This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
William T. Whittenberg Jr. (2013)
Whittenberg and his failure to file a response to the petition, the court finds In light of the serious nature of the allegations against Attorney
Attorney Whittenberg has not filed a response to the court's order. mailing was delivered to Attorney Whittenberg's law office on March 9, 2013. sent to Attorney Whittenberg by first class and certified mail, and the certified hearing required if he failed to file an answer to the petition. The order was the allegations of the petition would be deemed admitted and no further disciplinary charges against him. The order advised Attorney Whittenberg that suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire pending resolution of Whittenberg to show cause by March 18, 2013, why he should not be After the petition was filed, the court issued an order requiring Attorney
bank accounts. protect the interests of his clients and to take possession of his client files and resolution of the charges against him, and that an attorney be appointed to from the practice of law in New Hampshire on an interim basis pending ongoing risk to the public. It requests that Attorney Whittenberg be suspended continued practice of law and continued handling of client funds poses an ADO argues t},lat, under these circumstances, Attorney Whittenberg's failed to fiie an answer or otherwise respond to the charges. In its petition, the answer by February 20, 2013. The ADO alleges that Attorney Whittenberg. answer, it sent a second notice requiring Attorney Whittenberg to file an February 15, 2013. It states that, when Attorney Whittenberg failed to file an charges against him and directed him to file an answer to the charges by under his control. The ADO states that it notified Attorney Whittenberg of the accounting compliance certificate disclosing IOLTA and other client accounts about the existence of clients and client funds, and failed to complete a trust Whittenberg failed to safeguard client property, deceived his former law firm Whittenberg's former law firm, which appears to show that Attorney complaint was based on information provided to the ADO by Attorney the Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as Supreme Court Rule 50. The Attorney Whittenberg alleging that he violated Rules 1.15, 8.4(c) and 8.4(a) of Jr. In the petition, the ADO states that it docketed a complaint against interim suspension from the practice of law of Attorney William T. Whittenberg, On March 6, 2013, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a petition for
LD-2013-0004, In the Matter of William T. Whittenberg, Jr.
ORDER
SUPREME COURT
• THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 2
to protect the interests of Attorney Whittenberg's clients. and a recommendation as to what further actions should be taken 2013, together with a report of his actions taken under this order and file a copy of the inventory with the court on or before May 20, Whittenberg's client files and trust and other (iduciary accounts, e. Attorney Gfroerer shall make an inventory of Attorney of their choice. advising them that they should obtain the services of other lawyers immediate future in order to preserve their legal rights and informing them of any action which appears to be required in the ce.rtified mail, return receipt requested, of his suspension, d. Attorney Gfroerer shall notify Attorney Whittenberg's clients by interests of the clients. and shall take such actions as he deems necessary to protect the c. Attorney Gfroerer shall review Attorney Whittenberg's client files Attorney Gfroerer's appointment by the court. Whittenberg are held of il~ttorney VJhittenberg's suspension and of any trust or fiduciary accounts and operating accounts of Attorney b. Attorney Gfroerer shall notify all banks and other entities where court. practice of law and of Attorney Gfroerer's appointment by the Whittenberg of Attorney Whittenberg's suspension from the a. Attorney Gfroerer shall notify all employees of Attorney
Attorney Gfroerer is directed to take the following actions: fiduciary accounts, and to make an inventory of such files and accounts. immediate possession of Attorney Whittenberg's client files and trust and other appointed to protect the interests of Attorney Whittenberg's clients, to take Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(17), Attorney Michael G. Gfroerer is
of clients, whether real, personal, beneficial or mixed. hypothecating, or in any manner disposing of or conveying any assets ( 2) Attorney Whittenberg is enjoined from transferring, assigning,
order of this court. pending resolution of the disciplinary charges against him and further is immediately suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire (1) In accordance with Rule 37(16)(1), Attorney William T. Whittenberg, Jr.
Reiner's Case, 15 2 N.H. 16 3 (2005). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: public and to preserve the integrity of the legal profession. See Rule 37(16)(1); that Attorney Whittenberg's immediate suspension is necessary to protect the 3
File Michael G. Gfroerer, Esq. Sara S. Greene, Esq. William T. Whittenberg, Esq. Attorney Discipline Office Distribution:
ATTEST:
DATE: March 20, 201 3
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks and Conboy, JJ., concurred.
otherwise ordered by the court. Gfroerer, in the first instance, to be reimbursed by Attorney Whittenberg unless The Committee on Professional Conduct shall pay the fees of Attorney
performing these tasks. Attorney Whittenberg is ordered to cooperate with Attorney Gfroerer in