Susan H. Hassan (2013)

Law Firm, PLLC, 17 S. State Street, Unit 1, Concord, NewHampshire 03301. 3. At all times materialto thisproceeding,Ms. Hassanoperatedher law office as Hassan

2. Ms. Hassan was admittedtopracticelaw inMassachusettson June 11,2001.

was admittedtopracticeon October 30, 2000. 1. Susan H. Hassan is an attorney licensedto practice law in New Hampshire. Ms. Hassan

by clearand convincingevidence,as follows: The Committee voted to accept theStipulationas to the Facts dated September18,2013,

matter. The Committeedeterminedthat therecordsupportstheissuanceof aReprimandin this

Waiver ofFormal Proceedings. Sanction.Upon consideration,theCommitteevotedto grant theAssented-ToMotion to Permit ofFormalProceedingsand forFinalRuling,andtheStipulationas to Facts,Violationsand The Committeereviewedtherecord,includingtheAssented-ToMotionto PermitWaiver

andMary ElizabethTenn. Richard H.Darlingwas absent. Connair,AlanJ.Cronheim,ElaineHolden,HeatherE. Krans,RichardD. Sager,MarthaVan Oot BenettePizzimenti,Vice Chair, Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, Susan R. Chollet, Thomas P. deliberatedtheabove-captionedmatters.Members presentincludedDavidM. Rothstein,Chair, On October15,2013,theProfessionalConductCommittee(the"Committee")

Hassan,Susan H. advs.AttorneyDisciplineOffice # 13-015 Hassan,Susan H. advs.Mary B. Kula # J1-05J; and

RichardH. Darling* HollyB. Fazzino,Administrator AlanJ.Cronheim *non attorneymember Thomas P.Connair Mary ElizabethTenn SusanR. Chollet* MarthaVan Oot ToniM. Gray,*ViceChair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 RichardD. Sager BenettePizzimenti,ViceChair Concord,New Hampshire03301 HeatherE.Krans DavidM. Rothstein,Chair 4 ChenellDrive,Suite102 ElaineHolden*

feeling thisway." apologizeforany grieforaggravationI mayhavecausedthem and do notblamethem for this issue with the insurance company as I had indicated originally formy client. I do she stated that "it is with greatembarrassmentand regret that I did not follow through on 10. Ms. Hassanexpressed remorse in her July5,2011 response to the ADO. In that letter,

phone calls. and reportback on the1099 atissue,she neverdid.She alsofailedtoreturnher clients' 9. Ms. Hassan admits that although she at some point told the Kulas she would investigate

nine months thereafter. lackofcommunication began in thesummer of2010 and continuedforapproximately many calls regarding the tax issue and never followed up on it as they requested. This the 1099 atissue,Mr. and Mrs.Kula maintainedthat Ms.Hassan never returnedtheir 8. While eager to correct the previousmisstatementto theADO that Ms. Hassan had filed

error she did not make." eventsand apologizetoAttorneyHassan foressentiallyhavingaccused herofmaking an accountant is going to correct that mistake. I am terribly embarrassedby this turnof latefather-in-law'sname and was supposedto be a'wash'on our return. Our former deductiblemortgage interest on ajointly-ownedresidence that hadbeen reported inmy stating: "[T]he reported'income'was actually not life insurance proceeds at all, but had filed the1099 at issue. Ms. Kula updated theADO in a letter dated April 7,2012, 7. In April2012, Ms. Kula discoveredthat it was heraccountant,and not Ms. Hassan who

Lifeinsurance proceeds are generally not taxable asincome. from her father-in-law's lifeinsuranceproceeds,ofwhich Mr. Kula was a beneficiary. 6. Ms. Kula believed the $9,000 mistakenlyreportedby Ms.Hassan as interest income was

under-reportedincome,and, in July2010,sought $2,572.01 in taxes from the Kulas. approximately $9,000 in lifeinsuranceproceeds.The IRS deemed that this amount was 1099on the Kulas'behalfin which she mistakenlyreportedas interest income "ADO") datedApril7,2011. Ms. Kula alleged that Ms. Hassan had filed an IRS Form 5. Mr. Kula's wife, Mary Kula,fileda grievancewith the Attorney DisciplineOffice (the

hisfather'sestate. 4. Ms. HassanrepresentedDavid Kula inprobatecourt in 2006. Mr. Kula was executorof

DisciplinaryCounsel for apossibleRule8.1(b)violation. failedtorespond,GeneralCounsel'srecommendationwould be toforwardthematterto requestingthatshegivethematterher"immediateattention,"and warningherthatifshe 19. On April18,2013,GeneralCounselsentMs. Hassanan"immediatereply"letter,

18. Ms. Hassandid notrespondto theMarch 18,2013letterwithin30 days asrequired.

cooperatewith the ADO couldresultin a Rule8.1(b)violation. Rule37A(II)(a)(5)(C).The March 18,2013 letteralsowarnedherthat afailureto "requiredtosubmit"herresponsewithin30 daysoftheletterpursuanttoSupremeCourt 18,2013,which informed her that the matterhad been docketed, and as such, she was 17. The matterwas ultimatelydocketed,1and theADO sentMs. HassanaletterdatedMarch

respond to theADO's requests forinformation. theComplaintScreeningCommittee (the"CSC")becauseMs. Hassan failedto timely conduct intheCarluccimatterwas time-barred,General Counsel forwarded thematterto 16. As setforthmore fully below, althoughanydisciplinaryaction as to Ms. Hassan's

Court Rule 37A(I)(i). Court,and thus, anydisciplinaryactionwasbarredby the limitations period in Supreme occurred more than two years before the ADO received the referral from the Superior 15. GeneralCounsel ultimatelydetermined that theunderlyingconductby Ms. Hassan

December 11,2012 ofthe malpractice lawsuit against Ms. Hassan. 14. PursuanttoRSA 311,the Merrimack County Superior Court ClerkinformedtheADO on

13. InNovember 2012, Ms. Carlucci sued Ms. Hassan formalpractice.

Carlucciwas filed on July7,2004. 443 (originallyCarrollSuperiorCourt Case No.04-C-079). The lawsuitagainst Ms. her(now ex)husband's saleofreal property.Merrimack SuperiorCourt Case No. 08-C- 12. In 2008, Ms. Hassan represented Donna Carlucci in litigationinvolvingMs. Carlucci and

verybusy. 11. Ms. Hassan states that the mattersimplyslipped hermind at atimewhen her practice was p. 4 Page 4 of9 Professional Conduct 1.4: Client Communication; Rule 8.1(b): Failure to Cooperate, and Rule The Committee votedtoaccepttheStipulationthat Ms.Hassan violatedRule of

anxietyconcerningher father and herchoiceto prioritizeseeing him during thisperiod. father.Her failure to respond in a timelymatterto the ADO was in part due to her 30. Since January2013,Ms. Hassan has travelledseveral times to Virginia to care for her

her father's terminal illness. Ms. Hassan's father is terminally ill and battlingcancer. which Ms. Hassan was dealing during the period her responses were due to the ADO was 29. Sincereceivingthefile,DisciplinaryCounselhas learnedthat the "family issue" with

8.1(b)violation. 28. The CSC votedtoforwardtheCarluccimattertoDisciplinaryCounselfor apossibleRule

letterofMay 20,2013. Hassan eventually responded to theADO's requests for information, via email and in her Carluccimatterwerebarredby thelimitationsperiod,and (2)thoughuntimely,Ms. matterbedismissedwith awarningbecause:(1) theunderlyingacts by Ms.Hassanin the 27. During the rescheduled CSC meeting,GeneralCounsel recommended that the Carlucci

26. The CSC convenedfor its June14,2013meeting.

concerningtheCarluccimatter. datedApril18,2013 untilshesubmittedherwrittenresponseon May20,2013 25. The ADO didnotreceiveMs. Hassan'sresponsetotheADO's "immediatereply"letter

24. GeneralCounselrespondedthesame day.

readyintheCarluccimatterbutwantedto"talkwith[GeneralCounsel]aboutit." 23. On May 9,2013,Ms. HassanemailedGeneralCounselandstatedthatshehadherresponse

rescheduledforJune 14,2013. 22. The May 3,2013CSC Meetingwas cancelledfor reasons unrelated to Ms. Hassan and

21. DisciplinaryCounselsharedthesubstanceof thiscommunicationwithGeneralCounsel.

"familyissue." statedthatshe"plan[ned]on responding"totheCarluccimatterbutwas dealingwitha Kulamatter(#11-051),andMs. Hassanrepliedviaemaillaterthatday. Ms. Hassan 20. On April22,2013,DisciplinaryCounselcorrespondedwithMs. Hassanconcerningthe p. 5 Page 5of9 take into accountthe severityofthemisconduct." Coffey'sCase, 152 N.H. 503,513 (2005). similarconductin thefuture." Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. 299, 303(2009)."The sanction...must publicconfidenceinthebar,preservingtheintegrityofthelegalprofession,and preventing The purposeof the Court'sdisciplinarypoweris"protectingthepublic,maintaining

Hassan'sconduct, as described herein, violated RuleofProfessionalConduct 8.4(a). 38. Havingfoundtheforegoingviolations,thereis clearandconvincingevidencethatMs.

and convincing evidenceofa violationofRule of Professional Conduct 8.1(b). Ms. Hassan's untimely responses to the ADO's requests for information constitute clear 18,2013, but her responses via email and via her May 20,2013 letter were not timely. 37. Ms. Hassan eventually responded to theADO's letters dated March18,2013 and April

disciplinaryauthority. matter from knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a 36. Rule ofProfessional Conduct8.1(b) prohibits a lawyer inconnectionwith a disciplinary

35. The facts set forth above areincorporatedby reference.

Rule ofProfessionalConduct 8.1(b):Failureto Cooperate

violationofRule ofProfessionalConduct 1.4. 34. Ms. Hassan'sconduct in thisregardconstitutesclearand convincingevidenceofa

regarding the tax issue. failing tocommunicate with the Kulas in any form, over a periodofabout nine months, Kula'srequest,despiteMs. Hassan'sstatementto him that shewould do so; and (2) by 33. Ms. Hassan breached that duty by: (1) failing to investigate the1099/taxissue per Mr.

Prof.Conduct 1.4(a). his matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. N.H. R. 32. Ms. Hassan owed David Kula a duty to keep him reasonably informed about the statusof

31. The facts set forth above are incorporated by reference.

Rule ofProfessionalConduct 1.4:ClientCommunication

8.4(a): General Rule, by clear and convincing evidence. p. 6 Page 6 of9

representinga client.Section4.4 of the Standards provides,in pertinentpart, asfollows: involved breachesofMs. Hassan'sduty to act with reasonablediligenceand promptnessin determining a baseline sanction. Ms.Hassan'sfailure to communicate properly with her clients Having set forth the first three prongs, the Standards provide material guidance for

email and by letter, in time for the CSC meeting on June14,2013. finally submitted her response. However, she eventually didrespondto theADO's requests via and to proceed in itsinvestigationwithout the benefitofMs. Hassan'sversionofevents until she the ADO. Her delayedresponsesrequired the ADO to sendmultiplerequestsforinformation harm to the legal system andprofessionby failing to timely provideinformationas requested by clients'initialbeliefat thetime thegrievancewas filed. Ms.Hassan additionallycaused minor sooner.However, Ms. Hassan did notcausetheincorrect1099 form to befiled,contraryto her with themsooner,theKulas would have been able tocorrecttheproblem with theirtax form communication with theKulas causedthem slightharm because,had Ms. Hassan communicated injury caused by Ms.Hassan'smisconduct.Ms. Hassan'sfailure tomaintainproper The thirdprong ofthesanctionanalysis requires anassessmentofthe actual orpotential

Virginia. was also dealing with herfather'sterminal cancer and travelling extensively to his home in contact with the ADO via email prior to that point. During the relevant time frame, Ms. Hassan deadlines set, she ultimately responded in time for the rescheduled CSC meeting and was in Ms. Hassan failed to respond to theADO's letters regarding the Carlucci matter within the in herfailuretocommunicatewith the Kulasregardingthe statusoftheir tax issue. Although Under the second prongofthe sanctionanalysis,Ms. Hassan'smental state was negligent

failureto timely respond to theADO's letters. SeeStandards §§ 4.0, 6.0, and 7.0. legalsystem,and to theprofessionby the lackofcommunicationwith her client and by her Under the first prongofthe analysis, Ms. Hassan violated duties owed to her client, to the

factors andwhetherthey affect thebaselinesanction. See id. lookstothefourthand finalpartoftheanalysis:theexistenceofany aggravatingormitigating identifytheappropriatesanction").Oncethebaselinesanctionisdetermined,the Court then that"[i]napplyingthesefactors,thefirststepis tocategorizetherespondent'smisconductand misconductand determiningabaselinesanction. See Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. at303 (stating The firstthreepartsof theanalysiscreatetheframeworkforcharacterizingthe

mitigatingfactors." Id. (quoting Douglas'Case, 156 N.H. 613,621 (2007)); Standards § 3.0. actualinjurycausedby thelawyer'smisconduct;and (d)theexistenceofaggravatingor imposingsanctions:"(a)thedutyviolated;(b)thelawyer'smentalstate;(c)thepotentialor Case, 158 N.H. at303. The Standards setforthafourpartanalysisforcourtstoconsiderin AlthoughtheCourthasnotadoptedthe Standards, itlookstothem forguidance. Conner's p. 7 Page 7 of9 2The term "admonition," as used in theABA Standards, is analogousto a reprimand in New Hampshire

June 13,2012 forsimilarRule 1.4concerns. See Standards § 9.22. offenses,and her prior disciplinary record, which consistsofa warning from the CSC on present,includingMs. Hassan'ssubstantialexperiencein the practiceoflaw, hermultiple factors. E.g.,Conner'sCase, 158N.H. at 303. In this case,severalaggravatingfactorsare Next, thebaselinesanctionmust be considered in lightofany aggravatingand mitigating

system. (Emphasis added.) causes littleor no actualor potentialinjuryto aclient,the public,or thelegal instanceofnegligencethatis aviolationofa duty owed as aprofessional,and 7.4 Admonition isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer engages inan isolated

injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. that is aviolationofa duty owed as aprofessionaland causesinjury or potential 7.3 Reprimand isgenerallyappropriate when alawyernegligentlyengages inconduct

injury to aclient,thepublic,or the legal system. that is aviolationofa duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential 7.2 Suspensionisgenerallyappropriate when a lawyerknowingly engages inconduct

provides,inpertinentpart: information involved breachesofher duties owed as a professional. Section 7.0ofthe Standards Ms. Hassan'sfailure to comply in a timely manner with theADO's requests for

no actualor potentialinjuryto aclient. (Emphasis added.) not actwith reasonablediligenceinrepresentinga client,and causeslittleor 4.44 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does

injury to aclient. withreasonablediligenceinrepresentingaclient,andcausesinjuryorpotential 4.43 Reprimandisgenerallyappropriatewhena lawyeris negligentand does not act

to a client. (b) a lawyerengagesin apatternofneglectand causesinjuryorpotentialinjury potentialinjury to a client, or (a) a lawyerknowinglyfailstoperformservicesforaclientand causesinjuryor

4.42 Suspension is generallyappropriatewhen: p. 8 Page 8 of9

Ct. R.37(19)(b). matter,orenforcethe assessment by petitionto the superiorcourt in any county in the state. Sup. explainingthe reasons for disagreement. Sup. Ct. R.37(19)(b).The Committee may resolve the ofreceiptof the Committee'sstatementofexpenses,listingeach disputed expenseand The assessmentshallbecome finalunlessMs. Hassanrespondsinwriting,withinthirty(30)days Sup.Ct.R.37(19)(b).Costscaninclude,butarenotlimitedto,copyingandpostageexpenses. incurredby theCommitteein theinvestigationandenforcementof thisdisciplinarymatter. See The CommitteeacceptstheStipulationthatMs. Hassanagreesto pay theexpenses

Reprimand to Susan H. Hassan. and thepurposesofattorneydisciplinein NewHampshire,theCommitteeherebyissuesa Accordingly,taking intoconsiderationthefour-partanalysisset forth in theStandards

organizationand management). severalrules,includingRules1.4and 8.1(b),allofwhichstemmed from theattorney'slackof Beveridge, 459 S.E.2d542,547-50(W. Va. 1995)(admonishinganattorneyforhisviolationsof receivedan admonitionforviolatingRules1.4and 8.1(b)); seealsoLawyer DisciplinaryBd. v. alsoShah v. Miss.Bar, 962 So.2d 514,520 (Miss.2007)(notingthattheattorneyhad previously notingthatan admonitionisthe"leastseveredisciplinarysanctionavailable"inthatstate); see violatingRules1.3and 1.4by failingtokeepherclientreasonablyinformedaboutthecaseand PanelCase.No. 19453, 690 N.W.2d 716,719-21(Minn.2005)(admonishingan attorneyfor measurethanapubliccensurebutmore severethananinformaladmonition); seealsoIn re hisclientofsuch,and alsonotingthatareprimandinthatjurisdictionisalessseveredisciplinary an attorneywho violatedRules1.3and 1.4when he failedtofileanappealand failedtoinform dishonestyand deceit); seealsoIn reSchlemmer, 870 A.2d 76,77-82(D.C.2005)(reprimanding reasonablerequestsforinformation,mitigatedby theattorney'sreputationand alackof attorney,inpart,foraRule1.4violationwheretheattorneyfailedtorespondtotheclient's ofRule 1.4and Rule8.1(b). See Cox'sCase, 148 N.H. 559,562-65(2002)(reprimandingan A reprimandisproportionaltothedisciplineimposedinothercasesinvolvingbreaches

circumstancesinthiscasedo notwarrantdepartingfrom thebaselinesanctionofareprimand. Suchmitigatingfactorsoffsettheaggravatingfactorspresentinthiscase.Thus,the

SeeStandards § 9.32. orselfishmotive,herpersonal/emotionalproblems,hercharacter/reputation,and herremorse However,severalmitigatingfactorsarealsopresent,includingan absenceofadishonest p. 9 Page 9 of9

File Susan H. Hassan, Esquire Sara S. Greene, DisciplinaryCounsel Distribution:

Office'scollectionefforts. Ms. Hassanshallberesponsibleforallcostsincurredas aresultoftheAttorneyDiscipline legallyavailablepost-judgmentenforcementremediesand procedures. See Sup.Ct.R. 37(19)(c). countyinthestate,whereitshallbedocketedas afinaljudgmentandshallbesubjecttoall The Committeemay fileacopy ofthefinalassessmentwiththesuperiorcourtinany