Thomas P. Grodt (2011)

response. show cause why the interim suspension should be lifted, but he filed no respondent on an interim basis. The respondent was given the opportunity to respondent. That same day, the court issued an order suspending the and requested that the court order an immediate interim suspension of the Attorney Grodt had committed a material breach of the conditions of the stay, petition for immediate interim suspension of the respondent. It alleged that On December 6,2010, the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) filed a

parties' agreement. comply with specific terms set forth in the pec's recommendation and the suspension be stayed for three years on the condition that the respondent that the respondent be suspended for a period of three years, and that the By order dated June 28, 2010, the court accepted the PCC's recommendation

(5) Rule 8.4(a), by violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. mishandling of their cases; and (4) Rule 8.4(c), by making false statements to his clients about the Discipline Office during its investigation of his conduct; (3) Rule 8.1(a), by making a false statement of material fact to the Attorney explain to them the legal and practical aspects of their cases; including important pleadings, motions and orders, and by failing to (2) Rule l.4(a)-(c), by failing to forward important documents to his clients, representing his clients; (1) Rule 1.3, by failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in

the respondent violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Based on the petition and the respondent's answer, the court found that

conditionally waived briefing and oral argument on the petition. the allegations of the petition and assented to the relief requested. He 19,2010, the respondent filed an answer to the petition in which he admitted issued which required the respondent to file an answer to the petition. On May practice of law of the respondent, Thomas P. Grodt. An order of notice was assented-to petition for conditional stay of a three-year suspension from the On March 31, 2010, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCe) filed an

LD-2010-0005, In the Matter of Thomas P. Grodt

James Kruse, Esquire Marilyn T. Mahoney, Es~ire Cecile B. Hartigan, Esquire Jon S. Liland, Esquire Thomas P. Grodt, Esquire Margaret H. Nelson, Chair Distribution:

DATE: September 6, 2011

Dalianis, C.J., and Duggan, Hicks, Conboy and Lynn, JJ., concurred.

matter. See Rule 37(19). Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this Attorney Grodt is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the

years, with the suspension period to run retroactively from December 6,2010. suspended from the practice oflaw in New Hampshire for a period of three THEREFORE, the court orders that Attorney Thomas P. Grodt be

the suspension period to run retroactively from December 6,2010. court concludes that the entire three-year suspension should be imposed, with and its recommendation to impose the suspended three-year suspension, the respondent filed no response to the motion. Having reviewed the PCC's petition behalf of the PCC, requesting that the PCC's recommendation be accepted. The respondent's interim suspension. Disciplinary counsel then filed a motion, on suspension be imposed, retroactive to December 6, 2010, the date of the On March 19, 2011, the PCC recommended that the entire three-year