawal, April 3, 2001, that Mr. BENNETT

BENNETT. (the date of Mr. BENNETT's withdrawal), Mr. McGRATH did not hear from Mr. 12. Between December 4,2000 (the date of Mr. McGRATH's arraignment) and April 3, 2001

paperwork on his pending Burglary charge. with Mr. BENNETT. Mr. McGRATH further complained that Mr. BENNETT sent him no 11, In the second motion, Mr. McGRATH again complained about an inability to communicate

motion." another Motion for New Counsel. This Motion will hereinafter be referred to as"the second 10. On January 31, 2001, Mr. McGRATH filed in the Rockingham County Superior Court

information and keep Mr. McGRATH informed. uncharged crime, but Mr. BENNETT assured Mr. McGRATH that he would find out further At that point, Mr. BENNETT was unable to tell Mr. McGRATH any information about the BENNETT informed Mr. McGRATH that he was going to be charged with additional crime. of his appearance was an arraignment on the Burglary indictment. On that date, Mr. 9. vVhen he arrived in court on December 14, 2000, NIr. McGRATH learned that the purpose

McGRATH was not otherwise aware that he had a court appearance scheduled for that date. Corrections informed Mr. McGRATH that he had a court appearance on that date. Mr. 8. On December 14, 2000, the corrections officer on duty at the Rockingham County House of

charge. The Rockingham County Superior Court docketed that matter as #00-S-2360. 7. On December 5, 2000, the Rockingham Grand Jury indicted Mr. McGRATH on the Burglary

him and"keep [him] more informed." for new counsel because Mr. BENNETT assured Mr. McGRATH that he"would represent" 6. On November 29, 2000, at the hearing on the motion, Mr. McGRATH withdrew his request

ROBERT R. BENNETT for violation of Rules 1.4(a), 1.4(c) andf4(a). The Hearing Panel therefore recommends that the Committee impose a Reprimand upon

Responsibility Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions § 9.0 (1991). - (f) A reprimand in this matter would be consistent with the ABA Center for Professional

(e) Mr. BENNETT is currently on inactive status for medical reasons.

exhibited an extremely cooperative attitude. (d) In Mr. BENNETT's discussions with Disciplinary Counsel about this matter, he has

(c) Mr. BENNETT has accepted responsibility for his conduct.

a selfish motive. (b) Mr. BENNETT acted negligently in this matter, but he dId not act dishonestly or with

BENNETT received a warning related to his office calendaring procedures. has been contemporaneously referred to the Committee. In 1998, however, Mr. (a) Mr. BENNETT has no prior record of misconduct aside from Case#00-N-112 which

Reprimand would be an appropriate sanction based upon the following factors: The Hearing Panel having reviewed the Notice of Charges, Answer and Stipulation agrees that a

evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). C. In light of the aforementioned Rules violations, there is necessarily clear and convincing

his case constitutes a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a) and 1.4(c).

experienced difficulty communicating with Mr. Bennett. Mr. McGrath made"many

4. Between that jail visit and Mr. Bennett's withdrawal on April 3, 200 p. 5 1, Mr. McGrath

receiving any paperwork, Mr. Bennett would forward it to Mr. McGrath.

paperwork on Mr. McGrath's case. However, Mr. Bennett told Mr. McGrath that, upon

Mr. McGrath of his appointment and explained that he had not yet received any

met with him at the Rockingham County House of Corrections. Mr. Bennett informed

3. Shortly after the court appointed Mr. Bennett to represent Mr. McGrath, Mr. Bennett

Bennett withdrew.

Mr. Bennett represented him on that charge until April 3, 200 p. 5 1, the date on which Mr.

2. In October 2000, Mr. Bennett was appointed to represent Mr. McGrath on that charge.

l. On September p. 5 12,2000, Mr. McGrath was incarcerated on a Burglary charge.

Respondent, and respectfully submit this Stipulation as to Facts and Sanction:

NOW COMES Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel, and Robert R. Bennett,

second motion."

another Motion for New Counsel. This Motion will hereinafter be referred to as"the

10. On January 31, p. 6 2001, Mr. McGrath filed in the Rockingham County Superior Court

out further information and keep Mr. McGrath informed.

about the uncharged crime, but Mr. Bennett assured Mr. McGrath that he would find

crime. At that point, Mr. Bennett was unable to tell Mr. McGrath any information

Bennett informed Mr. McGrath that he was going to be charged with an additional

of his appearance was an arraignment on the Burglary indictment. On that date, Mr.

9. When he arrived in court on December 14, p. 6 2000, Mr. McGrath learned that the purpose

for that date.

date. Mr. McGrath was not otherwise aware that he had a court appearance scheduled

House of Corrections informed Mr. McGrath that he had a court appearance on that

8. On December 14, p. 6 2000, the corrections officer on duty at the Rockingham County

Burglary charge. The Rockingham County Superior Court docketed that matter as #00-

7. On December 5, p. 6 2000, the Rockingham Grand Jury indicted Mr. McGrath on the

represent" him and"keep [him] more informed."

request for new counsel because Mr. Bennett assured Mr. McGrath that he"would

6. On November p. 6 29, 2000, at the hearing on the motion, Mr. McGrath withdrew his

October p. 6 24, 2000, Mr. McGrath filed a pro se motion for new counsel.

5. As a result ofMr. McGrath's early difficulties communicating with Mr. Bennett, on

these attempts.

attempt[s]" to contact Mr. Bennett by telephone, but Mr. Bennett did not respond to p. 7 3

convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a).

17. In light of the aforementioned Rules violations, there is necessarily clear and

Conduct 1.4(a) and l.4(c).

his case constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof.

16. Mr. Bennett's failure, as discussed above, to send Mr. McGrath paperwork related to

Prof. Conduct l.4(a) and 1.4(c).

discussed above, constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation ofN.H. R.

telephone between the October 2000 appointment and the April 2001 withdrawal, as

15. Mr. Bennett's failure to respond to rvlr. McGrath's"many attempts" to reach him by

and the jury trial was scheduled for the week of April 2 p. 7 3, 2001.

14. The final pretrial conference in Mr. McGrath's case was scheduled for April 1 p. 7 3, 2001,

McGrath's arraignment.

contain any information related to the uncharged crime Mr. Bennett mentioned at Mr.

gave Mr. McGrath paperwork related to his Burglary charge. That paperwork did not

1 p. 7 3. It was not until the date ofMr. Bennett's withdrawal, April 3, 2001, that Mr. Bennett

Bennett.

2001 (the date ofMr. Bennett's withdrawal), Mr. McGrath did not hear from Mr.

12. Between December 14,2000 (the date ofMr. McGrath's arraignment), and April p. 7 3,

him no paperwork on his pending Burglary charge.

communicate with Mr. Bennett. Mr. McGrath further complained that Mr. Bennett sent

11. In the second motion, Mr. McGrath again complained about an inability to p. 8 4

"considered them when imposing sanctions").

although the Court has never formally adopted these Standards, the Court has

Shillen's Case, No. LD-2000-00 p. 8 4, __ N.H. __ (February 18,2003) (noting that,

Responsibility Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions § 9.0 (1991). See,~,

21. A Reprimand in this matter would be consistent with the ABA Center for Professional

(e) Mr. Bennett is currently on inactive status for medical reasons.

exhibited an extremely cooperative attitude;

(d) In Mr. Bennett's discussions with Disciplinary Counsel about this matter, he has

(c) Mr. Bennett has accepted responsibility for his conduct;

with a selfish motive;

(b) Mr. Bennett acted negligently in this matter, but he did not act dishonestly or

received a warning related to his office calendaring procedures,

(a) Mr. Bennett has no prior record of misconduct. In 1998, however, Mr. Bennett

20. A Reprimand is the appropriate sanction in this case for the following reasons.

19. Mr. Bennett has agreed to accept a Reprimand for his conduct in this matter.

violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct contained in the Notice of Charges.

Notice of Charges. Additionally, Mr. Bennett has admitted each of the alleged

18. In this Stipulation, Mr. Bennett has admitted every material allegation contained in the