Linda A. Theroux (2014)

evidence.The Committee summarizes thosefacts,with referencetotherecord,as follows: Hearing Panel Report were not in dispute. These facts have been established by clear and convincing The Committee determined and the parties stipulated that the facts set forth at pp.2-19ofthe

censured forviolatingRules 4.1(a), 8.4(c) and 8.4(a). For the reasons stated herein, the Committeedeterminedthat Ms. Theroux should be publicly

Oppositionto theADO's LimitedAppeal on Sanction. on Sanction and Supporting MemorandumofLaw, and Respondent'sMemorandum ofLaw in Hearingon Sanction,ADO's Memorandum on Sanction,HearingPanel Report,ADO'sLimitedAppeal Costs,Respondent'sProposed FindingsofFact,PreliminaryHearing Panel Report,Transcriptsof SubmittedExhibits1-68,the ADO'sRequestsforFindingsof Fact and Rulings of Law andRequestfor remandingthe matterto theCommittee,NoticeofCharges,Answer,Stipulationas to the Facts,Jointly The Committee reviewed the record, including the New Hampshire Supreme Court Order

Attorney Murphy, was alsopresent. behalfof the ADO, and Linda A. Theroux,representedherself. Gladys Strickhart, Legal Assistant to OralArgument was presented by Elizabeth M. Murphy,Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, on

ElizabethTenn was absent. and RichardD.Sager.Alan J. Cronheim and MarthaVan Oot were recused and not present. Mary ViceChair;Peter G. Beeson; Susan R.Chollet;RichardH. Darling; Heather E. Krans;GeorgesJ. Roy; Members present included David M. Rothstein, Chair; BenettePizzimenti,Vice Chair; Elaine Holden, anddeliberatedthe issueofsanction asappealedby theAttorneyDiscipline Office (the"ADO"). On June17,2014,the Professional Conduct Committee(the "Committee") heard oral argument

Richard H. Darling* Holly B. Fazzino,Administrator Alan J.Cronheim * nonattorneymember Susan R. Chollet* Mary ElizabethTenn Peter G. Beeson RichardD. Sager Elaine Holden,* ViceChair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 Georges J. Roy* BenettePizzimenti,Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Martha Van Oot David M. Rothstein,Chair 4 ChenellDrive, Suite102 Heather E. Krans

number. 4Referencesto"T-I,""T-II,"and "T-III"refertotherespectivevolumesoftrialtranscriptfollowedby thepage documentwas not Bates stamped, the page number onthe bottomofthe page. bytheparties.PagenumbersreferencetheBatesnumbersonthebottomright-handcornerof thepage,or if the 3"Ex."referstothe"JointlySubmittedExhibits,"two volumescontaining 66 pre-markedexhibitsstipulatedto be found at Volume 1, Exhibit 6ofthe Jointly Submitted Exhibits. 2"Answer"referstoLindaA. Theroux'sAnswer toNoticeofChargesdatedAugust24,2011.The Answer can submittedat the December16,2013 hearing. foundinVolume 1of theJointlySubmittedExhibits,Exhibit7. Asignedcopyof theStipulationas toFactswas 1Referencesto"Stipulation"referto theparties'StipulationastoFactsdatedNovember 2013,whichcanbe

allallegedruleviolations.The Answer isherebyincorporatedby reference.Stipulation,K 7 Ex.6. 7. On August24,2011,Ms. TherouxfiledanAnswer to theNoticeofCharges,contesting

Stipulation ^ 6; Ex. 5. 3.4(c),4.1(a),4.4(a),8.4(c)and8.4(a).TheNoticeofChargesis herebyincorporatedby reference. 6. On August 1,2011,the ADO issueda NoticeofCharges,allegingviolationsof Rules

Guard ("Coast Guard"). StipulationH 5; Ex. 1 p. 2; Ex. 2 p. 13. recordsreleaseexecutedby Mr.Ruggieroandtenderedto Mr. Ruggiero'semployer,the U.S. Coast 5. Boththereferraland thecomplaintfocusedon Ms. Theroux'shandlingof amilitary

2 pp. 12-17. Divisioncase,made thereferral.Mr.Ruggierofiledthecomplaint.Stipulation^ 4; Ex. 1 pp.1-3;Ex. to2009. AttorneyPhilipDesfosses,who representedMr. Ruggieroduringa portionof theFamily JeffreyR. Ruggiero, 618-2007-DM-00395)in theBrentwoodFamilyDivisionduringtheperiod2007 representationofKristinRuggieroin adivorceproceeding (IntheMatterofKristinK. Ruggieroand Ms. Theroux violatedtheNew Hampshire Rules ofProfessionalConduct inconnectionwith her andacomplaintdatedAugust12,2009,filedwiththeADO. The referralandcomplaintallegedthat 4. This attorneydisciplinematterwasinitiatedby a lawyerreferral dated August6,2009,

120;T-IIIpp.30-31.4 closedherpracticebecauseit was herintentiontofocuson volunteerwork in herretirement.T-IIp. 3. As of December 1,2012,Ms. Therouxclosedher law practice.StipulationH 3. She

Therouxalso retainedpart-time temporaryemployeesto assist with her practice. Stipulation^|2. 1; Ex. 6 p. 1. Ms.Theroux's daughterservedas herlegal/administrativeassistant.At times,Ms. Law Firm ofLinda A. Theroux, PLLC, 58 Patten Road, Merrimack,New Hampshire 03054. Answer^ 2. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Therouxoperatedher law office as The

time,focusingprimarilyon familyand criminallaw. Stipulation,1f 1;Answer U l;2Ex.6p.1.3 was admitted to practice onOctober31,1994,and has conducted a full-time, solopracticesince that 1. AttorneyLinda Theroux is licensed to practice law inNew Hampshire. Ms. Theroux

Background Facts p. 3 Page 3of21 thatMs. Ruggierohad liedtoMs. Therouxaboutmultipleissuesinthedivorcecase.T-IIpp.38-39. Therouxtestifiedat thecriminaltrial,andultimatelywithdrewfrom representingKristenRuggieroafterlearning 6Ms. TherouxdidnotrepresentKristenRuggierointhecriminalmattersofwhichshewas convicted.Ms. Hearing Panel. 5References to"Record"refer to the Professional ConductCommittee'sIndexofRecord submitted to this

garnishmentsetup withtheCoastGuard.Ex. 13,Ex. 14. Mr. Ruggiero,throughMr. Battles,sought 11;Ex. 12. Mr. Ruggierowas orderedto paychildsupport,withpaymentsecuredthroughawage appointedaguardian adlitem ("GAL")toreporton matterspertainingtotheparties'minorchild.Ex. 13. On February26,2008,theFamilyCourtDivisionissueda TemporaryDecreeand

resultingintheconvictionofMs. Ruggieroformultiplecountsoffalsifyingphysicalevidence.6 highlycontentiousdivorce,withcriminalchargesbeingpressedagainstbothpartiesand ultimately Ex.8 p.708. The recordof thedivorce/parentingproceedingin thefollowingtwo yearsdemonstratesa Ruggiero.Mr. Ruggierowas representedinitiallybyRobertA. Battles,Esq. AnswerK 4;Ex.6 p. 2; PetitionforDivorcefiledon July20,2007.Ms. TherouxsubsequentlyenteredanappearanceforMs. 12. The underlyingdivorceproceedingwas initiatedby KristinRuggierowith a.prose

FactsRegarding Underlying Matter

Theroux'sintent when shealteredand submitteda military recordsreleaseto theCoast Guard. SanctionsHearingon January30,2014.At theevidentiaryhearing, the dispute concernedMs. 11. A HearingPanelconducteda hearingon themeritson December 16and 18,2013,and a

RecordTab 1 and2.5 On September9,2013,theADO requestedtheappointmentofanew hearingpanel.Stipulation1 9; 10. On June27,2013,theCommitteeissuedan orderrejectingthestipulationin itsentirety.

See In reTheroux, No. LD-2012-0007 (N.H. June6,2013).

beforea new hearingpanel. resolve this case or proceed to an evidentiary hearing respondentmay eitherenterintoa newstipulationto rejectthestipulationin itsentirety,theADO and the rejectthestipulationin itsentirety.If thePCC decidesto decisionand remand it todeterminewhether toacceptor ADO and therespondent.We, therefore,vacate thePCC's PCC erredby onlypartiallyacceptingthestipulationof the dueprocess,we concludethatintheinstantmatter,the Becauseof these gapsin ourrulesandourconcernsabout

9. On June6,2013,theSupremeCourtissuedaremandorder,statinginrelevantpart:

Recommended Sanctionsubmittedby theADO andMs. Theroux.Stipulation18. findingsandrulingsbaseduponaNovember 21,2011StipulationastoFacts,Violations,and 8. On June5,2012,Ms. TherouxappealedadecisionoftheCommitteemakingcertain p. 4 Page 4of21 considersanctionsagainst Mr. Ruggiero for hisfailureto comply with the discoveryrequests.Mr. had not yet filed an objection to Ms.Theroux'sMotion to Compel, and the Court indicated it would 20. On January 13,2009,the Court held a hearing on all pendingmotions. Mr. Desfosses

855-56. rightsandresponsibilitiesso seriously affecting this six yearold child." Stipulationf 17;Ex. 32 pp. onlyforthePetitioner,but also for theGAL and forthe Court when determiningallocationofthese Respondent'smedicalrecordsincludinganymentalhealthrecordsarerelevantandarenecessary,not arguedthat "since residential parenting rights and responsibilities are at issue in this case, all interrogatoriesand requestsseekingmental health and other medicalinformationand releases. She 19. In her MotiontoCompel,Ms. TherouxalsoaddressedMr. Ruggiero'sobjectionsto

StipulationK 16;Ex. 32 pp. 850-62. request a"military"recordsrelease, and did not address theneed forsuch a release in themotion. Ruggiero'semploymentwith theCoastGuard. Ms. Therouxhadnot includedin theoriginaldiscovery had notexecuteda standardemploymentrecordsrelease,affordingaccesstoinformationregardingMr. Ruggiero'sfailureto execute alloftherequestedreleases.Ms. TherouxcomplainedthatMr. Ruggiero deficienciessheclaimedappearedinMr. Ruggiero'sresponsesto the discoveryrequests,includingMr. 18. On January9,2009,Ms. Theroux filed a Motion to Compel, setting forth in detail the

interrogatoriesand requests. Stipulation % 15;Ex. 32 pp. 863-900. and did not include allofthe requestedreleases.Mr. Ruggiero objected to severalofthe Ms. Theroux's discoveryrequests,originallydue in July2008,viafax.The responseswere incomplete 17. On oraboutDecember 16,2008,Mr. DesfossestransmittedMr. Ruggiero'sresponsesto

Stipulation1 14; see e.g. Ex. 24 pp.108-09. 16. On oraboutOctober17,2008,Mr. Desfossesenteredan appearanceforMr. Ruggiero.

in Ms. Theroux's motion. Stipulation % 13; Ex. 22 p. 326. hearing,the Courtallowed Mr. Ruggiero untilOctober16,2008,to addressthe discovery issuesraised Theroux subsequently filed a Motion for Default. Ex. 21 pp.809-11.At a September16,2008, default.Ex. 20. After Mr. Ruggiero did not provideresponseswithin the allowed ten days, Ms. the discovery requests hadnotbeen answered. Ex.19. The Courtissueda noticeofconditional 15. On August 12,2008,Ms. Theroux filed a motion for conditional default on groundsthat

18. Mr. Ruggiero did notprovideresponses. Stipulation^ 12. Ms. Theroux offered Mr. Ruggiero atwo-week extension for responding to the discovery requests. Ex. records.Ex. 16. In considerationofMr. Battles' subsequent withdrawal as Mr.Ruggiero'scounsel, accompaniedby releases forcriminal,financial,employment,medical,and counseling/mentalhealth productionofdocuments to Mr. Battles, to be answered by Mr. Ruggiero.The requests were 14. On June 5,2008,Ms. Theroux forwarded a setofinterrogatories and requests for

other issues.Stipulationf 11. support. The Court denied Mr.Ruggiero'smotion, and the partiescontinuedtocontestfinancial and Guard should not havebeen consideredincome for purposesofdeterminingthe appropriate levelof reconsiderationofthe support order, arguing in part that "travelvouchers"receivedfrom the Coast p. 5 Page 5of21 matter.The transcriptwas preparedafter thisdisciplinaryproceedingwas initiated. See T-Iat16. 7Exhibit 33 is atranscriptoftheJanuary13,2009hearingon the motions pending in the Ruggiero divorce

military recordsincludingfinancial and salary records from themilitary? THE COURT: I'm not quite clear on the issuewiththe -you'relookingfor certain MS. THEROUX: Right. THE COURT: Well,that'swhy I indicated Iwould lookatsanctions,okay? going through the roof. When we talk about prejudicefromAttorneyDesfosses'sperspective,but formy client, these legal fees are have. We're going to be back in frontofyour Honor again.And maybe there's no MS. THEROUX: See, therewe go, your Honor.That'stheproblem we're going to issues regardingwhat anybody iswillingto release to her,butwe'lldealwith it. Regarding themilitaryrecords, becauseoftheongoing spillover,theremay be some MR. DESFOSSES: Regardingthe - we will signwhateverreleases are available today. militarywould accept it. MS. THEROUX: Probably I have anemployment records release. I don'tknow ifthe THE COURT: Okay. MS. THEROUX: We can get the three that I have. THE COURT: Okay. So we couldn'tget those allexecutedtoday. want amilitaryrecords release. records release, but I'mnot sure thatwould be sufficientfor themilitary.They might MS. THEROUX: So I didn't-1 probably inmy file have acopy oftheemployment THE COURT: Right. MS. THEROUX: Only what he —I wanted to show you what he didn'tdo. sign? THE COURT: Allright, so youdon'thave allofthe releases that Mr.Ruggierocould because Iwant hismilitaryrecords. There was anemployment record release that he didn'teven provideback to me, MS. THEROUX: Ihave theones that were in the - that I wasprovidedinresponse. THE COURT: Ms. Theroux,is the - you have the releases thatcouldbe executedtoday?

22. At one point during thediscussion,the Courtand counsel had the followingexchange:

Desfossesagreed.StipulationU 19; Ex. 33 pp.419-20. whicharecustodyofthe child " The Courtruledthattheinformationwas "discoverable"andMr. arguedthat"thereleasesdon't haveanyinformationthat'sgermaneto thecentralissuesin thiscase, 21. Mr. Desfossestoldthe Court thathe and hisclientwould "fixthereleases,"buthe also

complete.StipulationK 18;Ex.337 pp.412-24. Desfosses conceded that Mr.Ruggiero'sresponsesto theinterrogatoriesand requests were not p. 6 Page 6of21

StipulationH 20;Ex. 33 pp.425-29.

THE COURT: And,Mr. Desfosses,youcansupplementtheanswerswithin 30days... MS. THEROUX: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. So anyfurtheronewouldbeprovidedby you? theirownrelease,which I can provideto Attorney Desfosses. MS. THEROUX: But sincethen, I've beenmade awarethatthe military mightrequire THE COURT: Right. MS. THEROUX: I submitted an employmentrecordsrelease. submitted or you need to submit more? courthousetoday.And,Ms. Theroux,theotherreleasesarealready-havealreadybeen THE COURT: We can get someofthereleasessignedbeforethepartiesleavethe MS. THEROUX: That'sputting it mildly. THE COURT: We can - MR. DESFOSSES: This case is extremelyfluid,yourHonor,fromweek to week. THE COURT: Okay. So if- MS. THEROUX: That'snotour understanding. MR. DESFOSSES: I said alloftheinvestigationshave been closed. talkingtome. MS. THEROUX: I'msorry;I didn'thearwhatAttorneyDesfossessaid.My clientwas plaintiffhaveallbeenresolved. MR. DESFOSSES: No, sir.Alloftheinvestigationswhich wereinstigatedby the havea problemwith that atthispoint? THE COURT: Allright.And,Mr. Desfosses,correctme ifI'mwrong,butyoudon't unclassified. issuesthatwe'renotprivyto.Issuesthatwe areprivyto,thenwe wouldwantanything MS. THEROUX: Well,theremaybe,you know,classification-secretclassification records,that'sa differentissue. thosereleaseswillbesigned.Ifthemilitaryforsome reasondoesn'treleasecertain THE COURT: Right.Butas far-whatI'mhearingisMr. Desfossesisindicatingthat custodialortheresidentialparentingissue.Thereareso many unknownsrightnow and- InvestigativeServices,areconducting.We don'tknow whetherthosemightaffectthe pendinginvestigationsagainstMr. RuggierothatCGIS,whichisCoastGuard MS. THEROUX: Well,thereis -thereis -fromourunderstandingisthatthereare THE COURT: I'm not quitesurewhattheissuewouldbe. MR. DESFOSSES: Ifyou'resayingthey'reentitledtothat,we don'tobject. p. 7 Page 7of21 sinceI have recentlylearnedas aresultofa similarissue inanothermatterI am Mr. Ruggiero,thematterofareleaseofhismilitaryrecordswas addressedbytheCourt, Althoughthisreleasewas notincludedintheinterrogatoriespreviouslypropoundedto

Ms. Theroux stated: Records Release had three sections, "I," "II," and"III." Ex. 35 p. 335.With respect to thatrelease, Records,"StandardForm 180 (the"MilitaryRecordsRelease").Ex.35 pp.330-44.The Military includedwiththediscoveryrequests,Ms. Therouxincludeda"RequestPertainingtoMilitary ProtectedHealthInformation."Inadditionto thestandardemploymentrecordsreleaseoriginally includeda"Counseling/MentalHealthRecordsRelease/Authorization"and "AuthorizationtoRelease Theroux encloseda numberofreleasesthat she wanted"fully" executed by Mr. Ruggiero. She law attorneyatMr. Desfosses'soffice,regardingthevariousrecordsreleases.Ex.35 p.141. Ms. 26. On January14,2009,Ms. TherouxsentalettertoAttorneyCelesteChristo,a family

a laterdate.StipulationH22; Ex. 33 p. 428. hearing.Ms. Therouxdidnothavethedocumentwithherand plannedtoprovideittoMr. Desfossesat fromtherecord,theMilitaryRecordsReleasewas notavailableforMr. Ruggierotoexecuteafterthe inathreateningmatter,usingexpletives,whilestillinthecourtroom.T-IIpp.93-94.As isapparent discussionthattookplaceafterthehearing.AccordingtoMs. Theroux,Mr. Desfossesconfrontedher 25. Ms. Therouxexplainedthatthereleaseswereneverexecutedbecauseofaheated

fact,meetand signreleasesafterthehearing.StipulationH 22. discussthereleasesafterthehearingand havethemsigned.The attorneysand theclientsdidnot,in 24. Duringthehearing,theCourtand counselagreedthattheattorneysand clientswould

StipulationK 21;Ex. 33 pp.430-31.

that.I amgratefulforthecourt'sindulgenceand willhonorthatsuggestion. appropriateforinterrogatories.AttorneyChristowillbedoingthat.Iwillinformherof youknow,Idon'tnormallydo familylaw.I'mnotfamiliarwithwhatmay becompletely MR. DESFOSSES: That's areasonablesuggestion,yourHonor.As I said, you know, as manner, not wait another 30 days. know immediatelysothatwe can eitherresolveitorgetbackto thecourtin atimely informationthatI'verequestedinthecompelthattheydon'tagreewith,thatthey letme sothatifAttorneyDesfossesreviewstherecordsand in aweekfindsthatthereis AndI believethatthisinterrogatorydiscoveryissuehasbeenongoingforlongenough, before we can get a final hearing. multiple-dayhearingforsure,and that'sgoingtobe bumped outhow many months and it'stimetostartmovingthistowarda finalhearing,and it'sgoingto endupbeinga findout.Thisdivorcehasbeenongoingfor-youknow,goingon overa yearand ahalf, complywithanythingelseinthemotiontocompel,thatthisnotwait30 daysforme to MS. THEROUX: And,yourhonor,Iwouldaskthatif-ifMr. Ruggierorefusesto

ended as follows: 23. The exchangeaboutdiscoveryand Ms. Theroux'spreviouslyfiledMotiontoCompel p. 8 Page 8of21 referenceto theMilitaryRecordsRelease.StipulationK 28;Ex.38 p.19. would"providetheformyou senttome toMr. Ruggieroforhissignature."Ms. Christomade no other 34. WithrespecttotheMilitaryRecordsRelease,Ms. Christoindicatedinherletterthatshe

employersfromwhom youwishtoobtainrecords." Id. 19. Ms. Christosaidshewould notauthorizeMs. Theroux"to fill in theinformationfrompat[sic] records,Ms. Christoalsoindicated,"Ido notagreetohavemy clientsignablankrelease."Ex.38 p. regardingaproposedretirementplanrecordsrelease."Ex.38 p.18. Withrespecttoemployment 33. Inherletter,Ms. Christoindicated:"It is notmypracticetoprovide'blank'releases"

14,2009.Stipulationf 27; Ex. 38. 32. On January21,2009,Ms. ChristorespondedtoMs. Theroux'slettertoherofJanuary

36 p. 372. copyfromthecourt,as wellas acopyoftheMilitaryRecordsReleasethatsheintendedtosubmit.Ex. Commander PruettwithacopyoftheCourt'sJanuary13,2009orderas soonas shereceivedawritten notcooperatewithanythingIaskwithoutacourtorder."Ms. Therouxpromisedtoprovide "However,IhavelearnedfrombitterexperienceduringthispendingdivorcethatBM1 Ruggierowill 31. Ms. Therouxfurtherexplainedthetwo-weektimeconstraintshewasunderand noted:

Ex. 36 p. 372. anythingelsethereinthatisnotclassifiedinformationforsuchthingsas Homeland Securitypurposes." him duringdiscovery,includinga'MilitaryRecordsRelease'forsuchthingsas hisincomerecordsand indicatedattheJanuary13,2009hearingthatBM1 RuggieroistosignvariousreleasesIsoughtfrom 30. Inthate-mailmessage,Ms. TherouxadvisedCommander Pruettthat"theCourthas

regardingthediscoveryissue.Stipulation % 26;Ex.36 pp.371-73. 29. On January15,2009,Ms. Therouxsentanothere-mailmessagetoCommander Pruett

numberofphoneconversationsconcerningissuesrelevanttothependingdivorce.T-Ipp.266-67. 36 pp.373-76.Inadditiontothee-mailcorrespondence,Commander Pruettand Ms. Therouxhad a requireawaiversignedbyMr. Ruggieroauthorizingreleaseof"hispay records."StipulationU25;Ex. CoastGuard. Commander Pruettrespondedthathewas constrainedby thePrivacyActand would theavailabilityofdocumentationpertainingtothegarnishmentofwages paidtoMr. Ruggierobythe theCoastGuard,detailingherconcernsaboutchildsupportissuesin thedivorcecaseand askingabout 28. On January14,2009,Ms. Therouxcorresponded,viae-mail,withCommander Pruettof

IIof theMilitaryRecordsRelease.StipulationH 24;Ex.35 pp.140-42. 27. InherletterofJanuary14,2009,Ms. Therouxmade noreferencetocompletingSection

StipulationK 23;Ex. 35 p.141.

form returnedtomy officeforthwith. this document as well. Sections I and III must be completed by Mr. Ruggiero and the mere 'employmentrecordrelease.'The CourtindicatedthatMr. Ruggierowas tosign handling,thatthemilitaryrequiresthecompletionoftheenclosedformratherthana p. 9 Page 9of21 8Exhibit40 isacopyoftheMilitaryRecordsReleaseafteritwas completed/altered.

Petitioner'sJanuary9,2009MotiontoCompel]isgrantedas setforthin theSchedulingConference January23,2009Orderruledinpartthat"Petitioner'sMotionforDiscovery[presumablyreferringto to:UniformSupportOrder,SchedulingConferenceOrderand CourtOrder."Ex.41 p.112. The datedJanuary30,2009,whichenclosedacopyof"theCourt'sOrderdatedJanuary23,2009,relative 41. On January30,2009,theBrentwoodFamilyDivisionissueda"NoticeofDecision"

informationobtainedwith thereleasemust besuppliedtoMr. Ruggiero's counsel. Ex. 40 p. 9. executionoftherelease,hiscounseladdeda notationatthe bottomoftheformindicatingthatcopiesof 9.None of thedisclosureoptionswerecheckedoffatthetimeofexecution.PriortoMr. Ruggiero's separation,reenlistmenteligibilitycode,separation(SPD/SPN)code,and datesoftimelost."Ex.40 p. includingsuchsensitiveitemsas thecharacterofseparation,authorityforseparation,reasonfor "informationnormallyneededtoverifymilitaryservice,"and acopyof the"fullseparationdocument (paragraph3).The formreflectsthatan UndeletedReportofSeparationwouldhaveincluded DOCUMENTS REQUESTED" (paragraph2),and the"PURPOSE" (Optional)oftherequest "DELETED ReportofSeparation"(paragraph1),"OTHER INFORMATION AND/OR 40. Section IIoftheformprovidedforanelectiontodisclosean"UNDELETED" or

it onJanuary27,2009.Ex. 40 p. 9; AnswerH 30;Ex. 6 p.10. The partiesdo notdisputethatMs. TherouxfilledinSectionIIofthereleaseafterMr. Ruggierosigned shereceivedit. As aresult,the onlyavailablecopyis thefinalform,ascompletedby Ms. Theroux. was deliveredto Ms. Theroux, and Ms.Therouxdid not make a photocopyofthereleasein theform 39. The MilitaryRecordsReleasethatMr. Ruggierosignedwas notphotocopiedbeforeit

31; Ex. 35 p. 141; Ex. 40 p. 9. 38. Mr. Ruggierowas notaskedto,and didnotfillout,SectionIIoftheform. StipulationK

9.8 acknowledgedhisreturnaddressand enteredhissignaturewhereindicated.StipulationH 30;Ex.40 p. providinginformationneededtolocatetherecordsbeingsought.InSectionIII,Mr. Ruggiero Ms. Theroux.Pursuantto Ms. Theroux'sinstructions,Mr. Ruggierofilled out Section Ioftheform, 37. On January27,2009,Mr. RuggierosignedtheMilitaryRecordsReleasetenderedby

release." Ex. 37 p. 949. AttorneyTheroux'spagetwo explanationofeachreleaseand enterthenecessaryinformationontoeach Ruggiero,enclosingMs. Theroux'sJanuary14,2009letterand instructinghimto:"Pleasego through order,Ms. Christoforwardedtheoriginalreleases,includingthemilitaryrecordsrelease,toMr. recordsreleasethatMs. Therouxwasto provideto hiscounsel.T-Ipp.125-26.Basedon theCourt's 36. Ms. Christo was aware that the Court had orderedthat Mr. Ruggiero sign a military

order.Stipulation129; Ex. 38 p. 19. privilege,butindicatedshewouldaccommodatelimiteddisclosuretotheGAL underaprotective Ms. Christorestatedthepriorobjectionmade inresponsetotheinterrogatoriesand requestsbasedon 35. Inherletter,Ms. Christoalsoreferredtoreleasesformedicaland mentalhealthrecords. p. 10 Page 10of21 Separation"northe"DELETED ReportofSeparation."Instead,Ms. Therouxfilledinparagraph2, TherouxfilledinSectionIIoftheRelease.Ms. Therouxselectedneitherthe"UNDELETED Reportof 48. FollowingreceiptoftheMilitaryRecordsReleaseexecutedbyMr. Ruggiero,Ms.

SectionII,ortheneedtosupplementtheRelease.Ex.46 p.35. 2009 letteroftheMilitaryRecordsRelease,theneedtoelecttheoptionslistedon theReleaseformat 47. Otherthantoacknowledgeitsreceipt,Ms. Therouxmade nomentionintheFebruary4,

p. 35. TherouxalsoacknowledgedreceiptoftheexecutedMilitaryRecordsRelease.Stipulation ^ 36;Ex.46 "instructedtosignthereleasesastheinformationrequestedwas 'discoverable.'"Ex.46 p.37. Ms. thatthe"issueof thereleaseswas litigatedonJanuary13,2009,"and thatMr. Ruggierowas 46. WithregardtoMr. Ruggiero'sexcusesfornotproducingreleases,Ms. Therouxasserted

Ex. 46 p. 37. fiveyears.Again,ifhisobjectionremains,pleaseso advisesothatImay taketheappropriateaction." doctorormedicalgroupwho have[sic]providedmedicaltreatmentand/orservicestohim forpast[sic] militarydoctorswhileservingintheCoastGuard and "isrequiredtoprovideareleaseforeachsuch 45. Withrespecttothesereleases,Ms. TherouxindicatedthatMr. Ruggieromusthaveseen

servingintheCoastGuard. StipulationK35;Ex.46 pp.35-37. psychiatricgroup,includingaprimarycaredoctorand militarydoctorsseenby Mr. Ruggierowhile missing,accordingtoMs. Theroux,wereHIPAA-compliantreleasesfordoctorsotherthanthe releasesformentalhealthand counselingrecordsfromtwospecifichealthcareproviders.Also identifyingdeficienciesinthemedicaland mentalhealthrecordsreleases.She requestedadditional 44. Afterreviewingthereleases,Ms. TherouxwrotetoMs. ChristoonFebruary4,2009,

informationfrom SpectrumPsychiatricGroup. StipulationK 34. otherreleasesauthorizingdisclosureofemploymentrecords,and mentalhealthand protectedhealth theMilitaryRecordsReleaseexecutedby Mr. Ruggiero,withoutSectionIIfilledin,as wellasthe 43. On February3,2009,atahearingon arelatedmatter,Mr. DesfossesgaveMs. Theroux

Ex. 39. forreconsiderationoftheCourt'sdiscoveryorderoramotionforprotectiveorder.Stipulation^|33; on conditionthatdisclosurebelimitedtotheGAL underaprotectiveorder.He didnotfileamotion mentalhealthrecords.Mr. DesfossesdeferredtotheCourtregardingdiscoverabilityofsuchrecords, information.Mr. DesfossesalsoreiteratedMr. Ruggiero'sobjectionstodisclosureofmedicaland reasonsforMr. Ruggiero'stermination,buthe requestedaprotectiveordertorestricttheuseofsuch Mr. Desfossesagreedtoalimitedreleaseofemploymentrecordsso astopermitcounseltolookinto Compel,inwhichhe raisedobjectionstothereleaseofcertainofMr. Ruggiero'sprivilegedrecords. 42. Mr. Desfossesfiledan objection,datedJanuary21,2009,toMs. Theroux'sMotionto

receipt."StipulationU 32;Ex.41 p. 115. completedin30 daysand "Releases(includingmilitary)tobe signedby Respondentimmediatelyupon SchedulingConferenceOrder,alsodatedJanuary23,2009,providedthatdiscoverywas tobe Orderand as orderedfromthebenchon January13,2009."StipulationH32;Ex.41 p.113. The p. 11 Page 11 of21 completed,alteredand supplementedtheMilitaryRecordsReleaseafteritwas executedbyMr. 53. The HearingPanelfoundby clearand convincingevidencethat Ms.Therouxknowingly

7-8. investigations,and documentationregardingwagesgarnishedand returnedtoMr. Ruggiero.Ex.45 p. ofpolygraphand DNA testing,informationand documentspertainingtocertainU.S.CoastGuard includingmedicaland mentalhealthrecords,psychologicaland and/orpsychiatricevaluations,results informationand/ordocuments:"Ms. Theroux thenprovideda listofspecificallyrequestedinformation informationmentionedinparagraph2 ofthisletter,I amspecificallyrequestingthefollowing 52. Later in her letter toCommander Pruett, Ms.Theroux stated that"inaddition to the

Ex. 45 p. 6(emphasisomitted).

Ruggiero's file. classified.I am, however, seeking anything and everything else that is inBM1 ...Iassuredthe Court that I am not seeking mission specific information that might be and/resignation, etc. employeesand/orsupervisors,performanceevaluations;thereasonsforhistermination ofemployment,disciplinaryrecords,anycomplaintsfiledagainsthim byfellow officetheentireemploymentfileofMr. Ruggiero,includingbut notlimitedto, thedates hisemploymentin theUnitedStatesCoastGuard. Iwouldaskthat youprovideto my Ruggierowhichauthorizesthereleaseofallinformationorcorrespondenceregarding Enclosedherein is the "RequestPertainingTo MilitaryRecords" executed by BM1 RuggierohasexecutedthereleaseIhad requestedinordertoobtainhismilitaryrecords. ...Pursuant to aCourt Order issuedfrom theBench on January13,2009, BM1

51. In herFebruary4,2009lettertoCommander Pruett,Ms. Therouxindicatedasfollows:

January23,2009. Stipulationf38; Ex. 45 pp. 6-9. accompanytheMilitaryRecordsRelease.Ms. TherouxdidnotattachtheCourt'sdiscoveryorderof 50. Ms. Theroux prepareda lettertoCommander Pruett,datedFebruary4,2009,to

release.T-IIp. 5. issuedinthedivorceproceedingsallowedhertorequesttheinformationshesoughtin thealtered referencedherattachedcoverletter.T-IIpp.78-79.Ms. Therouxbelievedthatthediscoveryorder was markedlydifferent,was filledoutinadifferentcolorpen,and thatthehandwrittennotations thatshewas nottryingtoconcealthatfactfromtheCoastGuard by pointingoutthatthehandwriting alterationstotheMilitaryRecordsRelease.Ms. Therouxadmittedthatshemade theeditsherself,and 49. At thehearing,it wasundisputedthatMs. Therouxwas responsibleformakingthe

notprovideadateassociatedwithheradditionstothedocument.Ex.40 p.9;T-IIpp.74-75,79. handwritinginadifferentcoloredinkand identifiedherselfas"attorneyforwife."Ms. Therouxdid (SeeattachedlettertoAttorneyPruett(CMDR)." Ms. Therouxmade theseentriesinherown exceptionofdocumentswhichareclassifiedas 'Secret'or'TopSecret'forNationalDefensePurposes. "OTHER INFORMATION AND/OR DOCUMENTS," asfollows:"[E]ntire military file with p. 12 Page 12of21

records, none were released.Stipulation^|40. 59. As a resultofMs. Christo'srevocationofMr. Ruggiero'sauthorization to release

Stipulation,1) 39 Ex. 49 p. 10. Theroux untilthisissuecan be addressed through the Court.... Ruggieroherebyrevokeshisauthorizationtoany provide[sic]informationtoAttorney agreetotheproductionofany ofthoseadditionalitemsrequested.Accordingly,Mr. beingrequestedatthetirnetheformwas signed.Mr. Ruggierodidnot,inanyway, provided,inadvance,withacopyoftheletterand werenotawareofthelistofitems Mr. Ruggieroorthisofficepriortoalteringthisform.Additionally,we werenot he had providedhissignature.AttorneyTherouxdidnto[sic]consulte[sic]witheither afterhissignaturewas provided.Specifically,SectionII,Paragraph2 was addedafter theForm 180 whichwas signedby Mr. Ruggierowas alteredby AttorneyTheroux releaseofrecordsto AttorneyLindaTheroux.Ithasbeenbroughtto myattentionthat Iam inreceiptofyourcommunicationtoAttorneyDesfossesyesterdayconcerningthe RuggieroinconnectionwithhisdivorceactionpendingintheStateof NewHampshire. Pleasebe advisedthat I am oneoftheattorneyshandlingtherepresentationofMr.

Theroux).T-Ipp.67-68;Ex.49 p. 10. Ms. ChristowrotethefollowingtoCommander Pruett: calledCommander Pruett,and then senthim ane-maildatedFebruary12,2009 (with a copy to Ms. of astandardForm 180 request."StipulationH39;Ex.48 p.4; Ex.56 p.11. Ms. Christopromptly indicatedtoMs. Christo,and latertoMs. Theroux,thatMs. Theroux'srequestwas "outsidethescope 58. Commander PruettsuppliedMs. ChristowithacopyofMs. Theroux'ssubmissions.He

pp. 67-68. PruettcontactedtheDesfossesLaw Office on oraboutFebruary11,2009,viae-mail.Ex. 48 p.4;T-I altered,supplementedand senttheMilitaryRecordsReleasetoCommander PruettuntilCommander 57. NeitherMr. RuggieronorMs. Christowas awarethatMs. Therouxhad completed,

sendingoutletters.Her failureto"cc"opposingcounselwas an oversight.T-IIpp.100,104-05. illnessatthetime,so Ms. Therouxwas personallyresponsiblefortypingherown correspondenceand inthisregardwas due tothefactthatherlegalassistant(herdaughter)was sufferingfromaserious Ruggieroorhiscounselofheractionsinthisregard.Ex.45 p.8;T-IIpp.10-11.Ms. Therouxfailure 2009 lettertoCommander PruettorthealteredMilitaryRecordsRelease,orotherwisenotifyMr. 56. Ms. TherouxdidnotprovideMr. RuggieroorhiscounselwithacopyofherFebruary4,

complete,alterand supplementtheMilitaryRecordsReleaseexecutedby Mr. Ruggiero. 55. Ms. TherouxdidnotappriseMr. Ruggieroorhiscounselofherdesireorintentto

supplement,and presenttheMilitaryRecordsReleasetotheCoastGuard. 54. Ms. TherouxdidnotobtaintheconsentofMr. Ruggieroorhiscounseltoalter,

requestedinformationand recordsbasedon herpresentationoftheReleaseas authentic. Ruggiero,and shepresentedittotheCoastGuard expectingthattheCoastGuard wouldreleasethe p. 13 Page 13of21

See Wyatt'sCase, 159 N.H. 285,307(2009)(citing Grew's Case, 156 N.H. 361, 366(2007)). therespondent'sacts,and not theexternalpressuresthatcouldpotentiallyhavehinderedhisjudgment." 3. With respectto "knowing"misconduct,"[w]hat isrelevant...is the volitionalnatureof

orpurposetoaccomplishaparticularresult"Id. at10. (Emphasisadded). awarenessofthenatureorattendantcircumstancesoftheconduct but without theconsciousobjective StandardsforImposingLawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards") define "knowledge" as "conscious of thefact[s]in question. Aperson'sknowledge may be inferred from circumstances." The ABA 2. Rule ofProfessional Conduct1.0(f)defines"knowingly"as"denotfing]actual knowledge

violated New Hampshire RulesofProfessional Conduct 4.1(a), 8.4(c) and 8.4(a). deceive the Coast Guard or any third party. Ms.Theroux'sconduct in the Ruggiero divorce matter to the Coast Guard. Ms.Theroux, however, did not have thespecificintenttocommit fraud, or to 1. Ms. Theroux made aknowing materialmisrepresentationinsubmittingthe altered Release

follows: been established by clear and convincing evidence. The Committeesummarizesthose rulings as The Committee accepts the rulingsoflaw by the Hearing Committee, and finds that they have

records. Stipulationf 42; Ex. 63 pp. 362-68. March 13,2009. Therefore, the Family Court did not revisit the issueregardingthe releaseofmilitary 63. The parties settled the entire divorce matter with a Stipulated Final Decree executed on

Ruggiero was ordered to provide the military records release immediately...."Ex. 60 p. 138. 2009 Court Order andparagraph4 ofthe Scheduling Conference Orderofthatsame date. Mr. every unclassified document. That was the order that was issued inparagraph5 ofthe January 23, any classified documents that could potentially impact on thiscountry'ssecurity, but that I wanted attorney'sfees.We have already litigatedthis matterand I made it clear to the Court that I did not seek Mr. Ruggieroto execute an unrestricted military records release, along with a request for additional 62. In her March 11,2009 letter, Ms. Theroux stated: "I will be filing amotion to compel

2009, as the parties' settlement negotiations began to bog down.StipulationTf 41; Ex. 60 pp.137-38. Christo regarding the Military Records Release until she wrote a letter to Ms. Christo, dated March11, continuedfor at least twoweeks. As a result, Ms.Theroux did notmake any attempttocontactMs. earnest to settle thedivorcecasebeforea scheduledhearing onMarch 13,2009. Those negotiations 61. Shortlyafter Ms. Christo's lettertoCommander Pruett, the parties begannegotiatingin

180 request." Ex. 56 p.11. becausethe requestfor documents"includedrecordsnormallyoutside the scopeofa StandardForm 2009. He advisedherthathe had forwardedMs. Theroux'scorrespondenceto Mr.Ruggiero'scounsel 60. On February 20,2009,Commander Pruett replied to Ms.Theroux'sletterofFebruary 4, p. 14 Page 14 of21 Military Records Release. information fromnon-governmentalentities. However, that did notauthorizeMs. Theroux to alter the proceedings. The Court hadalreadyordered- and Mr. Ruggiero hadexecuted- releasesofmedical was responsible forprovidinghis medical care and conductinginvestigatoryand disciplinary information and records.This isbecausethe Coast Guard was notjustMr. Ruggiero'semployer,but Ruggiero toexecutea release,Ms. Theroux undertooktoinducetheCoast Guard toreleaseadditional 14. While the Family Divisionallowed discoveryofcertainmilitaryrecords and directed Mr.

order, and that thereleasewas properlyexecutedand authorizedby Mr.Ruggiero. that Mr. Ruggiero had executed and authorized the Release in the formpresentedpursuantto a court 13. In presentingthe Release to the Coast Guard, Ms.Theroux knowingly misrepresented

orhiscounsel. obtaining his authority, andpresentingsaid release to the Coast GuardwithoutnotifyingMr. Ruggiero Records Release after it was executed by Mr. Ruggiero without notifying Mr. Ruggiero or otherwise 12. Ms. Theroux breached that duty by completing, altering, and supplementing the Military

Release. to engage inmisrepresentationregardingthe form, content, andauthenticityofthe Military Records 11. Ms. Theroux owed a duty to Mr. Ruggiero, his counsel, and Mr.Ruggiero'semployer not

N.H. 588, 591-92 (1993). Thus, a"findingofmisrepresentationaloneconstitutesmisconduct." Id. involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. "Rule 8.4(c) isdisjunctive." Welt'sCase, 136 10. Rule 8.4(c) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct

Rule 8.4(c):Misconduct, Deceitor Misrepresentation

9. There is clearand convincingevidence that Ms.Theroux violatedRule 4.1(a).

to a third person, namelythattheentireRelease was the actofMr. Ruggiero,when it was not. 8. Ms. Theroux'smisrepresentationconstitutes amisrepresentationofmaterial fact or law

produce the requested information and records. T-I pp. 277-78. 7. The Release'sapparentauthenticitywas material to theCoast Guard'sdecisionto

Ruggiero wasproperlyexecutedand authorizedby Mr. Ruggiero. the Military Records Release shepresentedin pursuitofrecords andinformationpertainingto Mr. 6. Ms. Theroux breachedthat duty by knowinglymisrepresentingto theCoast Guard that

third parties. 5. Ms. Theroux owed a duty to betruthfulinstatementsmade on behalfofherclientto

make a falsestatementofmaterialfact or law to a thirdperson." 4. Rule 4.1 states: "Inthe courseofrepresentinga clienta lawyershall not knowingly: (a)

Rule 4.1(a):Truthfulnessin StatementstoOthers p. 15 Page 15of21 Ms. Therouxknowinglydisobeyedan obligationundertherulesofatribunal,inthiscase,the 24. Specifically,withrespecttoRule3.4(c),thereisnotclearand convincingevidencethat

convincing evidence. ofThirdPersons,theADO hasnotsustaineditsburdenofprovingtheseallegationsby clearand violationofRule3.4(c),FairnesstoOpposingPartyand Counsel,and Rule4.4(a),RespectforRights 23. With respecttotheADO's allegationsthatMs. Theroux'sconductconstituteda

Other AllegedRule Violations

evidence,suchviolationwouldalsonecessarilyconstituteaviolationofN.H.R. Prof.Conduct8.4(a). 22. Where any oftheaboveallegedruleviolationsisprovenby clearand convincing

Rule 8.4(a):General Rule

materialmisrepresentation,inviolationofRule8.4(c). conductinalteringtheReleaseandpresentingittotheCoastGuardasauthenticwas aknowingand 21. Even thoughshedidnotactwiththespecificintenttodeceiveordefraud,Ms. Theroux's

beliefultimatelyproved to bemistaken. January23,2009OrderauthorizedheralterationoftheMilitaryRecordsRelease,eventhoughthat 20. Atthetime,Ms. TherouxbelievedthattheCourt'sJanuary13,2009benchrulingsand

Theroux actedwith theintentto deceive. isconductinvolvingspecificintent.The ADO didnotproveby clearand convincingevidencethatMs. constitutedaknowingmisrepresentation,itdidnotconstitutedishonesty,fraudordeceit- allofwhich 19. The CommitteeagreeswiththeHearingPanelthatwhileMs. Theroux'sconduct

Theroux inviolationofN.H. R. Prof.Conduct 8.4(c). 18. Thereis clearandconvincingevidenceof theforegoingconductundertakenby Ms.

documentin respondingto Ms.Theroux'srequest. Ruggierosigneditandwithouthisauthority,knowingthattheCoastGuardwouldrelyon thealtered regardingan opposingpartyby presentingareleasetotheCoastGuardthatshehad alteredafterMr. 17. Moreover,Ms. Therouxexpectedtoobtainprivilegedand confidentialinformation

form. constitutedmisrepresentedmaterialfacts, i.e., thatMr. RuggieroassentedtotheReleaseinitsfinal 16. Ms. Theroux also knew that theReleaseand letter she presented to the Coast Guard

informationand records. theauthorityforand authenticityoftheRelease,inacceptingtheReleaseand producingtherequested knew orshouldhaveknown that theCoastGuardwouldreasonablyrely on herrepresentations,as to supplement,andpresentareleasenotproperlyexecutedand authorizedby Mr. Ruggiero.She also 15. Ms. Therouxknewor shouldhaveknown that she was notpermittedtocomplete,alter, p. 16 Page 16of21

censure. Report^ 132. Committeedecisions,andaggravatingand mitigatingfactors,theHearingPanelrecommendedpublic AfterconsideringNew HampshirelawinvolvingRule4.1(a)and 8.4violation,factuallysimilar

the client or the court, was a"mitigatingfactor." Id. atH 102. Panelfurtherconcludedthat the fact that themisrepresentationwas made to a third party, asopposedto courtbecausetheattorneyowes multipledutiestotheclientandthecourt." Id. at1) 113. The Hearing tostatementsmade to thirdpartiesvariessignificantlyfrom the attorney'sdutyto herclientandthe ReportH 112. Indoingso,theHearingPanelreasonedasfollows:"[t]heattorney'sdutywithrespect warrantasignificantlymore severebaselinesanctionthanthemisrepresentationmade inthiscase." misrepresentationstoaclientorcourtare"qualitativelydifferentfromtheconductatissue,and would misrepresentationatissuewas notmade toaclientortothecourt,butto athirdparty,concludingthat "baselinesanction."In deciding to apply § 5.1, theHearingPanel considered that the §5.1ofthe Standards (FailuretoMaintainPersonalIntegrity)toestablishpubliccensureasthe In thiscase,theHearingPanelutilizedthefour-partanalysisset forth in the Standards, applying

most seriousmisconduct." Id. (citing Richmond'sCase, 152N.H. 155,160(2005)). among anumberofviolations;itmightwellbe andgenerallyshouldbegreaterthanthesanctionforthe imposed"shouldatleastbeconsistentwiththesanctionforthemostseriousinstanceofmisconduct In the caseofmore than one finding ofmisconduct,the ABA recommends that the sanction

whetherthey affect the baseline sanction. See id. to thefourthandfinalpart of theanalysis:theexistenceof anyaggravatingormitigatingfactorsand andidentifytheappropriatesanction").Once thebaselinesanctionisdetermined,the courtthenlooks 303 (statingthat"[i]napplyingthesefactors,thefirststepis tocategorizetherespondent'smisconduct forcharacterizingthemisconductanddeterminingabaselinesanction. See Conner'sCase, 158 N.H.at 156 N.H. 613,621(2007)); Standards § 3.0.The firstthreepartsof theanalysiscreatetheframework misconduct;and(d)theexistenceofaggravatingormitigatingfactors." Id. (quoting Douglas'Case, thedutyviolated;(b)thelawyer'smentalstate;(c)thepotentialoractualinjurycausedbythelawyer's The Standards set forth a four-part analysis for courts to consider in imposing sanctions: "(a)

(2005). forImposingLawyers Sanctions (2005) (Standards) forguidance. Coffey'sCase, 152 N.H. 503,513 notbinding,theNew HampshireSupremeCourtlookstotheAmericanBarAssociation's Standards future." Grew's Case, 156N.H. at 365 (quoting Coddington'sCase, 155 N.H. 66, 68(2007)).While confidencein the bar,preservetheintegrityof thelegalprofessionand prevent similarconductin the attorneydisciplineis nottoinflictpunishmentbutrathertoprotectthepublic,maintainpublic The Committee,in determining anappropriatesanction, recognizes that "the purposeof

tookany actionwith"theprimarypurposetoembarrass,delayorburdena thirdperson." 25. With respectto Rule4.4(a),thereis notclearandconvincingevidencethatMs. Theroux

Brentwood FamilyDivision. p. 17 Page 17of21

another to commit anyofthese offenses; or intentionalkillingofanother;or anattemptorconspiracyorsolicitationof the sale, distribution orimportationof controlled substances; or the swearing,misrepresentation,fraud,extortion,misappropriation,ortheft;or includesintentionalinterference with theadministrationofjustice,false (a) alawyerengagesinseriouscriminalconductanecessaryelementofwhich

5.11 Disbarment is generallyappropriatewhen:

Section5.1: Failureto Maintain PersonalIntegrity

this Section, provides: implicates Standards Section5.1and foundittobe themostapplicable. Id., K 107. Inrelevantpart expectationthattheCoastGuardwouldrelyon hermisrepresentationinviolationofRule8.4(c) The Panelfoundthat Ms. Theroux'sknowingmisrepresentationto the Coast Guardwith the

Baselinesanction

integrityofthelegalprofession,andcausedactualandpotentialharm toMr. Ruggerio. Id. fl104-05. thirdprong,theHearingPanelfoundthatMs. Therouxcausedactualharm tothereputationand prong,theHearingPaneldeterminedthathermentalstatewas "knowing." Id. H 103. Applyingthe dutytothegeneralpublicand herdutytothelegalsystem.Report^99. With regardtothesecond Standards analysis.Applyingthefirstprong,theHearingPanelfoundthatMs. Therouxviolatedher The Committeeconcurswith theHearingsPanel'sapplicationof the first threeprongsof the

Analysis

HearingPanel'sultimateconclusionthatapubliccensureistheappropriatesanction. disagreeswiththeHearingPanel'sdeterminationofthebaselinesanction,itnonethelessadoptsthe Committeefinds that the baseline sanction in this case should be suspension. Although the Committee Afterahearingand reviewoftherecord,includingtheparties'memoranda oflaw,the

appropriatefinalsanction. theappropriatesanction.Ms. Therouxarguedthatpubliccensureisthebaselinesanctionandthe sanctionissuspension,andthatafterapplicationofaggravatingand mitigatingfactors,suspensionis orrulingsoflaw.The onlydisputewas theappropriatesanction.The ADO arguedthatthebaseline AtthehearingbeforetheCommittee,neitherpartydisputedtheHearingPanel'sfindingsoffact

LimitedAppealonSanctionsand SupportingMemorandum ofLaw dated4/10/14,atpp.2-3. HearingPanel'sconsiderationofthatfactasa"mitigatingfactor."AttorneyDisciplineOffice's partywarrantsalessersanctionthanamisrepresentationtoaclientorthecourt,andchallengedthe Specifically,theADO challengedtheHearingPanel'sdeterminationthatamisrepresentationtoathird committedan erroroflaw in its sanctionanalysisthataffecteditsdeterminationof abaselinesanction. The ADO fileda limitedappealof theHearingPanel'sReport,arguingthattheHearingPanel p. 18 Page 18of21 'The term"reprimand,"as usedinthe Standards, isanalogoustoapubliccensureinNew Hampshire.

(citing ABA/BNA Lawyers'Manual on ProfessionalConduct 101:402(January21,1998))(emphasis misrepresentationstoaclient,tribunal, orothers."Douglas'Case, 156 N.H.at620 (quotationomitted) themisrepresentationismade. "AbasicpremiseofRule8.4(c)isthatalawyermay notmake The Courthastreatedallactsofattorneydishonestyequallyseriously,regardlessof towhom

publiccensure.New Hampshirelawdoesnotsupportsuchadistinction. themostseveresanctionforaknowingmisrepresentation,withoutaggravatingfactors,wouldbea and tomembers ofthebar.Under thisanalysis,absentamisrepresentationtotheCourtortoaclient, integrityoftheprofession.The creationofsuchadistinctionsendsthewrong messagetothepublic sanctionanalysis,resultinginalowersanction,doesnotproperlyservetoprotectthepublicand the significantly"fromamisrepresentationtothecourtoraclient,and operatesas amitigatingfactorinthe Coddington'sCase, 155 N.H.at68).A holdingthatamisrepresentationmade toathirdparty"varies attorneydisciplineistoprotectthepublic. See,e.g.,Grew'sCase, 156 N.H.at365 (quoting courtoraclient.Ms. Therouxviolatedthebedrockprofessionaldutyofhonesty.One purposeof presumptivelywarrantsalessersanctionby virtueofthefactthatitismade toathirdpartyinsteadofa The CommitteerejectstheHearingPanel'sconclusionthatamisrepresentationtothirdparty

misconduct."). whichleavesroom forflexibilityand creativityinassigningsanctionstoparticularcasesoflawyer proposedstandardsshouldserveas amodelwhichsetsforthacomprehensivesystemofsanctions,but See alsoStandards, I,Preface("In[draftingtheSanctions]theCommitteerecognizedthatany and theCourtconsiderseachcaseonitsown factsand circumstances. Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. at303. Whilethe Standards offerguidanceindeterminingabaselinesanction,theyarenotbinding,

4.62 and 6.12. Sections4.6or6.1,suspensionisthebaselinesanctionfora"knowing"violation. See Standards §§ misrepresentationsare"qualitativelydifferent"fromMs. Theroux'sconduct. Id. H109. Under misrepresentationsmade toaclientorthecourt,respectively,and HearingPanelfoundthatthesuch Misrepresentation")provide"context,"butdeclinedtoapplythesesectionsbecausetheypertainto determinedthatSections4.6("LackofCandor")and 6.1("FalseStatement,Fraud,and conduct,butwas nonethelessconductinvolvingaknowingmisrepresentation." Id. H109. The Panel thiscasebecausethereisno allegationthatMs. Theroux'sconductrosetothelevelofcriminal The PanelconcludedthatSection5.13,callingfora publiccensure,"wouldbeappropriatein

thatadverselyreflectsonthelawyer'sfitnesstopracticelaw. otherconductthatinvolvesdishonesty,fraud,deceit,ormisrepresentationand 5.13 Reprimand9 isgenerallyappropriatewhen alawyerknowinglyengagesinany thatseriouslyadverselyreflectson thelawyer'sfitnesstopractice. criminalconductwhichdoesnotcontaintheelementslistedinStandard5.11and 5.12 Suspensionisgenerallyappropriatewhen alawyerknowinglyengagesin lawyer's fitness topractice. fraud,deceit,ormisrepresentationthatseriouslyadverselyreflectsonthe (b) alawyerengagesinany otherintentionalconductinvolvingdishonesty, p. 19 Page 19of21 difficulttoapply,and thatit islikelythatABA Standard5.12was intendedtoapplytocertaindishonestconduct 10 "We haveobservedelsewherethatapparentgapsintheintendedcoverageofStandard5.1renderitsomewhat

onejurisdictionhassoughttocorrect.10CourtshaveappliedSection5.13tomisrepresentationsthata 4.53(b),4.63,5.23,6.13,6.23,6.33,and 7.3.Thisisessentiallyagap inthe Standards whichatleast censureisgenerallyrecommendedonlyfornegligentconduct. See Standards §§ 4.13,4.23,4.33,4.43, 4.12,4.22,4.32,4.42(a),4.52,4.62,5.22,6.12,6.22,6.32,and 7.2. Under the Standards, public Standards recommend abaselinesanctionofsuspensionforknowingmisconduct. See Standards §§ Withtheexceptionoftherecommendationin Standards §5.13,inallothercircumstances,the Standards almostuniformlysetthebaselinesanctionas suspensionwhereconductisdoneknowingly. Moreover,Ms. Theroux'smentalstatewas "knowingly."Thisissignificantbecausethe

Mat 606.

dishonesty." evidencedbytheactionsofthisrespondent,itservesastheseedforagrowthoffuture dishonesties,a lie is the mostpernicious;it iseasilyand readilyconcealedand as negativelyon thelegalprofessionthanalie.As wellas beingthemostfundamentalof fromthelegalpractitionersinthisState.No singletransgressionreflectsmore maintainingand requiringthehighestpossiblelevelsofhonestyand trustworthiness oneindisputableconsequenceofsuchan increasehasoccurred:theneedfor everyfacetofprivateand publiclife.Withoutdebatingthemeritsofthispervasiveness, Intoday'ssociety,more thaneverbefore,thelegalprofessiontouchesand affectsnearly

personalmatter,and notinhisroleas an attorney. Id. at605-06. considerasmitigatingthattheRespondent'sinitialmisconductinvolveddishonestywithrespectto a informationfromtheProfessionalConductCommittee.In imposingdisbarment,theCourtdid not misrepresentationstothirdpartiestoobtainmortgagefinancingand inresponsetoarequestfor thirdpartiesmay carrymore serioussanctionsthanpubliccensure.The Respondentmade various In Astles'Case, 134 N.H.602,604(1991),theCourtalsostressedthatmisrepresentationsto

when she hadnot). objectiontoamotiontocompeldiscoveryand advisedheremployerthatshehad filedthatobjection (October6,2008)(RespondentviolatedRules3.3,4.1(a)and 8.4(c)when shecreatedand backdatedan disbarment. See,e.g.,Tanya Pardo advs.AttorneyDisciplineOffice, PCC DocketNo. LD-2008-0008 counseland failuretocorrectthemisrepresentationinviolationofRules3.3(a)(1),4.1(a),and 8.4(c))to DisciplineOffice, PCC docket07-037(April15,2009)(misrepresentationtothecourtand opposing signedmedicalauthorizationspriortosubmissiontoathirdparty); Kasmar, StephenR. advs.Attorney ProfessionalConductCommittee, PCC docket00-N-125(January1,2005)(instructedstafftoalter violations,sanctionshaverangedfromasixmonthsuspension, seeChristineDesmarais-Gordonadvs. 8(1996)(intentionalmisrepresentationtoamaritalmaster).Likewise,incasesinvolvingRule4.1(a) whilerepresentinghimselfinhisown divorce),todisbarment. See,e.g.,Basbane'sCase,, 141 N.H. 1, publiccensure,see,e.g., O'Meara'sCase, 150 N.H. 157 (2003)(made falsestatementstothecourt IncasesinvolvingRule8.4(c)violations,theCourthasissuedavarietyofsanctions,from

added). p. 20 Page 20of21 (July6,2005)(identifyingissueswithapplyingStandard5.1)(citationsomitted). . r GrievanceAdministratorv. Kenneth P. Williams, MichiganAttorneyDisciplineBoard,CaseNo. 03-80-GA aswellas thecriminalconductmentionedtherein.Our proposedStandard5.12wouldcoverdishonestconduct..

Therouxshallbe responsibleforanycostsincurredasaresultoftheAttorneyDisciplineOffice's availablepost-judgmentenforcementremediesandprocedures. See Sup.Ct.R. 37(19)(c).Ms. countyinthestate,whereitshallbe docketedasafinaljudgmentandshallbe subjecttoalllegally The Committeemay fileacopyofthefinalassessmentofcostswiththesuperiorcourtinany

petitiontothesuperiorcourtinany countyinthestate.Sup.Ct.R. 37(19)(b). 37(19)(b).The Committeemay resolvethedisagreement,orenforcetheassessmentofcostsby expenses,listingeachdisputedexpenseandexplainingthereasonsfordisagreement.Sup.Ct.R. Ms. Therouxrespondsinwriting,withinthirty(30)daysofreceiptoftheCommittee'sstatementof transcripts,conferencecallsand outsidecopying.The assessmentofcostsshallbecome finalunless include,butarenotlimitedto:copyingandcostsassociatedwiththepublicationofthecensure, investigationandenforcementofthisdisciplinarymatter. See Sup.Ct.R. 37(19)(b).Costscan Ms. TherouxshallberesponsiblefortheexpensesincurredbytheCommitteeinthe

from the baseline sanctionofsuspension to a public censure. alongwiththeothermitigatingfactorsidentifiedby theHearingPanel,warrantadownward departure authorizedhertodo so.Report \ 89. The Committeefurtherfindsthatthesethreemitigatingfactors, thatatthetimeshealteredtheMilitaryRecordsRelease,Ms. Therouxbelievedthecourt'sorders ofpriordisciplinaryrecord,(2)theabsenceofaselfishordishonestmotive,and (3)thefactualfinding Panel,andfindsthefollowingmitigatingfactorstobe particularlypersuasive:(1)Ms. Theroux'slack The Committeedoes,however,accepttheothermitigatingfactorsidentifiedby theHearing

beconsideredinapplyingthefourthprongof the Standards. misrepresentationwas made toathirdparty,asopposedtoaclientorthecourt,isamitigatingfactorto The CommitteedoesnotagreewiththeHearingPanel'sdeterminationthatthefactthatthe

aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesmay be consideredindecidingwhatsanctiontoimpose."). Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. at303. SeealsoStandards § 9.1("Aftermisconducthas beenestablished, The baselinesanctionmust be consideredin light of anyaggravatingand mitigatingfactors. See As statedabove,theCommitteefindsthat thebaselinesanctionin this matter issuspension.

Aggravatingand MitigatingFactors

determinesthat the baseline sanction in this matter is asuspension. See Standards §§ 4.62 and 6.12. For the above stated reasons, theCommitteetakes guidance from Sections 4.62 and 6.12 and

behalfofher client. master'sdegree.)Inthiscase,Ms. Therouxwas actinginhercapacityasanattorneylitigatingon (1982)(censureforlawyerwho knowinglyplagiarizedtwo publishedworksinathesissubmittedfora lawyermay make outsideofthepracticeoflaw. SeeIn Re Lamberis, 93 111.2d222,443N.E.2d549 p. 21 Page 21of21

File Jeffrey R. Ruggiero Linda A. Theroux Elizabeth M. Murphy, AssistantDisciplinaryCounsel Distribution:

LindaA.TherouxforviolatingN.H. RulesofProfessionalConduct4.1(a),8.4(c)and8.4(a). For allofthe above reasons, theProfessionalConduct Committee issues a Public Censureto

collectionefforts.