Joseph A. Caputo (2025)

Joseph A. Caputo, Esquire (via email and U.S. Mail) cc: Sara S. Greene, Esquire, Disciplinary Counsel

DATED: October 2 7, 2025 ___ /s/ Steph anie C. Hausman ________

parties’ Agreement to Pay Costs of Disciplinary Matter was also granted. Attorney Discipline Office’s Stipulation as to Facts, Violations, and Sanction: Reprimand. The On October 21, 2025, the Professional Conduct Committee granted the Respondent and

*non - lawyer member

*Everett S. Grass Richard C. Gagliuso, Esq. Trudy Renfors, Admin. Asst. Oliver Bloom, Esq. Eric R. Wilson, Esq. *Ronald K. Ace Mitchell M. Simon, Esq. Caroline K. Leonard, Esq., Vice Chair. Robin D. Melone, Esq. *Kathleen M. Ames, Vice Chair Karyl R. Martin, Esq. Stephanie C. Hausman, Esq., Chair *Peter J. Kiriakoutsos

detail below, Judge Lemire felt obligated to report Mr. Caputo based on his own detail below, Judge Lemire felt obligated to report Mr. Caputo based on his own Case No. (the "Action"). In short, and as discussed in more Case No. (the “Action”). In short, and as discussed in more 2024, in the case entitled 2024, in the case entitled In the Matter of and Jennifer A. Lemire. Judge Lemire presided over a Final Hearing on December 31, Jennifer A. Lemire. Judge Lemire presided over a Final Hearing on December 31, 5. 5. This disciplinary matter was initiated by a referral from Circuit Court Judge

The Underlying Divorce Matter and Judicial Referral The Underlying Divorce Matter and Judicial Referral

4. Mr. Caputo does not have a previous disciplinary history. 4. Pembroke, NH 03275. Pembroke, NH 03275. Law Offices of Joseph A. Caputo, located at 100 Main Street, Unit 213, Law Offices of Joseph A. Caputo, located at 100 Main Street, Unit 213, 3. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Caputo operated his law office as the 3. 2. Mr. Caputo has not been admitted to practice law in any other jurisdiction. 2. Hampshire. Mr. Caputo was admitted to practice on October 19, 1983. Hampshire. Mr. Caputo was admitted to practice on October 19, 1983. 1. Joseph A. Caputo ("Mr. Caputo) is an attorney licensed to practice law in New 1.

stipulate as follows: stipulate as follows: Respondent Joseph A. Caputo, Esq., and the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) Respondent Joseph A. Caputo, Esq., and the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO)

1 Mr. Caputo filed his Appearance for Ms. on December 16, 2024. 1 Mr. Caputo filed his Appearance for Ms. on December 16, 2024.

counsel during the December 31 hearing, which resulted in critical issues not counsel during the December 31 hearing, which resulted in critical issues not Petitioner's case was severely compromised due to ineffective assistance of Petitioner’s case was severely compromised due to ineffective assistance of 12. The Motion states it is "based on the grounds that the presentation of the 12. The Motion states it is “based on the grounds that the presentation of the Mr. not Mr. Caputo, though he was still counsel of record. Mr. not Mr. Caputo, though he was still counsel of record. ("the Motion"). The Motion was signed only by (“the Motion”). The Motion was signed only by filed a Motion for filed a Motion for 11. Following the Final Hearing, but prior to any Court order being issued, Ms. 11. Following the Final Hearing, but prior to any Court order being issued, Ms. Hearing. Hearing. partial modified parenting plan, narrowing the issues to be addressed at the Final partial modified parenting plan, narrowing the issues to be addressed at the Final 10. After the chambers conference, the parties negotiated and reached agreement on a 10. After the chambers conference, the parties negotiated and reached agreement on a hearing. Mr. Caputo assured the Court and Mr. Diaz that he was able to proceed. hearing. Mr. Caputo assured the Court and Mr. Diaz that he was able to proceed. hearing under the circumstances. Mr. Diaz expressed a willingness to continue the hearing under the circumstances. Mr. Diaz expressed a willingness to continue the 9. The Court inquired of Mr. Caputo as to whether he was able to proceed with the 9. The Court inquired of Mr. Caputo as to whether he was able to proceed with the ..

early morning hours of Monday, December 30, 2025. Later that day, early morning hours of Monday, December 30, 2025. Later that day, imminently. Mr. Caputo had returned from visiting his father in Long Island in the imminently. Mr. Caputo had returned from visiting his father in Long Island in the Court and Mr. Diaz that Mr. Caputo's father was expected to pass away Court and Mr. Diaz that Mr. Caputo’s father was expected to pass away requested to meet in chambers. During the meeting, Mr. Caputo informed the requested to meet in chambers. During the meeting, Mr. Caputo informed the 8. The Court’s referral explained that prior to the start of the hearing, the attorneys 8. The Court's referral explained that prior to the start of the hearing, the attorneys on December 31, 2024.1 Mr. was represented by Keith Diaz ("Mr. Diaz"). on December 31, 2024. 1 Mr. was represented by Keith Diaz (“Mr. Diaz”). 7. Mr. Caputo represented the Petitioner Ms. at the Final Hearing held 7. Mr. Caputo represented the Petitioner Ms. at the Final Hearing held Hampshire to Alabama. Hampshire to Alabama. final parenting plan due to the Respondent, Mr. , relocation from New final parenting plan due to the Respondent, Mr. , relocation from New 6. The issues to be decided at the Final Hearing concerned modifying the parties’ 6. The issues to be decided at the Final Hearing concerned modifying the parties' which she presided. which she presided. representation in a pleading that he was "impaired" during a Final Hearing over representation in a pleading that he was “impaired” during a Final Hearing over p. 4 Filed at the same time as the Motion was a separate filing by Mr. Caputo The Court issued an Order dated January 31, 2025 (the “Order”) denying the In her referral to the ADO, Judge Lemire attached her Order and stated “although I

oath that he was and/or did, and I do not know whether he has self-reported." oath that he was and/or did, and I do not know whether he has self-reported.” to cause harm to his client and/or the justice system, he himself represented under to cause harm to his client and/or the justice system, he himself represented under did not find that Attorney Caputo was impaired or committed misconduct such as did not find that Attorney Caputo was impaired or committed misconduct such as 15. In her referral to the ADO, Judge Lemire attached her Order and stated "although I 15.

on December 31, 2024 were unremarkable..." Order, page 8. on December 31, 2024 were unremarkable…” Order, page 8. undersigned's belief that the events of the parties' court appearance undersigned’s belief that the events of the parties’ court appearance recording of the hearing itself. Doing so only bolstered the recording of the hearing itself. Doing so only bolstered the ineffective as alleged. The undersigned then reviewed the audio ineffective as alleged. The undersigned then reviewed the audio Hearing had been inadequate, or that Attorney Caputo had been Hearing had been inadequate, or that Attorney Caputo had been found nothing therein that caused her to find either that the Final found nothing therein that caused her to find either that the Final reviewed the extensive notes taken during the Final Hearing and still reviewed the extensive notes taken during the Final Hearing and still only a month ago, did not align therewith. The undersigned only a month ago, did not align therewith. The undersigned The undersigned’s recollection of the Final Hearing, which occurred The undersigned's recollection of the Final Hearing, which occurred Mr. Caputo in the Statement. In response to the filings, the Court stated as follows: Mr. Caputo in the Statement. In response to the filings, the Court stated as follows: contents of the Motion for New Hearing, in particular the representations made by contents of the Motion for New Hearing, in particular the representations made by Motion for New Hearing. In the Order, the Court noted its surprise by the Motion for New Hearing. In the Order, the Court noted its surprise by the

14. The Court issued an Order dated January 31, 2025 (the "Order") denying the 14. [his] sudden onset impairment." [his] sudden onset impairment.” detrimental to her legal interests; and that "[his client] should not be penalized for detrimental to her legal interests; and that “[his client] should not be penalized for examination of his client at the hearing; that his presence at the hearing was examination of his client at the hearing; that his presence at the hearing was regarding his father at 2pm; that he believed he was ineffective during his direct regarding his father at 2pm; that he believed he was ineffective during his direct a problem with his concentration after he read a text message from his brother a problem with his concentration after he read a text message from his brother 2025" (the "Statement"). In his Statement, Mr. Caputo represented that he noticed 2025” (the “Statement”). In his Statement, Mr. Caputo represented that he noticed captioned "Statement of Joseph A. Caputo, Counsel for Petitioner dated January 9, captioned “Statement of Joseph A. Caputo, Counsel for Petitioner dated January 9, 13. p. 4 Filed at the same time as the Motion was a separate filing by Mr. Caputo 13. advocate on behalf of the Petitioner." advocate on behalf of the Petitioner.” marked by disorganization, confusion, and an apparent inability to effectively marked by disorganization, confusion, and an apparent inability to effectively interests...," and that "[p]etitioner's counsel's performance during the hearing was interests…,” and that “[p]etitioner’s counsel’s performance during the hearing was failed to adequately present evidence and testimony crucial to the child’s best failed to adequately present evidence and testimony crucial to the child's best being adequately addressed." The Motion asserted that "[p]etitioner's counsel being adequately addressed.” The Motion asserted that “[p]etitioner’s counsel p. 5 Disciplinary Counsel met with Mr. Caputo and requested that his produce all 2 and Reviewing the communications between Mr. Caputo and his client in the first few On the night of December 31, 2024, Ms. texted Mr. Caputo On January 1, 2025 at 9:28 a.m., she Two hours later, on the same day, Mr. Caputo responded to Ms. Mr. Caputo’s father was ailing and in extremis at this time. He died on January 3, Mr. Caputo, and his client, were informed that confidential communications may be Rule

37(20)(a)(2)(B). 37(20)(a)(2)(B). of the ADO's public file where the grievance is not initiated by the client. of the ADO’s public file where the grievance is not initiated by the client. See See Rule exceptions in Rule 1.6, and were assured that such communications are never made part exceptions in Rule 1.6, and were assured that such communications are never made part produced by a lawyer in the course of a disciplinary investigation pursuant to the produced by a lawyer in the course of a disciplinary investigation pursuant to the 2 Mr. Caputo, and his client, were informed that confidential communications may be 2

2025. 2025. 22. Mr. Caputo's father was ailing and in extremis at this time. He died on January 3, 22.

21. Two hours later, on the same day, Mr. Caputo responded to Ms. 21.

20. 20. t t

19. On January 1, 2025 at 9:28 a.m., she 19.

18. On the night of December 31, 2024, Ms. texted Mr. Caputo 18.

hearing, on a theory that Mr. Caputo was impaired, hearing, on a theory that Mr. Caputo was impaired, days after the final hearing demonstrate that the course of action of seeking a new days after the final hearing demonstrate that the course of action of seeking a new 17. Reviewing the communications between Mr. Caputo and his client in the first few 17. has cooperated fully with the ADO. has cooperated fully with the ADO. letter, text, or any other form. Mr. Caputo readily produced this information,2 and letter, text, or any other form. Mr. Caputo readily produced this information, communications with his client during the pertinent period, whether by email, communications with his client during the pertinent period, whether by email, 16. p. 5 Disciplinary Counsel met with Mr. Caputo and requested that his produce all 16. ADO Investigation and Communications Between Mr. Caputo and His Client ADO Investigation and Communications Between Mr. Caputo and His Client p. 6 On January 2, 2025, Ms. Upon reviewing it, Mr. Caputo did not feel he could sign it. In his meeting with the undersigned, Mr. Caputo explained that Ms. according to Mr. Caputo’s initial response submitted to the The opposing party did not file a response or objection to the Motion, and the At the time Mr. Caputo agreed to , he Mr. Caputo agrees in hindsight that his course of action should have been a See Ethical Rule 1.2, cmt Rule 1.2 provides in pertinent part that “a lawyer shall abide by a client’s objectives of representation, and, as required by Rule 1.4,

E.R.1.2(a) (emphasis added). E.R.1.2(a) (emphasis added). shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued." shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.” decisions concerning the decisions concerning the objectives of representation, and, as required by Rule 1.4, 30. Rule 1.2 provides in pertinent part that "a lawyer shall abide by a client's 30. [2]. [2]. the allocation of authority between client and lawyer. the allocation of authority between client and lawyer. See Ethical Rule 1.2, cmt , without sufficient advice and counsel from him concerning, without sufficient advice and counsel from him concerning

substantive discussion with Ms. during which he could substantive discussion with Ms. during which he could 29. Mr. Caputo agrees in hindsight that his course of action should have been a 29.

in retrospect that his refusal in retrospect that his refusal was deeply stressed and anxious because his father was dying. He acknowledges was deeply stressed and anxious because his father was dying. He acknowledges 28. At the time Mr. Caputo agreed to , he 28. Court denied it on January 31, 2025. Court denied it on January 31, 2025. 27. The opposing party did not file a response or objection to the Motion, and the 27.

ADO, ADO, 26. Ms. according to Mr. Caputo's initial response submitted to the 26.

25. In his meeting with the undersigned, Mr. Caputo explained that 25. 24. Upon reviewing it, Mr. Caputo did not feel he could sign it. 24. 23. p. 6 On January 2, 2025, Ms. 23. p. 7 6 6

any unearned retainer. any unearned retainer. any deadlines for a motion for reconsideration, promptly providing her file, and returning any deadlines for a motion for reconsideration, promptly providing her file, and returning Hearing, he took such action as necessary to limit prejudice to his client, such as noting Hearing, he took such action as necessary to limit prejudice to his client, such as noting 3 Mr. Caputo could have ensured that in the course of withdrawing after the Final 3 Mr. Caputo could have ensured that in the course of withdrawing after the Final

interests.3 interests. 3 Hearing had occurred, such withdrawal would not have been prejudicial to her Hearing had occurred, such withdrawal would not have been prejudicial to her . Because the Final. Because the Final

35. Given this situation, 35. Given this situation, even though he was her counsel of record, demonstrates this conflict of interest. even though he was her counsel of record, demonstrates this conflict of interest. 34. Mr. Caputo refusal to sign and file the Motion for New Hearing on her behalf, 34. Mr. Caputo refusal to sign and file the Motion for New Hearing on her behalf, ..

materially limited his representation of Ms. — materially limited his representation of Ms. ─ minimum, in accurately describing such performance from his own perspective, minimum, in accurately describing such performance from his own perspective, personal interest in defending his performance at the Final Hearing, or at a personal interest in defending his performance at the Final Hearing, or at a that a conflict had developed between Mr. Caputo and his client. Mr. Caputo's that a conflict had developed between Mr. Caputo and his client. Mr. Caputo’s 33. In addition, Mr. Caputo's refusal to sign Mr. Motion demonstrates 33. In addition, Mr. Caputo’s refusal to sign Mr. Motion demonstrates

32. Mr. Caputo agrees that rather than 32. Mr. Caputo agrees that rather than

disagreement by discharging the lawyer. disagreement by discharging the lawyer. from representation . . . . Conversely, the client may resolve the from representation . . . . Conversely, the client may resolve the fundamental disagreement with the client, the lawyer may withdraw fundamental disagreement with the client, the lawyer may withdraw the disagreement. If such efforts are unavailing and the lawyer has a the disagreement. If such efforts are unavailing and the lawyer has a consult with the client and seek a mutually acceptable resolution of consult with the client and seek a mutually acceptable resolution of the the means means to be used to accomplish the client’s stated objective, the lawyer should to be used to accomplish the client's stated objective, the lawyer should

31. The comments to the rule elaborate that where a lawyer and client disagree about 31. The comments to the rule elaborate that where a lawyer and client disagree about p. 8 7 7

42. Mr. Caputo violated Rule 1.7 because his personal interests — in defending his 42. Mr. Caputo violated Rule 1.7 because his personal interests ─ in defending his

interest of the lawyer. interest of the lawyer. another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more concurrent conflict of interest exists if: concurrent conflict of interest exists if: if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client

41. Rule 1.7 states in pertinent part: 41. Rule 1.7 states in pertinent part:

40. The facts set forth at TR 1 - 35 above are incorporated by reference. 40. The facts set forth at ¶¶ 1 - 35 above are incorporated by reference.

that should have been Mr. Caputo's responsibility as the attorney of record, that should have been Mr. Caputo’s responsibility as the attorney of record, i.e., i.e.,

39. Mr. Caputo violated Rule 1.2(a) by improperly delegating to his client a responsibility 39. Mr. Caputo violated Rule 1.2(a) by improperly delegating to his client a responsibility

as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they decisions concerning the objectives of representation, and, as required decisions concerning the objectives of representation, and, as required (a) Subject to paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), a lawyer shall abide by a client's (a) Subject to paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s

38. Rule 1.2 states in pertinent part as follows: 38. Rule 1.2 states in pertinent part as follows: 37. The facts set forth at TR 1 - 35 above are incorporated by reference. 37. The facts set forth at ¶¶ 1 - 35 above are incorporated by reference.

New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows: New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows: 36. The parties agree that Mr. Caputo's conduct in this case involves violations of the 36. The parties agree that Mr. Caputo’s conduct in this case involvesviolations of the

respondent's misconduct and identify the appropriate sanction"). Once the respondent’s misconduct and identify the appropriate sanction”). Once the 303 (stating that "[i]n applying these factors, the first step is to categorize the 303 (stating that “[i]n applying these factors, the first step is to categorize the misconduct and determining a baseline sanction. misconduct and determining a baseline sanction. See Conner's' Case,, 158 N.H. at 158 N.H. at 48. The first three parts of the analysis create the framework for characterizing the 48. Case Case,, 156 N.H. 613, 621 (2007)); 156 N.H. 613, 621 (2007)); Standards § 3.0. and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.” Id. Id. (quoting Douglas' mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; courts to consider in imposing sanctions: "(a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's courts to consider in imposing sanctions: “(a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer’s Conner’s Case Conner's Case,, 158 N.H. at 303. The 158 N.H. at 303. The Standards set forth a four part analysis for 47. Although the Court has not adopted the 47. Standards,, it looks to them for guidance. it looks to them for guidance. misconduct." misconduct.” Coffey’s Case Coffey's Case,, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005). 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005). N.H. 299, 303 (2009). "The sanction...must take into account the severity of the N.H. 299, 303 (2009). “The sanction…must take into account the severity of the profession, and preventing similar conduct in the future." profession, and preventing similar conduct in the future.” Conner’s Case Conner's Case,, 158 158 maintaining public confidence in the bar, preserving the integrity of the legal maintaining public confidence in the bar, preserving the integrity of the legal 46. The purpose of the Court's disciplinary power is "protecting the public, 46. Lawyer Sanctions Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards") Standards”) support this sanction. support this sanction. 45. Both case law and the American Bar Association's 45. Standards for Imposing Standards for Imposing attorney discipline. attorney discipline. the appropriate sanction in this matter. This sanction would serve the purposes of the appropriate sanction in this matter. This sanction would serve the purposes of 44. The Attorney Discipline Office and Mr. Caputo jointly agree that a reprimand is 44.

Mr. Caputo's conduct, as described herein, violated N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). Mr. Caputo’s conduct, as described herein, violated N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). 43. p. 9 Having found the foregoing violations, there is clear and convincing evidence that 43.

limited. limited. created a significant risk that his representation of his client was materially created a significant risk that his representation of his client was materially — ─ performance at the Final Hearing performance at the Final Hearing p. 10 See id. (stating that “[a]fter determining the Under the first prong of the analysis, Mr. Caputo violated duties owed to the With respect to Mr. Caputo’s mental state under the second prong of the sanction The third prong of the sanction analysis requires an assessment of the actual or Mr. Caputo’s conduct caused some injury in this matter. The Court utilized its Mr. Caputo’s conduct did not injure Ms. who received competent

caused him on that date to be unable to effectively represent his client." caused him on that date to be unable to effectively represent his client.” December 31, 2024 that Attorney Caputo was suffering from any impairment that December 31, 2024 that Attorney Caputo was suffering from any impairment that New Hearing. Judge Lemire stated that the Court "did not observe or suspect on New Hearing. Judge Lemire stated that the Court “did not observe or suspect on counsel at the Final Hearing, as noted in the Judge's Order denying the Motion for counsel at the Final Hearing, as noted in the Judge’s Order denying the Motion for 53. 53. Mr. Caputo's conduct did not injure Ms. who received competent party. party. quickly, without further hearing on the motion nor a response from the opposing quickly, without further hearing on the motion nor a response from the opposing presented at the Final Hearing. That said, the issue was resolved relatively presented at the Final Hearing. That said, the issue was resolved relatively Lemire had to address that instead of turning immediately to the substantive issues Lemire had to address that instead of turning immediately to the substantive issues This injected a live issue into the divorce after the Final Hearing, and Judge This injected a live issue into the divorce after the Final Hearing, and Judge judicial resources to address a Motion that Mr. Caputo, though counsel, judicial resources to address a Motion that Mr. Caputo, though counsel, 52. 52. Mr. Caputo's conduct caused some injury in this matter. The Court utilized its potential injury caused by Mr. Caputo's misconduct. potential injury caused by Mr. Caputo’s misconduct. 51. 51. The third prong of the sanction analysis requires an assessment of the actual or .. sufficiently careful and considered, and o sufficiently careful and considered, and o performance at the Final Hearing in the days that followed the hearing was not performance at the Final Hearing in the days that followed the hearing was not stressed and anxious. Mr. Caputo would testify that his own assessment of his stressed and anxious. Mr. Caputo would testify that his own assessment of his navigating the imminent death of his father. As such, he found himself very navigating the imminent death of his father. As such, he found himself very pertinent period of time, as Mr. Caputo was pertinent period of time, as Mr. Caputo was analysis, the parties agree that Mr. Caputo's mental state was negligent. In the analysis, the parties agree that Mr. Caputo’s mental state was negligent. In the 50. 50. With respect to Mr. Caputo's mental state under the second prong of the sanction client. client. 49. Under the first prong of the analysis, Mr. Caputo violated duties owed to the 49. on the ultimate sanction"). on the ultimate sanction”). sanction, [the Court] consider[s] the effect of any aggravating or mitigating factors sanction, [the Court] consider[s] the effect of any aggravating or mitigating factors they affect the baseline sanction. they affect the baseline sanction. See id. (stating that "[a]fter determining the the analysis: the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors, and whether the analysis: the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors, and whether baseline sanction is determined, the Court then looks to the fourth and final part of baseline sanction is determined, the Court then looks to the fourth and final part of p. 11 The parties agree that the baseline sanction in this matter is a public censure. See § 4.43 and § 4.33. Mr. Caputo’s 1.2 rule violation implicates Section 4.4 of the Disbarment is generally appropriate when: a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or potentially a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client Suspension is generally appropriate when: a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and Mr. Caputo’s conduct in this matter, when considered under 4.43, would The term “admonition,” as used in the

public censure in New Hampshire. public censure in New Hampshire. New Hampshire. The term "reprimand," as used in the New Hampshire. The term “reprimand,” as used in the ABA Standards, ABA Standards, is analogous to a is analogous to a 4 The term "admonition," as used in the ABA Standards, ABA Standards, is analogous to a reprimand in is analogous to a reprimand in 4

call for a baseline sanction of a public censure. call for a baseline sanction of a public censure. 56. 56. Mr. Caputo's conduct in this matter, when considered under Standard Standard 4.43, would

(emphasis added). (emphasis added). causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client. causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client. does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and 4.44 Admonition4 is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and 4.44 4 client, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. client, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a 4.43 4.43 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent

potential injury to a client. potential injury to a client. (b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or (b) causes injury or potential injury to a client, or causes injury or potential injury to a client, or (a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and (a)

4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when: 4.42

client. client. matters and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a matters and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a (c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client (c) causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or (b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and (b) serious injury to a client; or serious injury to a client; or (a) a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or potentially (a)

4.41 Disbarment is generally appropriate when: 4.41 promptness in representing a client: promptness in representing a client: appropriate in cases involving a failure to act with reasonable diligence and appropriate in cases involving a failure to act with reasonable diligence and factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the Section provides: Section provides: 55. 55. Mr. Caputo's 1.2 rule violation implicates Section 4.4 of the Standards. Standards. That That Standards § Standards 4.43 and § 4.33. 54. 54. p. 11 The parties agree that the baseline sanction in this matter is a public censure. See p. 12 Mr. Caputo’s 1.7 rule violation implicates Section 4.3 of the Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent

(emphasis added). (emphasis added). client. client. another client, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a another client, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a own interests, or whether the representation will adversely affect own interests, or whether the representation will adversely affect representation of a client may be materially affected by the lawyer's representation of a client may be materially affected by the lawyer’s isolated instance of negligence in determining whether the isolated instance of negligence in determining whether the 4:34 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an 4:34 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an injury or potential injury to a client. injury or potential injury to a client. representation will adversely affect another client, and causes representation will adversely affect another client, and causes materially affected by the lawyer’s own interests, or whether the materially affected by the lawyer's own interests, or whether the in determining whether the representation of a client may be in determining whether the representation of a client may be 4.33 4.33 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent client. client. effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to a effect of that conflict, and causes injury or potential injury to a conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible conflict of interest and does not fully disclose to a client the possible 4.32 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a 4.32 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows of a

client. client. another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a representation of a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or representation of a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or adverse, and knowingly uses information relating to the adverse, and knowingly uses information relating to the which the interests of a present or former client are materially which the interests of a present or former client are materially (c) represents a client in a matter substantially related to a matter in (c) represents a client in a matter substantially related to a matter in client; or client; or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a adverse interests with the intent to benefit the lawyer or adverse interests with the intent to benefit the lawyer or (b) simultaneously represents clients that the lawyer knows have (b) simultaneously represents clients that the lawyer knows have injury to the client; or injury to the client; or lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious interests are adverse to the client's with the intent to benefit the interests are adverse to the client’s with the intent to benefit the (a) engages in representation of a client knowing that the lawyer's (a) engages in representation of a client knowing that the lawyer’s informed consent of client(s): informed consent of client(s):

4.31 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, without the 4.31 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, without the appropriate in cases involving conflicts of interest: appropriate in cases involving conflicts of interest: factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the Section provides: Section provides: 57. 57. Mr. Caputo's 1.7 rule violation implicates Section 4.3 of the Standards. Standards. That That p. 13 Mr. Caputo’s conduct in this matter, when considered under 4.33, would The baseline sanction must be considered in light of any aggravating and E.g. Conner’s Case In this case there is one aggravating factor present – Mr. Caputo’s substantial See Standards § 9.22. Mitigating factors include absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal and See Standards § 9.32. The parties agree that given the baseline sanction, and because mitigating factors This sanction is proportional to discipline imposed in other cases involving See Brannen, Barney L. advs. ADO - Anderson, Michael E advs. ADO - #17-001. Subject to the PCC’s approval of Mr. Caputo’s Stipulation, Mr. Caputo agrees to See Supreme Court Rule 37(19). His agreement to pay the Mr. Brannen violated Rule 1.2 because he filed a Motion that his client had drafted, Standards

the the Standards,, this Committee has recognized it as such. this Committee has recognized it as such. Brannen self-reported his conduct, and though self-reporting is a not a mitigator listed in Brannen self-reported his conduct, and though self-reporting is a not a mitigator listed in extenuating personal or emotional problems at the time of his misconduct. However, Mr. extenuating personal or emotional problems at the time of his misconduct. However, Mr. then apologized to opposing counsel. Unlike Mr. Caputo, Mr. Brannen had no then apologized to opposing counsel. Unlike Mr. Caputo, Mr. Brannen had no to withdraw or correct the pleading. When his client refused, Mr. Brannen withdrew and to withdraw or correct the pleading. When his client refused, Mr. Brannen withdrew and very pressed for time. Mr. Brannen thereafter remonstrated with his client and urged him very pressed for time. Mr. Brannen thereafter remonstrated with his client and urged him even though he disagreed with some of the allegations therein, due to the fact that he was even though he disagreed with some of the allegations therein, due to the fact that he was 5 Mr. Brannen violated Rule 1.2 because he filed a Motion that his client had drafted, 5

disciplinary matter. disciplinary matter. See Supreme Court Rule 37(19). His agreement to pay the pay the costs incurred by the ADO in the investigation and enforcement of this pay the costs incurred by the ADO in the investigation and enforcement of this 64. 64. Subject to the PCC's approval of Mr. Caputo's Stipulation, Mr. Caputo agrees to

#23-011; #23-011; Anderson, Michael E advs. ADO - #17-001.5 5 departure to reprimand based on mitigators. departure to reprimand based on mitigators. See Brannen, Barney L. advs. ADO address a violation of this Rule, noting a baseline censure with a downward address a violation of this Rule, noting a baseline censure with a downward breaches of Rule 1.2. Though there are few such cases, relatively recent cases breaches of Rule 1.2. Though there are few such cases, relatively recent cases 63. 63. This sanction is proportional to discipline imposed in other cases involving appropriate and serves the purposes of discipline. appropriate and serves the purposes of discipline. outweigh the single aggravating factor, a downward departure to a reprimand is outweigh the single aggravating factor, a downward departure to a reprimand is 62. 62. The parties agree that given the baseline sanction, and because mitigating factors towards the proceedings, and remorse. towards the proceedings, and remorse. See Standards § 9.32. emotional problems, full and free disclosure to the ADO, a cooperative attitude emotional problems, full and free disclosure to the ADO, a cooperative attitude 61. 61. Mitigating factors include absence of a prior disciplinary record, personal and experience in the practice of law. experience in the practice of law. See Standards § 9.22. 60. 60. In this case there is one aggravating factor present — Mr. Caputo's substantial mitigating factors. mitigating factors. E.g., Conner's Case,,, 158 N.H. at 303. 158 N.H. at 303. 59. 59. The baseline sanction must be considered in light of any aggravating and call for a baseline sanction of public censure. call for a baseline sanction of public censure. 58. 58. Mr. Caputo's conduct in this matter, when considered under Standard Standard 4.33, would p. 14 13

Dated: 9-t 2025 ..411 Amor

68. Mr. Caputo knowingly and intelligently waives his right to a hearing. Stipulation and, that he is fully aware of the consequences of the Stipulation. 67. Mr. Caputo understands that he has a right to obtain counsel regarding this Stipulation. coercion, or duress, or of any promises or inducements not set forth in the submitted; that he is not entering this Stipulation as a result of any threats, disposition contained in this Stipulation are freely, knowingly, and voluntarily 66. Mr. Caputo acknowledges that the admissions of misconduct and the proposed Stipulation pursuant to Rule 37A(III)(aa)(1). disposition, and that the PCC may accept, reject, or conditionally accept the 65. Mr. Caputo understands that this Stipulation represents a recommended

Caputo. costs incurred by the ADO is the subject of a separate agreement signed by Mr.