Anthony V. Rozzi (2015)

Rozzi was admittedtopracticein 2005. 1. Anthony V. Rozzi is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Mr.

theStipulationby clearand convincingevidence: The Committee has determined that the Record supports the following factual findingsof

Committee for allcostsofinvestigationand prosecutionofthismatter. censure forviolationofRules 1.1; 1.3; 1.4; and 8.4(a), as well asreimbursement ofthe Hampshire RulesofProfessional Conduct (the "Rules") as stipulated and to recommend a public and convincingevidence.The Committee approved the findingsofviolationsoftheNew Having reviewed the Record, the Committee approved the facts as stipulated, by clear

D. Sager and Martha Van Oot. Scott H. Harris was absent during the deliberationsofthis matter. Chollet, Richard H. Darling, Margaret R. Kerouac, Mona T. Movafaghi,Georges J. Roy, Richard Chair,Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair,ElaineHolden, Vice Chair,PeterG. Beeson, Susan R. Agreement to PayCosts ofDisciplinaryMatter.Members presentincludedDavid M. Rothstein, deliberatedtheStipulationas toFacts,Violationsand Sanction(the"Stipulation"),and the On November 17,2015, the ProfessionalConduct Committee (the"Committee")

Rozzi,Anthony V. advs.AttorneyDisciplineOffice - #14-011

ScottH. Harris Barbara J. Guay, Legal Assistant Richard H. Darling* * nonattorneymember Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oot PeterG. Beeson Richard D. Sager ElaineHolden,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 Georges J. Roy* Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mona T. Movafaghi David M. Rothstein,Chair 4 Chenell Drive,Suite 102 Margaret R. Kerouac

the Charge from the State Court to theFederalCourt, initiating the matter Lori Pursuantto 28 U.S.C.§§1446(a)and 1331, on October 19, 2010, Target removed to theRockingham County Superior Court (the "State Court"), for a trial by jury. 12. Pursuant toRSA 354-A:21-a, onSeptember21,2010, Targetremoved the Charge

probablecause. did not requestreconsiderationorappealtheCommission'sfindingofno probablecauseregardingMs. Quinlan'ssexualharassmentclaim.Ms. Quinlan causeregardingMs. Quinlan'swrongfulterminationclaim and afindingofno 11. By letterdated August 20,2010,the Commission issued afindingofprobable

"Commission"),alleging sexual harassmentand retaliation/wrongful termination. "Charge")withNew Hampshire Commission for Human Rights(the 10. On or about May 14, 2008, Ms. Quinlan filed aChargeofDiscrimination (the

terminatedthe alleged perpetratorofthe sexual harassment. falseinformationduring the courseofTarget'sinvestigation.Target also 9. Target claimedthat Ms. Quinlan was terminated because sheknowingly gave

her shortlythereafter,followingitsinvestigationinto herallegations. reported the alleged harassment to Target in January 2008, and Targetterminated December 2007,which Ms. Quinlan rejected. Ms. Quinlan stated that she Target"made a sexual advance towards her in a parking lot afterwork" in 8. Ms. Quinlan alleged that whileemployed by Target, aTeam LeaderExecutiveat

Mr. Rozzi took the case on acontingencybasis. terminationactionagainst her formeremployer,TargetCorporation("Target"). 7. Mr. Rozzi representedMs. Quinlan in asexualharassmentand wrongful

March 13,2014 and referred for formalproceedingson March 13,2015. 6. This disciplinarymatter arises from acomplaintfiledby LoriQuinlan dated pharmacist. Heonlyhas two active legal files at this time; one is a pro bono case. Mr. Rozzi has been a pharmacist since1979 withno historyofdisciplineas a time as the DirectorofPharmacy for along-termcare facility inMassachusetts. 5. Mr. Rozziis also a pharmacistlicensed inMassachusetts.He isemployed full-

Essex St., Ste.710, Haverhill,Massachusetts,01832. 1069, Haverhill, Massachusetts,01832. He rents conference room space at 143 4. Mr. Rozzi practices law at the Law OfficesofAnthony V. Rozzi,Esq., P.O. Box

3. Mr. Rozzidoes not have a previousdisciplinaryhistory.

currentlyon activestatusinMassachusetts. 2. Mr. Rozziwas admitted topracticelaw in Massachusetts on June16,2004. He is p. 3 Page 3 of8

thecourt'sorderon reconsideration. persuade thecourtto reconsider,afterwhich he intendedto inform hisclientof failed tocalendarthe deadline for the objection. Hedeterminedto do his best to immediatelyinformhis client. He wasembarrassedand horrifiedthathe had 20. When Mr. Rozzi received the order grantingjudgment to Target, he did not

children,thenaged 8 and 13. in the midstofa severe lupus flare up, which left Mr. Rozzi to care for their state. During the time frame pertinent to this disciplinary matter, Ms. Rozzi was severepapurahives and flare ups can result inweeks or months in adebilitated autoimmune disorder. Due to the lupus, Mr.Rozzi'swife manifests stress with was first diagnosed with Fibromyalgia, then later was diagnosed with lupus, an disciplinarymatter, however, he wasattendingto hiswife'shealth. Mrs. Rozzi strugglingwith diabetes. Most relevant for the time framepertinentto this 19. Mr. Rozzi was also dealing with a varietyofpersonaland healthissues,including

admits that thisdeadline"fell through thecracks." calendaringsystems, from"Bill4Time"to Clio PracticeManagement system. He part-time paralegal and no other staff. He was also in the middleofswitching negligentlyfailed tocalendarthe deadline. At the time, Mr. Rozziemployed one 18. Mr. Rozzi did not file anobjectionon behalfofMs. Quinlan becausehe

17. On July 6,2012,the Federal Court enteredjudgment in favorofTarget.

granted." defendant is entitled tojudgmentfor the reasons set forth in the motion. Motion the facts properly pleaded in supportofthe motion as true, I determine that the Motion for Summary Judgment, stating: "No objection has been filed. Accepting 16. On July 5,2012,the Federal Court(Barbadoro,J.)enteredan ordergrantingthe

before June18,2012. However, Mr. Rozzi did not file anobjection. 15. Ms. Quinlan'sobjection to the Motion for Summary Judgment was due on or

Civil Rights Act or for wrongful termination. establish a prima facie claim for sexualharassmentpursuantto Title VIIofthe forSummary Judgment.Specifically, Targetassertedthat Ms.Quinlan failed to 14. On May 18,2012,following thedepositionofMs. Quinlan,Targetfiled aMotion

filed anappearanceon behalfofMs. Quinlan. 13. In October 2010, afterthecasehad been removed to the FederalCourt,Mr. Rozzi

Action"). Quinlan v. Target Corporation, Case No. 1:10-cv-00474-PB (the"Federal p. 4 Page 4of8

identify alternative legal responses; (2) formulatethematerialissuesraised,determineapplicable law and client,and from otherrelevant sources; (1) gathersufficientfactsregardingtheclient'sproblem from the (c) In the performanceofclient service, alawyershall at aminimum: client'sinterest. matterundertakenis completed with noavoidableharm to the (5) attention to details and schedules necessary to assure that the (4) properpreparation;and bringingthoseareas to theclient'sattention; (3) identificationofareas beyond the lawyer's competence and (2) performance ofthe techniquesofpractice with skill; practices; (1) specific knowledge about the fieldsoflaw in which the lawyer (b) Legal competence requires at a minimum: (a) A lawyershall providecompetentrepresentationto a client.

23. Rule 1.1 statesas follows:

evidence: Rozzi has violated the following RulesofProfessional Conduct by clear and convincing The Committeeconcludesthat there is clear andconvincingevidencethat Anthony V.

Stipulationffi!1-22.

hismistakeand apologized. Reconsideration.Shortlythereafter,Mr. Rozzi met with isclient,informed herof 22. In an orderdated August6,2012, theFederalCourt denied the Motion for

reopen theFederalAction. FederalCourtreconsiderits order on the Motion forSummary Judgment and in his failing to file anobjectionon time. Mr. Rozzithereforerequestedthat the illnesses. Mr. Rozzi stated that thesesignificantpersonalpreoccupationsresulted that,over thepreviousseven months, he, hiswife,and hissistersufferedserious grantingsummary judgment forTarget.In theMotion, Mr. Rozzi represented 21. On July 17,2012, Mr. Rozzi filed aMotion forReconsiderationoftheorder p. 5 Page 5of8

forsummary judgment had been filed by Target, and that anobjectionwas due by 28. Mr. Rozzi violatedRule 1.4when he failed toinform Ms. Quinlan thatthemotion

(3)keep theclientreasonablyinformedaboutthestatusofthematter. client'sobjectivesare to be accomplished; (2)reasonablyconsultwith theclientaboutthemeans by which the respect to which the client's informed consent is required by these Rules; (1)promptlyinform the clientofany decisionorcircumstancewith (a) A lawyer shall:

27. Rule 1.4states,inpertinentpart, asfollows:

StipulationUK 28-29.

themotion forsummary judgment filed byTarget. timelyand effectivematterby failing tocalendarthedeadlinefor theobjectionto schedulesofthelitigationand failed toundertakeactionon hisclient'sbehalfin a 26. Mr. Rozzi violatedRule 1.3when he failed toproperlyattendto the details and

representinga client. A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence andpromptness in

25. Rule 1.3 statesas follows:

Stipulationfl25-27.

claim being dismissed. themotion forsummary judgment filed byTarget,which resultedin hisclient's timelyand effectivematterby failing tocalendarthedeadlinefor theobjectionto schedulesofthelitigationand failed toundertakeactionon hisclient'sbehalfin a 24. Mr. Rozzi violatedRule 1.1when he failed toproperlyattendto thedetailsand

competentrepresentation. lawyer who possesses the skill and knowledgerequiredto assure manner including,where appropriate,associatingwith another (4) undertakeactionson theclient'sbehalfin atimelyand effective legalproblems oftheclient;and (3) develop a strategy,inconsultationwith theclient,forsolvingthe p. 6 Page 6 of8

cure thedamage caused by hismistake.Once he attemptedto do so, and hismotion for Mr. Rozzi admits that heknowingly failed to inform her. He did so in the hopethathe could As for his failure to inform Ms. Quinlan promptly that the Court haddismissedher case,

toTarget'smotion forsummary judgment. office which resulted in this mistake. No evidence suggests that he knowingly failed to respond personal issues at the timeofTarget'smotion, as well as changingcalendaringsystems at his the parties agree mental state was negligent. Mr. Rozzi was dealing with a hostofdifficult With respect to Mr.Rozzi'smental state under the second prongofthe sanction analysis,

Prong II:Mental State:Knowing or Negligent

Under the first prongofthe analysis, Mr. Rozzi violated duties owed to his client.

Prong I:Duty Violated

N.H. 613, 621(2007)); Standards § 3.0. and (d) theexistenceofaggravatingor mitigating factors." Id. (quoting Douglas' Case, 156 thelawyer'smental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by thelawyer'smisconduct; forth a four part analysis for courts to consider in imposing sanctions: "(a) the duty violated; (b) it looks to them forguidance. Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). The Standards set Although theCourt has not adopted the ABA Standardsfor Imposing LawyerSanctions,

costsofinvestigationand prosecution. agrees with and accepts therecommended sanctionofa public censure and an order to pay the violationsofRules 1.1; 1.3; 1.4; and 8.4(a). For thereasonsset forthbelow, theCommittee The Stipulationincludedan agreementon recommended sanctionsbased on the

StipulationH 34.

Mr. Rozzi'sconduct,as describedherein,violatedRule 8.4(a). 30. Having found the foregoing violations, there isclearand convincingevidencethat

Stipulationfl|31-33.

had been granted. timelyobjectto themotion forsummary judgment and thatthemotion by Target 29. Mr. Rozzi violatedRule 1.4when he failed toinform Ms. Quinlan thathe did not

a datecertain. p. 7 Page 7 of8

purposeoftheCourt'sdisciplinary power "is not to inflict punishment but rather to protect the Case, 152 N.H. 155, 159-60 (2005). This sanctionis also inaccordwith the Standards. The accord with the purposesofattorney discipline. Conner's Case 158 N.H. at 303; Richmond's disciplinein thismatteris apubliccensure.The Committee's recommended sanctionis in Having made thefindingsand rulings, theCommittee concludesthattheappropriate

and the Standards supportthissanction. sanction in this matter. Thissanctionserves thepurposesofattorneydiscipline.Both case law In lightofthe Standards and the factors noted above, apubliccensureis theappropriate

the ADO and readilyadmittedhis mistake. See Standards § 9.32. problems. Mr. Rozzi isembarrassedby thisoversighton his part and has fullycooperatedwith or selfish motive, full and freedisclosureto the ADO, remorse, andpersonaland emotional Standards § 9.22.Mitigatingfactors include no priordisciplinaryrecord,absenceofa dishonest aggravating factor ispresent:Mr. Rozzi'ssubstantialexperiencein thepracticeoflaw. See aggravating andmitigatingfactors. E.g., Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303. In this case, one baselinesanctionofpubliccensure. The baseline sanction must beconsideredin lightofany Mr. Rozzi'sconduct inthismatter,when consideredunder Standard § 4.43,callsfor a

representinga client,and causesinjuryor potentialinjuryto aclient. when a lawyer isnegligentand does not actwith reasonablediligencein 4.43 Reprimand (inNew Hampshire - PublicCensure) isgenerallyappropriate

with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client: Standard3.0, thefollowingsanctionsare generallyappropriatein casesinvolvinga failure to act Absent aggravatingor mitigatingcircumstances,upon applicationofthe factors set out in

Mr. Rozzi'slackofdiligenceimplicates Section 4.4ofthe Standards.

factors. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303. The baselinesanctionmust be considered in lightofany aggravatingand mitigating

Prong IV: Aggravating and MitigatingFactors

controvertTarget'smotion,and thushad hermatterdismissedby thefederalcourt. Mr. Rozzi'sconduct caused injury to Ms.Quinlan,who did not have a chance toproperly

Prong HI: Injuryor PotentialInjury

developments,however negativeor unwelcome the news may be. regrets this choice andunderstandsthat a client must be keptappraisedofallsignificant reconsiderationwas denied, hepromptlymet with his client andupdatedher. Mr. Rozzi deeply p. 8 Page 8 of8

File Anthony V. Rozzi,Esquire cc: Sara S. Greene,DisciplinaryCounsel

DecemberJ_,2015

violatingRules ofProfessionalConduct 1.1; 1.3; 1.4; and 8.4(a). For allofthe abovereasons,theCommittee issues thispubliccensureto Mr. Rozzi for

responsible for all costsassociatedwith theinvestigationand prosecutionofthis matter. this disciplinary matter. The Committee approves this agreement. Mr. Rozzi shall be Mr. Rozzi hassignedan agreementto pay costsoftheinvestigationand prosecutionof

citationomitted). preventsimilarconduct in thefuture." Grew's Case, 156 N.H. 361, 365 (2007) (quotationand public,maintainpublicconfidencein the bar,preservetheintegrityofthe legalprofession,and