Arthur C. Randlett (2004)

the Attorney Discipline Office issued aN otice of Charges in this matter. 1. On March 1,2004, pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37 A(III)(b )(2),

following factual findings by clear and convincing evidence: The Professional Conduct Committee has determined that the record supports the Factual Findings #03-054

below. The Professional Conduct Committee makes factual [mdings and rulings as detailed #03-054 and # 03-086, Hearing Panel Report and Transcript of May 20,2004 Hearing. Having reviewed the record, including notice of charges, motion to consolidate Docket The Professional Conduct Committee thoroUghly reviewed the record in this matter.

David Page. Recused: Alan J. Cronheim. David Cole, Thomas Connair, Morgan Hollis, James Martin, Richard McNamara, and Margaret Nelson, Chair, Stephen Stepanek, Reporter, Benette Pizzimenti, Toni Gray, The Professional Conduct Committee members that heard the matter consisted of:

Hearing Panel. Report submitted by the Hearings Committee. The Respondent did not appear before the referenced material. The Committee reviewed the record including the Hearing Panel On September 21, 2004 the Professional Conduct Committee considered the above­

Randlett, Arthur C. advs. Professional Conduct Committee #03-086

Arthur C. Randlett, Arthur C. advs. Mark Cronin # 03-054

Alan J. Cronheim * non attorney member Thomas P. Connair Stephen B. Stepanek' David N. Cole David N. Page' Toni M. Gray, * Vice Chair.603-224-5828 .Fax 228-9511 Richard B. McNamara Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 James R. Martin Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Park Street, Suite 304 Morgan A. Hollis

p. 2 letter infonned Mr. Cronin that Mr. Randlett had been suspended from the Gordon J. MacDonald of the finn of Nixon Peabody LLP. Mr. MacDonald's 10. On or about April 11,2003, Mr. Cronin received a certified letter from Attorney had been made and future billings would include the retainer figure. $1,000.00 retainer: The woman with whom he spoke indicated that a mistake 9. Mr. Cronin telephoned Mr. Randlett's finn and inquired as to the status of the payment of$I,OOO.OO. Randlett for the amomlt of$105.00. That bill contained no reference to the prior 8. On or about March 11,2003, Mr. Cronin received a billing statement from Mr. Bernard, 750 Exeter Road, Hampton, New Hampshire 03842. On the Appearance, Mr. Randlett identified his law finn as Salomon, Randlett & 7. On February 11,2003, Mr. Randlett filed an Appearance in the two civil matters. matters. Cronin gave Mr. Randlett a check for $1,000.00 as a retainer in the two civil that were pending in the Rockingham County Superior Court. At that time, Mr. 6. On January 24, 2003, Mark Cronin hired Mr. Randlett to handle two civil matters alleged facts and rule violations contained in the Notice of Charges. 5. By operation of Rule 37(III)(b)(3)(A), this pleading incorporates as admissions the Sup. Ct. R. 37(1II)(b)(3)(A). allegations set forth in the Notice of Charges shall be deemed to be admitted." N.H. 4. Because of Mr. Randlett's failure to file an Answer, the same Rule requires that"the of service to file an Answer to the Notice of Charges. 3. Pursuantto Rule 37A(III)(b)(3)(A), Mr. Randlett had thirty (30) days from the date Discipline Office has not received an Answer to the Notice of Charges. of Charges on Arthur C. Randlett on an in-hand basis. To date, the Attorney 2. On March 12,2004, the Rockingham County Sheriffs Office served the Notice p. 3 N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(b). pursuant to his request constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of 2. Wti. Randlett's failure to deliver promptly to IvIr. CronL~ the balfuJ.ce of his retainer violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a)(1), and N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 50(2)(B). and to safeguard those funds constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a 1. Mr. Randlett's failure to deposit Mr. Cronin's retainer check into a trust account

that Arthur C. Randlett has violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Professional Conduct Committee conclude? that there is clear and convincing evidence The above listed facts having been found by clear and convincing evidence, the Rulings of Law #03-054

16. To date, Mr. Cronin has received no reply to his May 1, 2003 letter. of the retainer in the amount of$895.00. 15. On May 1,2003, Mr. Cronin sent a letter to Mr. Randlett requesting the balance into a trust account and was not safeguarded. the matter and confirmed that the $1,000.00 retainer check was not deposited Mr. Cronin that the Committee's Auditor, Craig A. Calaman, CPA, investigated 14. In a letter dated May 12,2003, the Professional Conduct Committee informed telephone and letter. Cronin made contact with the Professional Conduct Committee both by Committee to ascertain the status of the $1,000.00 retainer. To that end, Mr. 13. Mr. MacDonald also advised Mr. Cronin to contact the Professional Conduct 12. Per Mr. Cronin's request, Mr. MacDonald forwarded his files to him. handle the pending civil matters. MacDonald advised Mr. Cronin to obtain the services of another attorney to Supreme Court to take possession of and inventory Mr. Randlett's files~ Mr. 11. Mr. MacDonald further explained in the letter that he had been appointed by the incorporated into and made a part ofthis pleading. p. 4 7. Likewise, Mr. Calaman's Report is attached to this pleading and is hereby Report") was incorporated into and made a part of the Notice of Charges. Calaman, C.P.A., dated September 2,2003 (hereinafierreferred to as"Mr. Calaman's 6. In paragraph 2 of the Notice of Charges, the audit report authored by Craig A. Sup. Ct. R. 37(III)(b )(3)(A). allegations set forth in the Notice of Charges shall be deemed to be admitted." N.H. 5. Because of Mr. Randlett's failure to file an Answer, the same Rule requires that"the thirty (30) days from the date of service to file an Answer to the Notice of Charges. 4. Pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37 A(III)(b )(3 )(A), Mr. Randlett had Charges. 3. To date, the Attorney Discipline Office has not received an Answer to the Notice of Charges on Arthur C. Randlett on an in-hand basis. 2. On March 12, 2004, the Rockingham County Sheriffs Office served the Notice of the Attorney Discipline Office issued a Notice of Charges in this matter. 1. On March 8, 2004, pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37 A(III)(b )(2),

following factnal findings by clear and convincing evidence: The Professional Conduct Committee has determined that the record supports the Factual Findings #03-086

violation of Rule 8.4(a). aforementioned Rules, there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence of a 4. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence of violation of the violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c). him constitntes clear and convincing evidence of conduct involving dishonesty in 3. Mr. Randlett's failure to retnrn the unearned portion of Mr. Cronin's retainer fee to p. 5 Randlett disbursed the funds from three of these unauthorized withdrawals to his Mr. Randlett made four separate unauthorized withdrawals from this account. Mr. were each unidentified as to the owner of the funds and purpose of the transaction. #330150-122-4, Mr. Randlett made several disbursements and one deposit that 12. With respect to the Century Title & Abstract Company, Citizens Bank, Account Calaman's Report at pp. 10-17. Randlett disbursed the funds either to himself or to his operating account. See Mr. were not in any way related to the underlying transaction. In each instance, Mr. two withdrawals from the account t.hat were not authorized by t.he client and/or Report at pp. 5-10. With respect to that same account, Mr. Randlett made twenty­ clients caused client overdrafts and out of trust situations. See Mr. Calaman's transactions in which Mr. Randlett's inattention to his fiduciary obligations to his Citizens Bank, Account #330316-587-6, there were ten different real estate 11. With respect to the Century Title & Abstract Company, Client Trust Account, forth herein. These discrepancies resulted in client overdrafts and! or out of trust situations as set PA, Operating Account, Community Bank and Trust, Account #0001103288. Trust Account, Citizens Bank, Account #33037-052-5; and (4) Arthur C. Randlett, Citizens Bank Account #330150-122-4; (3) Arthur C. Randlett, P A, General Client Citizens Bank, Account #330316-587-6; (2) Century Title & Abstract Company, bank accounts: (l) Century Title & Abstract Company, Client Trust Account, 10. Mr. Calaman found major discrepancies in the following four of Mr. Randlett's time~period: January 1,1997 through May 31, 2003. 9. Mr. Calaman's audit of Mr. Randlett's financial records covered the following by Mr. Randlett. the Notice of Charges, as well as Mr. Calaman's Report, is"deemed to be admitted" 8. By operation of Supreme Court Rule 37 A(III)(b )(3)(A), each allegation contained in file, this check was still in the file. See Mr. Calaman's Report at pp. 39-42. p. 6 for deposit into the Estate account. At the time that Mr. Calaman reviewed the Mr. Randlett to do so. Thereafter, Mr. Randlett did not send the check to the client improperly to deposit it into his operating account. The Bank would not permit to the Estate, into his client trust account. Rather, Mr. Randlett attempted Eaton. Mr. Randlett failed to deposit a check in the amount of$8,380.00, written 16. Mr. Randlett failed to properly safeguard funds related to the Estate of Anna Mr. Calaman's Report at pp. 37-41. clients from his operating account in order to cover out of trust discrepancies. See 15. There were numerous other instances where Mr. Randlett had to make refunds to Calaman's Report at pp. 36-37. directly into this operating account rather than into a client trust account. See Mr. In twenty-three instances Mr. Randlett placed retainer payments from clients Randlett failed to safeguard client funds. See Mr. Calaman's Report at pp. 36-42. and Trust, Account #0001103288, there were numerous instances in which Mr. 14. With respect to the Arthur C. Randlett, PA, Operating Account, COinmunity Bank These disbursements totaled $18,971.06. See Mr. Calaman's Report at pp. 33-34. characteristics as to the purpose of the disbursement and/or the client involved. account which went directly to Mr. Randlett or his firm without identifying at pp. 18-42.. There were also eleven separate cash disbursements from this himself, client overdrafts, and/or out oftrust situations. See Mr. Calaman's Report in unauthorized withdrawals from the account, unauthorized disbursements to which Mr. Randlett's inattention to his fiduciary obligations to his clients resulted Bank, Account #33037-052-5, there were twenty-nine separate transactions in 13. With respect to the Arthur C. Randlett, PA, General Client Trust Account, Citizens was out oftrust by $6,851.00. See Mr. Calaman's Report at p. 17. operating account. On September 23, 1998, when this trust account was closed, it neglected this obligation. Those accounting documents which Mr. Randlett p. 7 the Estate. As detailed in Mr. Calaman's Report, Mr. Randlett repeatedly accounting documents with the Rockingham County Probate Court on behalf of Calaman's Report at pp. 22~26. As part of his duties, he \-vas required to file 1. Mr. Randlett provided representation to the Estate of Annie Gilman. See Mr.

Conduct: evidence that Arthur C. Randlett violated the following Rules of Professional Professional Conduct Committee concludes that there is clear and convincing The above listed facts having been found by clear and convincing evidence, the Rulings of Law # 03-086

September 4,2003. 20. To date, Mr. Randlett has not replied to the Committee's letter of Complaint dated to cooperate. September 4,2003, would result in a Notice of Charges on the issue of his failure immediately file an answer to the Committee's letter of Complaint dated immediate attention. That letter placed Mr. Randlett on notice that his failure to Committee had not received his reply and instructed him to give the matter his 19.By letter dated October 7, 2003, James L. DeHart informed Mr. Randlett that the Committee's letter of Complaint was due on October 6, 2003. violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Mr. Randlett's reply to the contained in Mr. Calaman's Report, and notified Mr. Randlett ofthe alleged Mr. Randlett dated September 4,2003. That Complaint detailed the allegations 18. On the basis of Mr. Calaman's Report, the Committee issued a Complaint against Randlett, Attorneys at Law." he was in partnership with Craig Sal oman. The letterhead read"Saloman & Randlett practiced law as a sole practitioner, he used letterhead that falsely implied 17. The letterhead Mr. Randlett began using in 2000 was misleading. Although Mr. p. 8 Prof. Conduct l.l(a), 1.l(b)(2), 1.l(c)(4), l.3(a), and l.3(b). convincing evidence of a lack of competence and diligence in violation of N.H. R. documents on behalf of the Gilman and Eaton Estates constitutes clear and 6. Mr. Randlett's failure to file accurate, complete and timely accounting and tax Eaton Estate. See Mr. Calaman's Report at p. 41. to assist in correcting the problems Mr. Randlett created while representing the 5. Ralph Eaton, the administrator of the Eaton Estate, had to hire subsequent counsel document by the deadline. Rather, he re-filed it on March 14,2003. the document on or before August 30, 2002. ?vIr. Randlett failed to re-file the contained numerous errors, and the Probate Court ordered Mr. Randlett to re-file 27,2002, the Probate Court returned the document to Mr. Randlett because it 4. On June 21, 2002, Mr. Randlett filed the Estate's"Fourth Accounting." On June the"Third Accounting." notified Mr. Randlett that he was in default with respect to that filing that he filed 'Third Accounting" in a timely mauner. It was only after the Probate Court Rockingham County Probate Court. Mr. Randlett failed to file the Eaton Estate's Anna Eaton, Mr. Randlett was required to file accounting documents with the Calaman's Report at pp. 39-41. As part of his duties as attorney for the Estate of 3. Mr. Randlett also provided representation to the Estate of Anna Eaton. See Mr. Mr. Calaman's Report at pp. 22-26. Mr. Randlett neglected to file these returns properly and in a timely manner. See also required to file the Estate tax returns. As detailed in Mr. Calaman's Report, 2. As part of Mr. Randlett's representation of the Gilman Estate, Mr. Randlett was default, and fines for these late and/or incomplete filings. at times, incomplete. The Probate Court repeatedly issued citations, notices of were inconsistent with other accounting documents related to the Estate, and were, submitted to the Probate Court on behalf of the Estate contained clerical errors, refInancing of a mortgage. Mr. Boynton attempted to contact Mr. Randlett after he p. 9 11. Mr. Randlett represented James Boynton at a November 26,2002, closing on the District Court also ordered Mr. Randlett to pay Ms. Kim's court costs. ordered him to do so pursuant to Ms. Kim's lawsuit. In its order, the Hampton do so. He remitted the fhnds to Ms. Kim only after the Hampton District Court funds ($1,300.00) to Ms. Kim after deducting his contracted portion. He did not Kim resulting from a claim. Mr. Randlett was supposed to remit the balance of documents indicate that Mr. Randlett received a sum of money on behalf of Ms. The Hampton District Court docketed the matter as case #0 I-SC-207. The court case and to issue ±hnds due her. Ms. Kim fIled that lawsuit on April 27, 200l. District Court to force him to provide her with a proper accounting of funds in her 10. Mr. Randlett's client, Joanna Kim, found it necessary to sue him in Hampton Attorney Bradshaw's demands. itemized bill and refund. One week later, Mr. Randlett fInally complied with authorized her to sue Mr. Randlett if Mr. Randlett did not immediately send her an Bradshaw contacted Mr. Randlett and informed Mr. Randlett that Mr. Weeks had after many failed attempts to obtain the information from Mr. Randlett, Attorney Mr. Randlett to provide the information·and return his funds. On July 18,2001, 9. Mr. Weeks then hired a different attorney, Mae Bradshaw, in an effort to persuade Randlett failed to respond to Mr. Weeks' request for this information. of the time spent on his case and a return of the balance of the retainer funds. Mr. him. Mr. Weeks then requested that Mr. Randlett provide him with an accounting During January 2001, Mr. Weeks became frustrated with Mr. Randlett and fIred in a divorce and, on October 10, 2000, gave Mr. Randlett a $730.00 retainer. 8. One of Mr. Randlett's clients, Thomas Weeks, hired Mr. Randlett to represent him reasonable requests for information about their cases. regarding the status of their cases and failed to comply promptly with their 7. Mr. Randlett failed in many instances to keep his clients reasonably informed beginning of the audit (January 1, 1997) through the end of the audit (May 31, p. 10 statements were reconciled to the checkbook balances periodically from the Hampshire Supreme Court Rules. Although Mr. Randlett's bank account 17.Mr. Randlett did not maintain his accounting records in accordance with New COnVi!lCing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a)(1). 16.Mr. Randlett's failures to safeguard his clients' property constitute clear and proper authorization. See generally Mr. Calaman's Report. client trust accounts for his own use prior to those funds being earned and without failing to deposit client retainers into trust, and by withdrawing funds from his his care over a long period of time. At times, he actively misappropriated funds by 15.Mr. Randlett failed to safeguard the assets of his clients which were entrusted to 1996, and constantly since the beginning of 1998. trust by as much as $188,770.99, that he has been out of trust intermittently since 14.As ofJuly 31,2003, Mr. Randlett's books and records show that he was out of violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(c). and in an appropriate mauner constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a by giving them information relevant to protect their interests at an appropriate time 13. As detailed above, Mr. Randlett's failure to keep his clients reasonably informed convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a). comply with their reasonable requests for information constitutes clear and keep them reasonably informed regarding the status of their cases and to promptly 12. As detailed above, Mr. Randlett's failure both to communicate with his clients and and the Bank of America hired a law firm to proceed with a foreclosure sale. Contrary to Mr. Randlett's assurances to Mr. Boynton, he did not take any action, Gould, that the non-payments were a misunderstanding and would be cleared up. calls, Mr. Randlett assured Mr. Boynton, through his legal secretary, Gillian after the closing. After Mr. Randlett avoided many of Mr. Boynton's telephone learned Mr. Randlett had not made loan payments due to the Bank of America p. 11 N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3 (a)(1). Compliance Certificates constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of 22. Mr. Randlett's material misrepresentations on his Annual Trust Accounting instance, Mr. Randlett knew that was not the case. accounting system was in complete compliance with the appropriate rules. In each Hampshire Supreme Court for 2001 and 2002, Mr. Randlett indicated that his records since May 31, 2001. However, on the Trust Certificate filed with the New Randlett admitted to Mr. Calaman that he had not maintained his trust accounting attorney trust accounting system. At the begiming of Mr. Calaman's audit, Mr. and 2002 with respect to questions 7(a) and 7(b), regarding the maintenance of an Compliance Certificates filed with the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 2001 21. Mr. Randlett made material misrepresentations on the Annual Trust Accounting knew that was not the case. each instance, Mr. Randlett answered the question in the affmnative when he exceed the obligations you owed to your clients with respect to such accounts?" In your last certificate, did the balance of funds in your clients' trust account equal or Supreme Court with respect to question six, which asks:"At all times since filing Annual Trust Accounting Compliance Certificates filed with the New Hampshire 20. Throughout the audit period, Mr. Randlett made material misrepresentations on the N.H. Sup. Ct. R. 50(2)A, C and F. convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.l5(a)(2), as well as 19. Mr. Randlett's failures to keep proper records in this regard constitutes clear and from June 1,2001 through the end of the audit (May 31, 2003). 18. Mr. Randlett failed to maintain a complete and accurate set of financial records Court Rule 50. reconciled checkbook balances in accordance with New Hampshire Supreme 2003), at no time was a listing of client balances prepared to compare with the p. 12 See Mr. Calaman's Report at pp. 22-24. of whether the Estate could show"good cause" for a late filing of the tax return. taxes due on the Estate. These misleading statements were material to the question statements about the Estate's request for a waiver of penalties and interest for the F ... al1dlett \vrote a letter to t.lJ.e DepCLrl ...... 11lent ofF'Levenue that conta!ned misleading the Estate. See Mr. Calaman's Report at pp. 22-26. On March 29,2000, Mr. Randlett corresponded with the New Hampshire Department of Revenue regarding 28.As part of Mr. Randlett's representation of the Estate of Annie Gilman, Mr. pleading constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of Rule 3.3(a)(3). measures. IVIr. Randlett's failure to take remedial measures with respect to this 27. Mr. Randlett knew of this misrepresentation ·and failed to take any remedial convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(I). filed in Probate Court on behalf of the Gilman Estate constitutes clear and 26. The misrepresentations Mr. Randlett included in the September 4, 1998 pleading Calaman's Report at pp. 23-24. taxes had been paid. Mr. Randlett knew that these statements were false. See Mr. not be paid. Mr. Randlett also stated that all required state and federal income Department of Revenue, the Department determined that inheritance taxes need due on the Estate when he stated that, after discussions with the New Hampshire 1998. In that pleading, Mr. Randlett made material misrepresentations about taxes Randlett filed a"Second Accounting" with the Probate Court on September 4, 25. With respect to Mr. Randlett's representation of the Estate of Annie Gihnan, Mr. Gilman. See Mr. Calaman's Report at pp. 22-26. Court regarding the distribution of assets in the matter of the Estate of Annie 24. Mr. Randlett filed misleading documents with the Rockingham County Probate N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(3). measures. This failure constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of 23.Mr. Randlett knew of the misrepresentations and failed to take any remedial convincing evidence ofa violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 4.1(a). p. 13 33.Mr. Randlett's misrepresentations to the Town of Newton constitute clear and the check. Mr. Randlett copied his client on this correspondence. and falsely asserting that his records showed that the Town had never negotiated falsely claiming that he had made these payments by check on August 24, 2001, Thereafter, Mr. Randlett mailed a letter dated November 20,2001, to the Town, Mr. Randlett had mailed the payments to the Town on August 24,2001. letter to the Town, for his client to see, that misled the client into believing that from the proceeds. Despite not making these payments, Mr. Randlett fabricated a property acquired by:M1". Randlett's client. Mr. Randlett did not pay these liens p. 15 of the proceeds was set aside to pay liens held by the Town of Newton on the on August 22,2001. See Mr. Calaman's Report at p. 8. At the closing, a portion 32. Mr. Randlett represented Country Pond Fish & Game Club at a real estate closing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 4.1 (a). 31. Mr. Randlett's false statement to Ms. Bambushu constitutes clear and convincing issued such a check. replacement." Mr. Randlett made this statement despite knowing that he had never have been lost in themail.soIwill stop payment on the original check and issue a November 16,2001, Mr. Randlett falsely told Ms. Bambushu that"the check must Randlett was required to return the deposit by the end of October 2001. On money to himself. Shortly thereafter, the real estate deal fell through, and Mr. money into a trust account. Rather, upon receipt, Mr. Randlett disbursed the ($5,000.00) from the buyer, Valerie Bambushu. Mr. Randlett did not place this Mr. Calaman's Report at p. 11. Mr. Randlett received a cash escrow deposit 30. Mr. Randlett represented Katherine Boyce on her sale of a piece of real estate. See N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 4.1(a). Department of Revenue constitute clear and convincing evidence of a violation of 29. The misrepresentations Mr. Randlett included in this March 29,2000 letter to the p. 14 "misunderstanding." Instead, Mr. Randlett took no action, and the Bank of impression, through Ms. Gould, that Mr. Randlett would take action to clear up the 40. Mr. Randlett also lied to Mr. Boynton in that Mr. Randlett gave him the misunderstanding that would be corrected. Boynton al1d told 1\11-. Boynton, throug..l} his legal secreta..ry, t..1}at it,vas a cause of his failure to make those loan payments. Instead, Mr. Randlett misled Mr. explained the lack of available funds in the firm's client trust account as the true 39. Had Mr. Randlett been truthful with Mr. Boynton, Mr. Randlett would have that would be corrected. Boynton, through his legal secretary, Ms. Gould, that it was a misunderstanding matter. After avoiding Mr. Boynton's telephone calls, Mr. Randlett assured Mr. after the closing, Mr. Boynton attempted to telephone Mr. Ral1dlett about Lhe aware that Mr. Randlett had not made his loan payments to the Bank of America refinancing. See Mr. Calaman's Report at pp. 35-36. After Mr. Boynton became 38. Mr. Randlett represented James Boynton at the closing on his mortgage instances, Mr. Randlett lied to them. Mr. Randlett failed to account for his actions to those clients and, in some 37. When his clients questioned Mr. Randlett about the status of their cases and funds, a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b). Complaint dated September 4,2003, constitutes clear and convincing evidence of 36. Mr. Randlett's failure to respond to the Professional Conduct Committee's letter of 7.5(d). constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 3 5. Mr. Randlett's use of the"Saloman & Randlett, Attorneys at Law" letterhead Randlett, Attorneys at Law." he was in partnership with Craig Saloman. The letterhead read"Sal oman & Randlett practiced law as a sole practitioner, he used letterhead that falsely implied 34. The letterhead Mr. Randlett began using in 2000 was misleading. Although Mr. property acquired by Mr. Randlett's client. Mr. Randlett did not pay these liens of the proceeds was set aside to pay liens held by the Town of Newton on the on August 22,2001. See Mr. Calaman's Report at p. 8. At the closing, a portion 44. Mr. Randlett represented Country Pond Fish & Game Club at a real estate closing estate. Attorney John Healey, the attorney for Edward Foote, the executor of a related misrepresentations about matters which he claimed to have discussed with misrepresentations about the final accounting of the Estate, and he made Randlett's bookkeeper and paralegal. In that letter, Mr. Randlett made letterhead and was signed by Kimberly Davis for Mr. Ralldlett. Ms. Davis was Iv1r. sent a letter to Mr. Eaton. The letter was written on Salomon & Randlett Eaton. See Mr. Calaman's Report at pp. 39-42. On June 13,2002, Mr. Randlett 43. Mr. Randlett represented Ralph Eaton, the administrator of the Estate of Anna was due. failing to deduct from the proceeds of the Estate funds equal to the tax amount that penalties and interest were a result of a mistake committed by his own office in had not filed the Estate tax return. Mr. Randlett was also aware that the accruing 42. Mr. Randlett permitted this letter to be sent to Ms. Hansen despite knowing that he inadvertently filing an unsigned form. that the accruing penalties and interest were somehow a result of that error, i.e., it had been submitted without Ms. Hansen's signature. That letter also implied filed"quite some time ago," but the State did not consider the return filed because Ms. Hansen is led to believe that the tax return on the Estate had actually been Mr. Randlett sought Ms. Hansen's signature on an Estate tax return. In that letter, Gilman. See Mr. Calaman's Report at pp. 22-26. By letter dated August 7, 2000, 41.Mr. Randlett represented Janet Hansen, the Executrix for the Estate of Annie mortgage. America hired a law firm to proceed with the foreclosure on Mr. Boynton's sanction is also in accord with the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, p. 16 Hampshire Supreme Court See, e.g., Feld's Case, 149 N.H. 19,28 (2002). This sanction is in accord with the purposes of attorney discipline as described by the New Committee concludes that the appropriate discipline in this matter is disbarment. This Having made the aforementioned fmdings and rulings, t..l}e Professional Conduct Sanction

violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). aforementioned Rules, there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence of a 47. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence of violations oftne deceitful conduct in violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c). misappropriation of client funds constitutes clear and convincing evidence of authorization. See generally Mr. Calaman's Report. Mr. Randlett's accounts for his own use prior to those funds being earned and without proper actively misappropriated client funds by withdrawing funds from client trust Mr. Calaman's Report also details numerous instances in which Mr. Randlett. return unearned retainer balances to clients. See generally Mr. Calaman's Report. place client funds into a trust account, failed to safeguard those funds, and failed to 46. Mr. Calaman's Report details numerous instances in which Mr. Randlett failed to and convincing evidence of a violation ofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct S.4(c). 45. Mr. Randlett's misrepresentations to his clients, as detailed above, constitute clear Mr. Randlett copied his client on this correspondence. asserting that his records showed that the Town had never negotiated the check. that he had made these payments by check on August 24,2001, and falsely Randlett mailed a letter dated November 20,2001, to the Town falsely claiming had mailed the payments to the Town on August 24,2001. Thereafter, Mr. letter to the Town, for his client to see, that misled the client into believing that he from the proceeds. Despite not making these payments, Mr. Randlett fabricated a p. 17 Margaret WNelson, Chair Date: to-' \ l4lo q By: !(Y)yw.A,c:W ~

Supreme Court Rule 50(2)A, B, C and F. 1.15(a)(l), 1.15(a)(2), 1.15(b), 3.3(a)(l), 3.3(a)(3), 4.1(a), 7.5(d), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), N.H. Professional Conduct l.1(a), 1.1(b)(2), 1.1(c)(4), l.3(a), l.3(b), 1.4(a), 1.4(c), disbarment of Arthur C. Randlett for violating the New Hampshire Rules of For all of the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee recommends Conclusiou

standards, the court has considered them when imposing sanctions). 132, 139 (2003) (noting that although the court has never formally adopted these Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 91991). See, e.g., Shillen's Case, 149 N.H.