Scott A. Wanner (2013)

Mr. Wanner was hired as an associate in January 2007 by Nadeau Legal, PLLC. April30 and May 10,2013, and made the following findings and rulings. Rule 3.4(a) through (f). Panel C of the Grievance Commission (the"Panel") was convened on November 26, 2012 alleging that Mr. Wanner engaged in misconduct in violation of Maine Bar course, the Board of Overseers, through counsel, filed a formal disciplinary petition dated Bedford, NH, submitted a complaint against Mr. Wanner to the Board of Overseers. In due On March 18, 2011, Robert M.A. Nadeau, an attomey at Nadeau Legal, PLLC in Bar on Febmary 2, 2006. complete his annual registration requirements. Mr. Wanner was admitted to the New Hampshire on May 14, 2002. He was suspended administratively on October 22, 2012 due to a failure to law in the State of Maine and subject to the Maine Bar Rules. He was admitted to the Maine Bar Scott A. Wanner, Esquire, of Portsmouth, New Hampshire is duly admitted to practice

of a public censure. public censure and remanded the matter to the Professional Conduct Committee for the issuance Grievance Commission of the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar warrants the issuance of a Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the above captioned reciprocal discipline matter from the In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(12), on September 27, 2013, the New

LD-2013-0007, In the Matter of Scott A. Wanner

Richard H. Darling* Holly B. Fazzino, Administrator Alan J. Cronheim * non attomey member Thomas P. Connah' Mary Elizabeth Tenn Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oat Toni M. Gray,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 • Fax 228-9511 Richard D. Sager Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chan· Concord, New Hampshh·e 03301 Heather E. Krans David M. Rothstein, Chair 4 Chen ell Drive, Suite I 02 Elaine Holden*

his involvement with LF was a"significant personal relationship" that could have compromised designed to avoid. Despite his brief tenure at Nadeau Legal, Mr. Wanner should have known that This is the type of situation that Maine Bat· Rules 3.4(a)(l), 3.4(b)(l) and 3.4(£)(1) were adversely affect the lawyer's representation of [a] client." a substantial risk that a significant personal relationship of the lawyer will materially and Maine Bar Rule 3.4(£)(1) prohibits a lawyer from commencing representation"if there is person, or by the lawyer's own interest." Maine Bar Rule 3.4(b)(l). adversely affected by the lawyer's duty to another current client, to a former client, or to a third "there is a substantial risk that the lawyer's representation of one client would be materially and would involve a conflict of interest. A"conflict of interest" during representation would arise if lawyer from c01mnencing representation or continuing to represent a client if that representation conflict of interest after commencement of representation. Maine Bar Rule 3.4(b )(1) prohibits a impose a continuing duty to disclose to the client any information that might give rise to such a relationship or interest of a lawyer that might reasonably give rise to a conflict of interest and Maine Bar Rule 3.4(a)(l) requires a lawyer to disclose to a prospective client any

spent on behalf of Attorney Nadeau whom he described as his client. repotts, admitted into evidence without objection, show that Mr. Wanner accounted for the time after only brief testimony from him. Both the arc of events and Mr. Wanner's 2007 case status him by LF. Mr. Wanner also assisted as a witness at the hearing, although the case was settled connection with Attorney Nadeau's defense of a protection from abuse complaint filed against attorney-client relationship with Attorney Nadeau when he was asked to gather evidence in The panel found that after Mr. Wanner had the encounter with LF, he established an firm in October 2007 without ever disclosing his encounter with LF to Attorney Nadeau. believed that the relationship between her and Attomey Nadeau had ended. Mr. Wanner left the LF. He described the February 2007 encounter as a one-time indiscretion that took place when he of the firm. Mr. Wanner was aware of Attorney Nadeau's lengthy and public relationship with Attomey Nadeau's on-again-off-again fiance and who was also an on-again-off-again employee Approximately one month later, Mr. Wanner had a sexual encounter with a woman, LF, who was p. 3 Page 3 of4 hereby issues a Public Censure. Board of Overseers. The Cou1t concluded that a public censure is warranted, and the Committee is the equivalent to a public reprimand imposed by the State of Maine Grievance Commission, recommended to the Coutt that for purposes of reciprocal discipline, a sanction of public censure The Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the matter. on August 20, 2013, and

the appropriate sanction, which was issued on June 14,2013. client of information he was duty-bound to reveal. The panel found that a Public Reprimand is malice, but in attempting to prevent personal embarrassment or awkwardness, he deprived his consider and decide for him or herself. The panel does not believe that Mr. Wanner acted with she believes that no conflict exists. Without disclosure, however, the client has no oppmtunity to when complying with rules regarding disclosure. An attorney may explain to the client why he or responsibilities to clients and the courts. The duty is on the lawyer to exercise punctilious care The Code of Professional Responsibility specifically requires attorneys to uphold their with LF, so that his client could make his own decisions about the Respondent's representation. · Attorney Nadeau's interests is irrelevant to Mr. Wanner's obligation to disclose his relationship any and all conflicts, whenever they arise. Attomey Nadeau was the client. The impact on Maine Bar Rules 3.4(a)(1), 3.4(b)(1), and 3.4(±)(1) require that the client be infmmed of

Bar Rule 3.4(a)(l), 3.4(b)(1) and 3.4(±)(1). disclose this information to Attomey Nadeau. Mr. Wanner's failure to do either violated Maine alternative, Mr. Wanner should have refused to become involved in the case if he chose not to he had a personal relationship with LF which might give rise to a conflict of interest; or, in the The panel found that Mr. Wanner had an obligation to disclose to Attorney Nadeau that the point where disclosure and withdrawal are required. and thereafter to reevaluate continuously whether a conflict of interest has emerged or evolved to to determine whether he or she should accept representation in the first place on behalf of a client his client's defense in the protection from abuse matter. Maine Bar Rule 3 .4 requires an attomey p. 4 Page 4 of4 i\ ( ' ,,r:(·\1\IFD

File Janet F. DeVito, General Counsel Scott A. W mmer, Esquire Distribution:

October]-:; 2013

Office's collection effo1ts. Mr. W atmer shall be responsible for any costs incutTed as a result of the Attorney Discipline legally-available post-judgment enforcement remedies and procedures. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(c). any county in the state, where it shall be docketed as a final judgment and shall be subject to all The Committee may file a copy of the final assessment of costs with the superior court in ·. in the state. Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(b). disagreement, or enforce the assessment of costs by petition to the superior court in any county explaining the reasons for disagreement. Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(b). The Committee may resolve the (30) days of receipt of the Committee's statement of expenses, listing each disputed expense and The assessment of costs shall become final unless Mr. Wanner responds in writing, within thirty include, but are not limited to: copying and costs associated with the publication of the censure. investigation and enforcement of this disciplinary matter. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(b ). Costs can Mr. Wanner shall be responsible for the expenses incun·ed by the Committee in the