Daniel I. St. Hilaire (2015)

admittedto practiceon November 13, 1997. 1. Mr. St.Hilaireis anattorneylicensed topracticelaw inNew Hampshire. He was

Hearing Panel by clearand convincing evidence:

The Committee determinedthat the Record supports thefollowingfactual findingsofthe

stipulated. clearand convincingevidence.The Committee also voted toacceptthe Ruleviolationsas Having reviewed theRecord,theCommittee voted toacceptthe facts asstipulated,by MargaretR. Kerouac were absent. Ruoff,Richard D. Sager and Martha Van Oot. Heather E. Krans,Vice Chair,PeterBeeson and Chair,Susan R. Chollet,Richard H. Darling,Mona T. Movafaghi, Georges J. Roy,David W. DisciplinaryMatter.Members presentincludedDavid M. Rothstein,Chair,ElaineHolden, Vice theStipulationas to Facts,Violationsand Sanction,as well as theAgreement to PayCostsof On January20, 2015, the ProfessionalConduct Committee ("theCommittee") deliberated

St.Hilaire,Daniel I. advs.AttorneyDisciplineOffice#12-035 St.Hilaire,Daniel I. advs.AttorneyDisciplineOffice#12-034

Margaret R. Kerouac Holly B.Fazzino,Administrator Richard H. Darling* * non attorneymember Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oot PeterG. Beeson Richard D.Sager Elaine Holden,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 David W. Ruoff Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair Concord,New Hampshire 03301 Georges J. Roy* David M. Rothstein,Chair 4 Chenell Drive,Suite 102 Mona T. Movafaghi

him $1,000 forwork he hadcompletedon her roof. becauseofMr. Cate'sdispute with her boyfriend, Mr. Sargent, and that she owed Craig'scomplaint, Mr. Cate responded that he had been fired by Ms. Craig roofing job for her and owed her approximately$2,800.4In response to Ms. 9. Ms. Craig'sseparate small claims action alleged that Mr. Cate failed to finish a

Sargent, and for repaymentofa loan.3 Cate owed Mr. Sargent $7,500 for site and demolition work performed by Mr. containedMr. Cate'stools.2 Mr. Sargent disputed this,claimingthatinfact Mr. job Mr. Cate hadperformed,and that Mr.Sargent"stole"Mr. Cate'strailer,which 8. Mr. Cate alleged in hiscomplaintthat Mr. Sargent owed him $3,000 for a roofing

pro se. behalfofMs. Craig. Both claims werefiledas small claims. Mr. Cateproceeded againstMr. Cate.Respondent alsobroughta new actionagainstMr. Cate on 7. On behalfofMr. Sargent,Respondentfiled ananswer and broughta counterclaim

paid Mr. St. Hilaire a $3,000 retainer against which he billed hourly. Craig are"companions,"and they hiredRespondent on April 30,2010.'They Mr. Sargent in Concord District Court on April 1,2010. Mr. Sargent and Ms. 6. The disputes among the parties began when Mr. Cate filed a small claim against

William Cate (now deceased). Sargent (#12-035) and Ms. Craig(#12-034)in small claims matters against 5. This disciplinary matter arises outofMr. St.Hilaire'srepresentationofMr.

grievants but given separate docket numbers. R. Craig on July 2,2012. The grievanceswere identical and signed by both initiated upon receipt of a jointgrievancefiled by Wayne G. Sargent and Donna 4. The Attorney Discipline Office's ("ADO") investigation in these matters was

3. Mr. St. Hilaire has not been admittedto practice law in any other jurisdiction.

practicing law at 10 Green Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. 2. At all times material to thisproceeding,Mr. St. Hilaire was a solo practitioner p. 3 Page 3 of11 Sargentback. Craig's roof; Ms. Craig would pay formaterials,and Mr. Cate wouldfurnishunpaid labor as a form of paying Mr. hisactionagainstMr.Sargent.In otherwords,Mr. SargentwantedMr. Cateto pay himbackbyperformingworkon Ms. It wasonlywhenMr. Sargentallegedlykept"discounting"Mr.Cate's hoursput intothe roofingjob that Mr. Cate filed

or effectively communicate with Mr. Sargent about the retrievalofthe trailer. months, however, Mr. St. Hilaire did not provide anitemizedbill to either client [Craig] is also interested [in the itemized statement]." Over the following four an itemizedbill and stating [presumably at Ms.Craig'srequest] that"Donna with a certifiedletterto Mr. St.HilairedatedOctober 29,2010, againaskingfor 15. Not receiving anitemizedbill over the next 5 weeks, Mr.Sargentfollowed up

exhausted. Mr. Sargent asked for an itemized statementofbilled time. 2010. During this call, Mr. St. Hilaire informed Mr. Sargent that the retainer was ofthe trailer pick-up.Respondenteventuallyreturnedthe call onSeptember 17, 14. During August of2010, Mr. SargentcalledMr. St.Hilaireto askaboutthestatus

as well as a third partywitness,toretrievethetrailerfrom Mr. Sargent'sproperty. Cate and arrange for a day and time for Mr. Sargent and Mr. Cate to beavailable, the day following mediation. Mr. St. Hilaire planned tocommunicate with Mr. for thereturnofMr. Cate'stooltrailer(which was on Mr. Sargent'sproperty)on 13. Mr. Sargent'sclaimdid not settle inmediation,but thepartiesdid agree toarrange

became necessary. St.HilairetoldMs. Craigthathe would assisther inenforcingthejudgment ifthat payableby Mr. Cate in $50monthly installmentsstartingon October 1,2010. Mr. 12. Aftermediation,Ms. Craig agreed to settle her case for$1,000 in her favor,

July28,2010. 11. The smallclaimsmatterswere consolidatedand eventuallywent tomediationon

Mr. Cate.5 claimed Mr. Cate owed him for work Mr. Sargent hadpreviouslyperformedfor Sargentand Mr. Cate. Theroofingwork was payment forwhat Mr. Sargent Cate was working on Ms.Craig'sroofbased on an oralcontractbetween Mr. essentially arise from one incident. According to Mr. Sargent and Ms. Craig, Mr. 10. The mattersofMs. Craig and Mr. Sargent appeared to Mr. St. Hilaire to p. 4 Page 4 of11 showed hours billed, onbehalfofboth clients, against the$3,000 retainer. knew the two were a couple and assumed Mr. Sargent would share the information with Ms. Craig. The billing statement Sargent only. Mr. St. Hilaire did not send a separate bill to Ms. Craig, though she had also requested one, because he 6AlthoughMs. CraighadalsorequestedanitemizedbillinherletterofJanuary2011,Mr. St.HilairesentthebilltoMr.

other client, Mr. Sargent, continued to hold Mr.Cate'strailer, therebyhampering the judge that Mr. Cate needed to pay Ms. Craig, while her boyfriend, and his 20. According to Mr. St. Hilaire, he did not want to be in the positionofarguing to

paying Donna." thetrailerto Billso the sooner we do this,the sooner Ican forceBillto start for Bill to pick up the trailer...I cannot file a motion to helpDonna until we get "Ineed tomake surethatBill [Cate] paysDonna. To thatend, I need toarrange Regarding Ms.Craig'sneed to enforce the $1,000judgment,Mr. St. Hilaire wrote Mr. St. Hilaire, is what Mr. Sargent had asked him toobtainin the first instance. Sargent to agree to a mutual releaseofclaims with Mr. Cate, which,accordingto bill to Mr.Sargent6on February 23,2011. In that letter, Mr. St. Hilaire urged Mr. 19. Mr. St.Hilairereiteratedthispositionwhen he eventuallysubmittedan itemized

settledthe trailerissuewith Mr. Cate. He toldherthathe would not be able toenforceherjudgment until Mr.Sargent 18. Sometime inmid-February2011, Mr. St.Hilairestoppedby Ms. Craig'shouse.

St.Hilairethatshe and Mr.Sargentwere stillawaitingan itemizedbill. herwith enforcementofthejudgment ifnecessary.Ms. Craigalsoreminded Mr. toenforcethesettlementamount, as he hadagreedduringthemediationtoassist $,1,000judgment. She asked that Mr. St.Hilaire"filethenecessarypaperwork" Mr. Cate hadstoppedmaking hismonthly payments toher insatisfactionofthe 17. Around January5,2011, Ms. CraigemailedMr. St.Hilaire,informinghim that

agree to this. for Mr.Sargenttoeffectuatethe removalofthetrailerbut Mr.Sargentdid not Sargentwould want to pay. Mr. St.Hilaireofferedto act as athirdpartywitness presentfor thetrailerretrieval,but thatinvolveda feethathe did notbelieveMr. thestatusofthe matter. Mr. St. Hilaire alsoattemptedto have apoliceofficer followed,butadmitsthat he did not keep Mr.Sargentinformedoftheseeffortsor regarding the trailer, fromapproximatelyJuly 20,2010 and in the months that Council. Mr. St. Hilaire claims he had manyconversationswith Mr. Cate busy during this timecampaigningfor his seat on theNew Hampshire Executive arrange the transferofthe trailer as agreed to by the parties. He became extremely 16. Mr. St.Hilaireacknowledges that it was hisresponsibilityin the firstinstanceto p. 5 Page 5of11

evidence:

Hilairehas violatedthefollowingRules ofProfessionalConduct by clearand convincing

The Committee concludesthatthereisclearand convincingevidencethatDaniel I. St.

Stipulationatfl[1-26.

26. Mr. Sargent and Ms. Craig filed a grievance with the ADO on July 2, 2012.

2011,and Mr.Sargent'sand Ms.Craig'sclaimsagainsthim were discharged. $6,450judgment againstMr. Cate. Mr. Cate filed forbankruptcyinDecember se. At ameritshearingon September 29,2011, Mr. Sargentwas awarded a withoutincident.Mr. Sargenteventuallypursued hisclaim againstMr. Catepro 25. In June of2011, Mr. Cate'sson retrievedthetrailerfrom Mr. Sargent'sproperty

Mr. Sargentobtainednew counsel. 24. Mr. SargentterminatedMr. St.HilaireinMarch of2011, and he withdrew once

Ms. Craigdid not pay anyadditionalattorneys'fees. St.Hilairewrote offtheamount over the $3,000retainer.Thus Mr. Sargentand 23. Although the total bill for bothclientsas ofFebruary23,2011 was $4,571.30,Mr.

both. clientsifhe reasonablybelievedhe couldprovidecompetent representationto thathe shouldhave, at aminimum, soughtinformed consentinwritingfrom both could bemateriallylimited by hisresponsibilitiesto the other. Heacknowledges Sargentand Ms. Craigpresenteda risk that hisrepresentationofone ofthem 22. In retrospect,Mr. St.Hilaireappreciatesthatthedecisiontorepresentboth Mr.

jointlyor seek any kind ofconflictwaiver. any discussionwith his clients about the potentialconflictinrepresentingthem with Mr. Cate was resolved. Not perceiving any suchpossibility,he did not have enforcejudgmentagainst Mr. Cate for one client until his otherclient'sdispute his efforts to pursue hisclients'claims, and inparticular,hisdecisionnot to 21. Mr. St. Hilaire never perceived any potentialconflictofinterestassociatedwith

Mr. Cate'sabilitytowork and get paid. p. 6 Page 6 of11

couldrepresentboth clients,by failing toobtainwritteninformed consentfrom hisresponsibilitiesto theotherclient,and to theextenthe reasonablybelievedhe whether there was a risk that his duty to oneclientwould be materiallylimitedby having separateclaimsagainstMr. Catewithoutundertakingan analysisof 34. Mr. St. Hilairebreachedthat duty when heundertooktorepresenttwo people

clients. 33. Mr. St. Hilairehad a duty toavoidconflictsofinterestinrepresentationofhis

StipulationatfK 33-35.

Prof.Conduct 1.4. 32. Under thesecircumstances,there isclearand convincingevidenceofN.H. R.

from Mr. Sargent'sproperty. keep Mr.Sargentinformed ofhiseffortstosecuretransferofMr. Cate'strailer requestwas made. He furtherbreachedhis dutyofcommunication by failingto ofwork performed,as requestedby hisclients,until fivemonths aftersuch 31. Mr. St.Hilairebreachedthat dutywhen he did notprovidean itemized statement

oftheirmatterand topromptly comply with reasonablerequestsforinformation. 30. Mr. St. Hilairehad a duty to keep hisclientsreasonablyinformed about thestatus

Stipulationatfll29-31.

Prof.Conduct 1.3. 29. Under thesecircumstances,there isclearand convincingevidenceofN.H. R.

to Mr. Cate. SargentappraisedofMr. St.Hilaire'sprogresswith regardtoreturnofthetrailer statementofwork performedasrequestedby theclients,and failing to keep Mr. in favorofMs. Craig, failing to provide, in a timely manner, anitemized 28. Mr. St. Hilairebreachedthis duty by failing to takeactiontoenforcethejudgment

reasonablediligenceand promptnessinrepresentingMr. Sargentand Ms. Craig. 27. PursuanttoN.H. R. Prof.Conduct 1.3,Mr. St.Hilairehad a duty toactwith

The Committee concludes thatMr. StHilaireviolatedhisduty towards hisclients.

Prong I:Duty Violated appropriatesanction."). factors, the first step is tocategorizetherespondent'smisconductand identify the determining a baseline sanction. See Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. at 303 ("In applying these The first three steps create the framework for characterizing the misconduct and N.H. 613, 621 (2007)); Standards §3.0. the existenceofaggravating or mitigating factors." Id. (quoting Douglas'sCase, 155 mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by thelawyer'smisconduct; and (d) sanctionsfor any actofattorneymisconduct:"(a) the dutyviolated;(b) thelawyer's 303. The Standards set forth a four part analysis for courts toconsiderinimposing Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, it looks to them for guidance. Id. at provide guidance when establishing an appropriate sanction for the practiceoflaw. Bar Association'sStandardsfor Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992) ("Standards") similarconduct inthe future." Conner's Case, 158 N.H. 299,303 (2009). The American public confidence in the bar, preserve the integrityofthe legal profession, and prevent The purposeoftheCourt'sdisciplinary power "is toprotectthe public,maintain

StipulationatU 40.

8.4(a). Mr. St.Hilaire'sconduct,as describedherein,violatedN.H. R. Prof.Conduct 36. Having found theforegoingviolations,there isclearand convincingevidencethat

Stipulationatffil37-39.

Prof.Conduct 1.7. 35. Under thesecircumstances,there isclearand convincingevidenceofN.H. R.

them. p. 8 Page 8 of11

§ 4.42:Suspensionisgenerallyappropriatewhen:

which providesinpertinentpart:

Mr. St.Hilaire'sviolationsofRules 1.3 and 1.4implicateSection4.43 ofthe Standards

factors. The Committee agreesthat themitigatingfactorsoutweigh theaggravating

hisremorse;and hiscooperativeattitude duringdisciplinaryproceedings Hilaire'sgood characterand reputation; his lackofa dishonestor selfish motive; Mitigatingfactorsincludetheabsenceofa priordisciplinaryrecord;Mr. St.

experiencein the practiceoflaw. In this case there is only one aggravating factor: Mr.Hilaire'sextensive

Prong IV: Aggravating and MitigatingFactors

adequatelycommunicating them. concerningtheirlegalmatterduringtheperiodthatMr. St.Hilairewas not Hilaire'sconduct caused additionalinjuryinthathisclients lackedinformation doing, Ms.Craigmay have obtainedmore money from Mr. Cate. Mr. St. her behalf,unrestrictedby anyconcernfor what Mr.Sargentwas or was not Craigwas barred.Had Mr. St.Hilairepromptly pursued enforcementeffortson enforcingthejudgment, Mr. Catedeclaredbankruptcyand furtherrelieffor Ms. trailer.Eleven months after Ms.Craigfirstasked Mr. St.Hilairetoassisther in thepayment planifhisotherclient,Mr. Sargent,still hadpossessionofMr. Cate's planbecause Mr. St.Hilairebelievedthathe could not persuadea judge toenforce enforcethejudgment in Ms.Craig'sfavor after Mr. Catebreachedthepayment thetrailerto Mr.Cate.)Specifically,Mr. St.Hilairedeclinedto takeactionto one client (Craig) until another client (Sargent) took action (in this case,returning because,due to hisconflictofinterest, hedeclinedtopursuecertainavenues for The Committee agrees that Mr. St.Hilaire'sconductcaused injury to hisclients

Prong III:Injuryor PotentialInjury

The Committee concludesthat Mr. St. Hilaire was negligent.

Prong II:Mental State p. 9 Page 9 of11

8Section4.44 uses the term "Admonition." The mostanalogoussanctionin New Hampshireis aReprimand. 7Section4.43 usesthe term"Reprimand."The mostanalogoussanctionin NewHampshireis a PublicCensure.

Mr. Hilaire'sconduct is a Public Censure. See Standard § 4.43.Taking intoconsiderationthe

Undertheforegoingcircumstances,theCommitteeagreesthat thebaselinesanctionfor

injury to a client. will adversely affect another client, and causes little or no actual or potential be materiallyaffected by thelawyer'sown interests, or whether the representation instanceofnegligenceindeterminingwhethertherepresentationofa client may § 4:34:Admonitionisgenerallyappropriatewhena lawyerengagesin anisolated

another client, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. thelawyer'sown interests, or whether therepresentationwill adverselyaffect determiningwhether therepresentationof a client may be materially affected by § 4.33: Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in

and causes injury or potential injury to a client. interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible effectofthat conflict, § 4.32: Suspension is generallyappropriate when a lawyer knowsofa conflictof

Failure to AvoidConflictsofInterest. ThatSectionprovides,inpertinentpart:

Mr. St.Hilaire'sRule 1.7violationimplicatesSection4.3ofthe Standards, addressing

actual or potential injury to a client. not actwith reasonablediligenceinrepresentinga client, and causes little or no § 4.44:Admonition8isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer is negligent and does

potentialinjuryto aclient not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes injury or § 4.43: Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does

injury to a client. (b) alawyerengagesin a patternof neglectand causes injury or potential injury or potential injury to a client, or (a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and causes p. 10 Page 10 of11

to Daniel I. St. Hilaire for violating N.H. RulesofProfessional Conduct 1.3; 1.4; 1.7 and 8.4(a). For alloftheabove reasons,theProfessionalConduct Committee issuesthisReprimand

investigation and prosecutionofthis matter. The Committee accepts Mr. St.Hilaire'sAgreement to Pay Costs with regard to the

(2007)(quotationand citationomitted).

legal profession, andpreventsimilarconduct in the future." Grew's Case, 156 N.H. 361, 365

rather to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the bar, preserve the integrityofthe

^Standards"). The purposeoftheCourt'sdisciplinarypower "isnot toinflictpunishment but

sanction is also in accord with the ABA Standardsfor ImposingLawyerSanctions (2005)

See e.g,Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303; Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. 155,159-60 (2005). This

The Committee'srecommended sanction is in accord with the purposesofattorney discipline.

The Committee concludes that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a reprimand.

to depart downward from the baseline sanction to a Reprimand.

many mitigatingfactorsin thiscase,theCommitteeagreeswiththepartiesthatit isappropriate p. 11 Page 11 of11

File DanielI. St.Hilaire,Esquire cc: Sara S.Greene,DisciplinaryCounsel

February_S,2015 ( ( \J_^-^

appeal to theNew Hampshire Supreme Court. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule37(A)(III)(d)(2)(D)(4)(A),Mr. St. Hilaire has the right to VII. RIGHT TO APPEAL