Patrick M. Carron (2013)

was admittedtopracticeon May 30,2001.At all timesmaterialto thisproceeding, 1. Mr. Carron is an attorney licensedto practice law in New Hampshire. Mr. Carron

followingfactualfindingsby clear andconvincingevidence:

The ProfessionalConduct Committee hasdeterminedthat theStipulationsupportsthe

and rulingsoflaw as detailed below: ProceedingsandforFinalRuling.The ProfessionalConductCommitteemakes factualfindings The Professional Conduct Committee granted the Joint Motion to Permit WaiverofFormal Martha Van Oot.HeatherE. Krans, and LisaWellman-Ally were absent. SusanR. Chollet, Alan J. Cronheim, Richard H. Darling, Elaine Holden, Richard D. Sager, and Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, Thomas P. Connair, deliberatedthe above-referenced matter. Members present were David M. Rothstein, Chair, furtherreviewed the Stipulation as to Facts,Violations,and Recommended Sanction and Permit WaiverofFormal Proceedings and for Final Ruling. The Professional Conduct Committee On May 21,2013,theProfessionalConductCommitteereviewedtheJointMotionto

Carron, PatrickM. advs.Rejeanne M. Bitote#11-028

Richard H. Darling* Holly B. Fazzino,Administrator Alan J.Cronheim * non attorneymember Thomas P. Connair LisaWellman-AUy Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oot Toni M. Gray,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 Richard D. Sager BenettePizzimenti,Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Heather E. Krans David M. Rothstein,Chair 4 ChenellDrive,Suite102 ElaineHolden*

person to determine whether she intended to proceedwiththe annulment. as though she was equivocating about the annulment. He wanted tomeet with her in 2010 and January2011. He believedthat Ms.Bitote'svoicemailmessages sounded 12. Mr. Carron recalls that he and Ms.Bitoteplayed"phone tag" duringDecember

back went out.He was bedridden for severalweeks. 11. Mr. Carronreturnedto Concord around January6,2011,but shortlythereafterhis

familymatters. December 28,2010, and he traveled toVermont to attendthe funeral and dealwith 10. Mattersbecame slightlydelayed because Mr.Carron'smother-in-lawdied on

voicemail.Ms. Bitotedoes not recallreceivingany such voicemail. 9. Mr. Carron calledMs. Bitoteto inform her ofwhere thematter stood.He lefta

December 2010. in thepast.Thisfriendinformed Mr.Carronshe could not do the work until mid- On November 12,2010,he contacted a friendwho had helpedMr. Carron translate translation for purposesofdetermining whether to go forwardwiththe annulment. 8. The translations seemed incompleteto Mr. Carron,who wanted a full and accurate

children,and had liedto her at thetime oftheirmarriage. documents,which she claimed proved that her husband was already married, had French. Ms.Bitotealso provided what purported to be translationsofthose 7. Among the documents Ms. Bitote providedto Mr. Carronwere three documents in

officeforsafe-keeping.He did not deposit the funds into his client trust account. 6. Mr. Carronplaced these amounts in his locked,fireproof,secured cabinet in his law

and filing fee. another$210.00 in cash at theirNovember 5,2010 meeting tocoverthe legal fees paidMr.Carron$220.00in cashattheirOctober20,2010 meeting. She paidhim 5. Ms. Bitoteand Mr. Carron met on two occasionstodiscussher case.Ms. Bitote

unbeknownst to her, he was already married and hadchildrenwithanother woman. Bitotestated that her husband married hersolelyforimmigrationbenefitsand that, 2010,and askedhim to represent her in filing for anannulment ofher marriage. Ms. 4. Rejeanne Bitote, the complainant in this matter, contacted Mr. Carron in Octoberof

3. Mr. Carron has no previousdisciplinary history.

2. Mr. Carron has notbeen admittedto practice law in anyotherjurisdiction.

03301. Mr. Carronoperatedhis lawofficeat13 Chapel Street,Concord, New Hampshire p. 3 Page 3of8 23. Rule 1.15(a) and 1.15(d) state as follows:

22. Factualfindings set forth above are incorporated by reference.

Rules ofProfessionalConduct 1.15(a)and 1.15(d). 21. Mr. Carron'sconductas described herein raisesquestionsunderNew Hampshire

evidence:

that Mr. Carronhasviolatedthe following RulesofProfessionalConduct by clear andconvincing

The ProfessionalConduct Committee concludes that there is clear andconvincingevidence

20. Ms. Bitotereceivedher documents and the check ather home on March 25,2011.

19. Mr. Carron then decided to send thedocuments and thecheck to Ms. Bitote'shome.

Bitotehad not cashed the check he had sent. 18. Mr. Carronnotedin correspondence to theADO that asofMarch 23,2011, Ms.

17. Ms. Bitotenever closedher postofficebox.

it up from the Concord Post Office on March 14,2011. claimed.The Postal Service advised Mr. Carron topickup the package. Hepicked viacertifiedmail. He sent the documents to her postofficebox buttheywere never 16. The nextday,February23,2011,Mr. Carronsent Ms.Bitoteallofher documents

address,via firstclassmail. sent it to Ms.Bitote'spostofficebox,which she hadindicatedwas hermailing February22,2011,enclosing a check for the full $430.00 that she had paid him. He 15. Having receivedno return call, Mr. Carron sent Ms.Bitotea letter on

He lefther a voicemail.Ms. Bitotenever returned Mr. Carron's call. 14. Mr. Carronreceiveda copy ofMs. Bitote'sgrievance andimmediatelycalled her.

annulment,and had not been responsive. February 16,2011, allegingthat Mr. Carronacceptedher money, did not file the 13. Ms. Bitotefiled agrievancewiththeAttorneyDisciplineOffice("ADO") on p. 4 Page 4of8

Standard § 3.0; Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. at 513.

caused by thelawyer'smisconduct;and (d) the existenceofaggravatingor mitigatingfactors."

sanctions:"(a)theduty violated;(b) thelawyer'smental state;(c)thepotentialoractualinjury

152 N.H. at 513. The Standards set forth a four part analysis for courts toconsiderin imposing

ImposingLawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards"), it looks to them for guidance. Coffey'sCase,

Although theCourt has notadoptedtheAmerican Bar Association's Standardsfor

"The sanctionmust take intoaccounttheseverityofthemisconduct." Id.

the future." E.g., Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005) (internalquotationmarks omitted).

confidence in the bar,preservetheintegrityofthe legalprofession,and preventsimilarconductin

The purposeoftheCourt'sdisciplinarypower "istoprotectthepublic,maintainpublic

promptlyundertooktoeffectuatethat return. time thatshe wanted her money and documents returnedto her,Mr. Carron 26. Upon noticethatMs. Bitote had filed agrievance,and upon learningfor the first

Bitoteintohisclienttrustaccount. 25. Mr. Carron breachedthis duty by failing todepositthe funds hereceivedfrom Ms.

expensesthathave been paid inadvance." was holdingfunds in trust, to"depositinto aclienttrustaccountlegal fees and 24. Pursuantto Rule 1.15,Mr. Carron owed a dutyto Ms.Bitote,forwhose benefithe

lawyer only as fees areearnedor expensesincurred. expensesthat have been paid in advance, to bewithdrawn by the (b) A lawyer shall deposit into a client trustaccountlegal fees and the client, promptly upon receipt, andsafeguarded. CourtRules. All other property shall beidentifiedaspropertyof accordance with the provisionsofthe New Hampshire Supreme depositedin one or more clearlydesignatedtrustaccountsin heldseparatefrom thelawyer'sown property.Funds shallbe lawyer'spossessionin connection with arepresentationshall be (a) Property ofclients or third persons which a lawyer is holding in the p. 5 Page 5 of8

refund,andupon discoveringthat Ms. Bitote wasapparentlynot picking up mail at herPostOffice

sent herthe full amountofher payment within five daysoffirstlearningthat Ms. Bitotedesireda

ensued as a resultofMr. Carron'sfailureto place Ms.Bitote'sfunds in a client trust account. He

associatedwith his handlingofhis client's $430 over afour-monthperiod. However, no harm

misconduct.Mr. Carronacknowledgesand now understandsthattherewas somepotentialharm

The thirdprongoftheanalysisrequiresan examinationoftheharm causedby Mr. Carron's

Mr. CarronhasreviewedRule1.15carefullyand now understandsitsrequirements.

requiredwas that Ms.Bitote'sfunds be kept safe and be keptseparatefrom his own.

mandate such funds be placed in a client trust account. Mr. Carronbelievedthat all that was

placedMs. Bitote'scashin asecure,fireproofcabinet,he failedtoappreciatethatthe Rules

stateis bestcharacterizedasnegligent.He statedtoDisciplinaryCounsel that at the time that he

The second prong requires analysisofMr. Carron'sstateofmind. Mr. Carron'smental

by Rule 1.15.

handlethefundsentrustedtohim.He failedtoplacethefundsin aclienttrustaccountas required

Under thefirstprongof theanalysis,Mr. Carronviolatedadutyto hisclienttoproperly

considerstheeffectofany aggravatingormitigatingfactorsontheultimatesanction.").

whethertheyaffectthebaselinesanction. See id. ("Afterdeterminingthesanction,[theCourt]

fourthand finalstepintheanalysis:theexistenceofany aggravatingormitigatingfactorsand

appropriatesanction.").Once thebaselinesanctionisdetermined,the Court then looks to the

thesefactors,thefirststepis tocategorizetherespondent'smisconductand identifythe

determiningabaselinesanction. See Wolterbeek'sCase, 152 N.H.710,714 (2005)("Inapplying

The firstthreestepscreatetheframeworkforcharacterizingthemisconductand p. 6 Page 6of8

promptlyupon receivingnoticethatshewantedarefund.

whatappearsto beamiscommunicationwithMs. Bitoteand attemptedtorefundthemoney

was cooperativewiththeADO duringtheinvestigativeprocess.He hasexpressedremorsefor

historyand had no dishonestorselfishmotive.He made agood faithefforttomake restitutionand

Thereareseveralmitigatingfactorsin thiscase.Mr. Carronhasno priordisciplinary

Thereareno aggravatingfactorsin thiscase. See Standards § 9.22(a).

reprimandappearsto be theappropriatebaselinesanction.

Baseduponthefirstthreeprongsofthetest,aswellastheguidanceprovidedby §4.14,a

Standards use the term "admonition," which in NewHampshireis the equivalentofa reprimand.

Consideringthefactsin thiscase,§4.14of the Standards is the mostapplicable.The

injuryto a client. dealingwith clientpropertyand causeslittle or noactualorpotential 4.14 Admonition isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer is negligent in

client. dealing with clientpropertyand causes injury or potential injury to a 4.13 Reprimandisgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer is negligentin

injury or potential injury to a client. know that he is dealing improperlywithclient property and causes 4.12 Suspensionisgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer knows orshould

client. converts client propertyand causes injury or potential injury to a 4.11 Disbarment is generallyappropriatewhen a lawyerknowingly

toPreservethe Client's Property." Section 4.1 provides, in pertinentpart:

The applicablestandardfora Rule1.15violationis §4.1ofthe Standards, entitled"Failure

2011.

Box, Mr. Carron sent thecheck to her home. Ms. Bitote received her fullrefundon March 25, p. 7 Page 7of8

CarronforviolatingRulesofProfessionalConduct1.15(a)and1.15(d).

For allofthe above reasons, theProfessionalConduct Committee reprimands Patrick M.

matter.

The Respondentshallpayallcostsassociatedwiththeinvestigationand prosecutionofthis

citationomitted).

preventsimilarconductin thefuture." Grew's Case, 156 N.H. 361,365(2007)(quotationand

public,maintainpublicconfidencein thebar,preservetheintegrityof thelegalprofession,and

The purposeof the Court'sdisciplinarypower"is not toinflictpunishmentbut rathertoprotectthe

Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. 155,159-60 (2005). Thissanctionis also inaccordwith the Sanctions.

with the purposesofattorneydiscipline. See, e.g., Conner's Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009);

accept the stipulated sanction accordingly. The Committee's recommended sanction is in accord

Committee concludesthattheappropriatediscipline in thismatteris areprimand,and voted to

Having made theaforementionedfindings and rulings, theProfessionalConduct

IV. SANCTION p. 8 Page 8of8

File Rejeanne M. Bitote PatrickM. Carron,Esquire cc: Sara S. Greene,DisciplinaryCounsel

paragraph.

appealtotheNew HampshireSupreme Court.See alsoSupreme CourtRule37(3)(c),last

PursuanttoSupreme CourtRule37(A)(III)(d)(2)(D)(4)(A),(Respondent)hastherightto