Danielle L. Richey (formerly Santuccio) (2016)

McCletchie[sic] LawOfficeinNovember 2006 where shepracticeduntil June 2009. As 3. After admissionto theNew Hampshire bar, Ms.Santucciobegan practicinglaw with the

2. Ms. Santuccio has not been admitted to practice law in anyotherjurisdiction.

New Hampshire. She was admittedto practice onOctober31, 2006. 1. Danielle L. Richey Santuccio ("Ms. Santuccio") is an attorney licensed to practice law in

theStipulationby clearand convincingevidence: The Committee has determinedthat the Recordsupportsthefollowingfactual findingsof

to reimburse the Committee for all costsofinvestigation and prosecutionofthis matter. DiversionAgreement forviolationofRules 1.3 and 8.4(a), andvotedtoapprove theagreement Hampshire RulesofProfessional Conduct (the "Rules") as stipulated, voted to accept the and convincing evidence. The Committee then approved the findingsofviolationsofthe New Having reviewed the Record, the Committee approved the facts as stipulated, by clear

Richard D.Sager were absent. T. Movafaghi, Georges J. Roy, and Martha Van Oot. Susan R. Chollet, Richard H. Darling and Chair, Elaine Holden, Vice Chair, Peter G. Beeson, Scott H. Harris,MargaretR. Kerouac, Mona the"Record").Members presentincluded David M.Rothstein,Chair,HeatherE. Krans, Vice to Mandatory Conditions, and the Agreement to Pay CostsofDisciplinaryMatter(collectively, deliberated theStipulationas to Facts, Violations and Sanction(the"Stipulation"),the Agreement On December 8,2015,theProfessionalConduct Committee (the"Committee")

Santuccio,DanielleRichey advs. AttorneyDisciplineOffice -§12-042

ScottH.Harris BarbaraJ. Guay, LegalAssistant RichardH. Darling* * non attorney member Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oot Peter G. Beeson Richard D. Sager Elaine Holden,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 Georges J. Roy* HeatherE. Krans, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mona T. Movafaghi David M. Rothstein, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Margaret R. Kerouac

an associate in the Dewhurst firm, James D. Kelly. signedan hourly feeagreementon August 21,2008. The matterwas initiallyassignedto pay legal fees on anhourlybasis after the retainer wasexhausted. Ms. Haralambie Dewhurst firm inAugust 2008. Sheagreedto pay an initial retainerof$1,500.00 and to 11. Ms. Haralambiesoughtlegalcounselregardingtheconstructionproblems,retainingthe

otherproblemswith theconstructionwork begantoemerge. 10. In April 2008, a portionoftheroofblew offofthe house.Afterthat incident, numerous

first floor porch roof, theroofrafters and the foundation. 20, 2007whereinhe identifiedproblemswiththe general framingofthesecond story, the with Ms.Haralambieand Mr. Cameronpresent.Mr. Karmozyn issued a report on July BergeronBuilders,completeda structuralinspectionofthehouse on August 10,2006 9. The work on the summer house continued through 2007. James Karmozyn,ofH.E.

proprietorship,Cameron Builders. continuedto work on Ms. Haralambie'ssummer house under thebusinessname, and sole Matthew Cameron. In 2004, the D&M Builders partnershipdissolvedand Mr. Cameron her summer house. D&M Builders was apartnershipowned by Doug Gasher and 8. In September 2003, Ms. Haralambiehired D&M Builders to construct a second story on

owns in Silver Lake,New Hampshire. Cameron Buildersarisingoutofallegedly poorconstructionon the summer house she offiling various construction defect claimsagainstentities known as D&M Builders and 7. In August 2008, Ms. Haralambie retained theDewhurst firm toinvestigatethepossibility

summers inNew Hampshire. a licensed attorney in Arizona. She lives mostofthe year inArizonabut spends her Santuccio's client,Ann M. Haralambie,Esquire ("Ms.Haralambie").Ms. Haralambieis 6. The ADO's investigation was initiatedupon receiptofa grievance filed by Ms.

Santuccio practiced at both the Dewhurst and Melendy firms. material facts andunderlyingmatter giving rise to this grievance occurredwhileMs. continues to focus her practice on criminal and family law and civil litigation. The 2046. Ms. Santucciomoved her law practice to theMelendy firm in July2011 and firm"),481 White Mountain Highway,P.O.Box 2046, Conway,New Hampshire03818- 5. Ms. Santuccio currently practiceslaw at Melendy, Lee, & Santuccio, P.A.("Melendy

focusedherpracticeon criminal and family law and civil litigation. Thomas E. Dewhurst, III ("Dewhurst firm") in Conway,New Hampshire where she 4. From June 2009 to July2011, Ms. Santuccio was an associate atThe Law Officesof

an associate in that firm, Ms. Santuccio primarily practiced criminal andfamilylaw. p. 3 Page 3of27 guaranteed inwritingfor a period longer than 8 years, the periodof III. If an improvement to real property is expressly warranted or

projectshallnot begin untilallphasesofthe projectare complete. oflimitations for actionsinvolvingsystems designed to serve the entire project with more than onesubstantialcompletion date, the 8-year period or lawful possessor for the purposes intended. In the caseofa phased sufficientlycomplete so that animprovement may be utilizedby itsowner II. The term "substantialcompletion" means that constructionis

improvement, and not thereafter. brought within 8 years from the dateof substantialcompletion of the observation, supervision or inspectionof that improvement, shall be labor, materials, engineering, planning,surveying, construction, improvement to real property, includingwithout limitationthe design, economic loss arising outof any deficiencyin the creationof an damages for injuryto property,injuryto theperson,wrongful death or I. Except as otherwiseprovidedin thissection,allactionsto recover

follows: 15. RSA 508:4-b sets out theLimitationofActionsfor Damages fromConstructionas

complained of. discovered,the injury and its causal relationship to the act oromission discovers, or in the exerciseof reasonable diligence should have action shall becommenced within 3 yearsof the time the plaintiff reasonablyhave been discoveredat thetime ofthe act oromission,the relationship to the act oromission were not discoveredand could not omission complained of, except that when the injury and itscausal forslanderor libel, may bebroughtonly within 3 yearsofthe act or Except as otherwiseprovided by law, all personal actions,exceptactions

508:4,1 setsoutthe LimitationofActions forPersonal Actionsas follows: 14. Another considerationwas whether Ms. Haralambie's claims were time-barred. RSA

prerequisiteto expending funds tolitigatethe case. Kelly that being able toactuallyreceive payment for any judgment obtained was a insurance policies to pay a recovery in a lawsuit. Ms.Haralambiemade it clear to Mr. 13. Ms. HaralambiediscussedwithMr. Kelly the needtodeterminewhethertherewere any

contact the insurancecompany regardingher claim. agent,who alsohandledMr. Cameron'sbusinessinsurance.SherequestedthatMr. Kelly informationfor Mr.Cameron. She had obtainedthe informationfrom her insurance 12. On August19,2008,Ms. HaralambieprovidedMr. Kellywith theinsurancepolicy p. 4 Page 4of27 completed"and when constructiondefectswere "reasonablydiscovered."However, a involvedthequestionsofwhen the work on thesummer house was"substantially 17. The attorneys at the Dewhurst firm believed that a significant legal issue in the matter

As such,RSA 508-4-b operates as a statuteofrepose insteadofa statuteoflimitation.

constructionproject. actionbutno later thaneightyears after substantialcompletionofthe must have been filedwithinthree yearsofthe accrualofthecause of 508:4,1and RSA 508:4-b together, we conclude that theplaintiffsclaim thatRSA 508:4-b operates as a statuteofrepose.Thus, readingRSA Based upon itsmethod ofoperation and itsunderlyingpurpose,we hold

(2003). Thatdecisionprovidesin relevant part: decision, Big LeagueEntertainment,Inc. v. Brox Industries, Inc., 149 N.H. 480, 484 16. The annotation toRSA 508:4-b includes a citation to aNew Hampshire Supreme Court

ofan improvement to real property. damages arising outofthe negligence in therepair,maintenance or upkeep alter or amend the time within which an action in tortmay be brought for or lawful possessorthereof,and nothing containedin thissectionshall actualpossessionor controlofan improvement to realpropertyas owner VI. Nothing in thissectionshallaffecttheliabilitiesofa person having

nuclearwaste storage, or thelong-termstorageofhazardous materials. constructionof improvements which are for nuclear power generation, planning, engineering, surveying, observation,supervision,inspectionor actions arising outof any deficiencyin the design, labor, materials, (b) The 8-year limitationperiod in paragraph I shall not apply to the personbringingthe action. which all relevant facts are, or with due care ought to be, discovered by based. Such actions shall be broughtwithin 8 years after the date on fraudulent concealmentofmaterialfactsupon which a claimmight be involvingfraudulentmisrepresentations,or to actions involving the V. (a) The limitation set out inparagraphI shall not apply to actions

a latertime. at thetime theactivitywas performed, rather than a standard applicable to standardofcareapplicableto theactivitygivingrise tothe cause ofaction paragraph I, the standardofcare used todeterminenegligenceshall be the IV. In all actions fornegligencein design orconstructiondescribed in

warranty or guarantee. limitationset out in paragraph I shallextendto equal thelongerperiodof p. 5 Page 5of27 Haralambie responded,copying Mr. Cormack on theemail,that shewould let Ms. Haralambiewanted her to follow upwithMr. Cormack regarding anestimate.Ms. 25. On July 15, 2009, Ms. Santuccioe-mailedMs. Haralambieinquiringwhether Ms.

work on Ms. Haralambie'sproperty. specifics aboutwhetherthe policies would cover Mr. Cameron and Mr. Gasher for the Mr. Kellyhad sent her on May 26, 2009, wherein headvisedthat hewould get the an estimateofrepairs from Mr. Cormack. Ms.Haralambiealso forwarded an e-mail that separateinsurance policies with differentinsurancecompanies. She was still waiting for 24. Ms. Haralambie replied that same day advising that Mr. Cameron and Mr. Gasher had

initiate suit againstthebuilders. Ms. Haralambiewanted her to proceed andwhether Ms. Haralambiewanted her to 9,2009, Ms. Santuccioe-mailedMs. Haralambie tointroduceherself.She inquiredhow 23. On June 18,2009, Ms. Santucciosent a representation letter toD&M Builders.On July

statuteoflimitationsis applicable in the first instance. becauseRSA 508:4-b has been interpreted to operate as a statuteofrepose. A three-year eight-yearstatuteoflimitationsinconstructioncases.This was not accurate,however, Atthe time, Ms. Santuccio was under the impression thatRSA 508:4-b provided for an limitations would run, but believes at some point she didreviewthe file for that purpose. reviewing the file to determine a specific date or date rangeofwhen the statuteof construction caseofthis nature. Ms. Santuccio does not have a specificmemory of matter wasreassignedto her.This was the firsttime Ms. Santucciohandled a 22. Ms. SantucciojoinedtheDewhurst firm as an associate in June2009 and the Haralambie

21. Mr. Kelly left theDewhurst firm at some time in the late springof2009.

20. In May 2009, Mr. Gasher's insurance policy information was obtained.

of2009. work. Mr. Kelly continued to work on the matter during the fallof2008 and the spring but that the previous estimate had been in the $30,000 to $50,000 range for thestructural Haralambieadvised Mr. Kelly that GordonCormack was late in getting her an estimate defects in thestructuralwork on the summer house. On September 22, 2008, Ms. April 2008, she was alsointerestedinpursuinga separateclaim againstthe builders for 19. While Ms.Haralambiewas pursuingdamages fortherepairafter the roof blewoffin

with respect to the scope and costofthe corrective work. 18. InSeptember 2008, Ms. Haralambie was in contactwithcontractors to obtainestimates

been undertaken. memorandumto the file, by anattorneyin the Dewhurst firm, does notappearto have formaldeterminationofwhen the statuteoflimitationswould run,such as a research p. 6 Page 6of27

Your firm has used upalmostallofmy $1500 retainer, and I am not

the insurancecompanies. Itmay be easier forme tojustlook atmy file. at. Iam justsomewhat in the dark regardingformal communications with need tomake a demand once we have an estimate on whatwe'relooking and havenotifiedthe two insurance companiesofour claim) and that we complaintat this point (while we are stillwithinthe statuteoflimitations meaningful communication with me. I realizeitmakes no senseto file a the past year's work, but I am not happywiththe lackofprogress and I realize that you arejust coming onto the case and are not responsible for

thoughttheremay have been some conversation. wanted the insurance companies to pay me or pay Gordon directly, so I demand (lacking Gordon's estimate), but at one point Jim asked meifI what theywere prepared to do. I am assuming thatwe have not made a whether there has been any indication from the insurancecompanies about any notesabout thebuilders'policies(policynumber and limits)and copiesofany correspondencewithany ofthe insurancecompanies and Ifthere have been any letters, Ihaven'treceived copies. Iwould like with insurance companies was dealt with in writing or only in phone calls. pertinentinformationalready). Idon'tknow ifany ofthecommunications didn'trecall that Matt had insurance and that I hadgivenhim allofthe company, and theyopened a claim (and that same day Jim wrote me but subrogation issues. On May12,2009 Jim spoke withDoug's insurance spokewiththe lawyer formy homeowner's insurancecompany about claims phonenumber on August 18,2008. On December 18,2008 Jim regardingthe estimate. I provided Jim with Mart's insurance policy and don't want to keepincurringfees for multiple communications... have followed up[with]Gordon Cormack and gotten some figures. I getting information, so please do not bill anything more onmy case until I At this point, itseems that I have been doing themajorityofthework on

pertinentpart, Ms.Haralambie also wrote: 28. Ms. Haralambie was also unhappy with the firm's overall handlingofher matter. In

increase in thefirm'sbillingrates. ofthe charges for Mr.Kelly'stime and was unhappy with the lackofnoticeregardingan she e-mailed Ms. Santuccio on July31,2009 stating that she was unhappy with the some 27. AfterMs. Haralambiereceiveda July 29, 2009billingstatementfrom theDewhurst firm,

Cormack. 26. On July 23,2009,Ms. Haralambierequestedthat Ms. Santuccio follow up with Mr.

Santuccio know as soon as she heard from Mr. Cormack. p. 7 Page 7 of27

Phenix Mutual and Palmer Insurance " There are bills thataccountfor various phone calls to insurancecompanies including Phenix Mutual, but no such letters for insurance companies representing Matt or Doug. from insurance companies. There is one letterofrepresentation fromAttorneyKelly to ofthe file she"didnot find any letters to [ijnsurancecompanies or anywrittenletters 32. On October 19,2009, Ms. Santuccioe-mailedMs. Haralambie advisingthatupon review

from yourofficeaboutthat)." statusofcommunicationswith theinsurancecompanies (I stillhaven'tseen anything mailto Ms. Santuccio on September15,2009 and requested:"Please let meknow the accurate estimate.Ms. Haralambie forwarded the writtenestimateand Mr. Cormack's ethatwould cost $6,000 each tocomplete,afterwhich he would be able to provide a more for repairsofover$65,000.00.He also outlinedtwo phases forengineeringestimates 31. On September 11,2009, Mr. Cormack provided Ms. Haralambiewith an initial estimate

the insurancecompanies and copiesofany correspondenceinexistence... I do,however, stillwant to know the statusofthe communications with up,there'snothingmuch we can do, sothat'swhy we're on hold for now. That is accurate.However, until Gordon gets his plan andestimatewritten

day stating: with this claim in the manner you had requested." Ms.Harlambieresponded that same statusofyour case, it wasmy understanding that, ascounsel,I hadbeen moving forward 30. On August 14, 2009, Ms. Santuccio e-mailed Ms. Haralambie stating: "Regarding the

to do so. this matter. Iwillnot do anything else regarding this caseuntilinstructed callinghim everydayattempting to reach him, as I did want to progress on he gave me more informationregardingand [sic]estimate. I had been bill before it was mailed to you. I did speak with Gordon on Friday, and email to AttorneyDewhurst.I did not get the opportunity to review your I am sorrythat youare frustratedwith ourfirm.I haveforwardedyour

29. Ms. Santuccio replied onAugust 3, 2009stating:

initial $30,000-50,000ballparkestimate.I will follow up on that myself. engineer's detailedreportand has a better senseofthe amount, beyond his anticipateneeding your services until Gordon actually gets thestructural agreed in principle on the liablity issue, or where we stand on that, Idon't Depending on whether infactthe builders'insurancecompanies have

preparedto give you any more money at thispoint.... p. 8 Page 8 of27

corrected....The insuranceinformation in thisdraftis only for the have someone come out and see the structuralproblemsbefore they are am concernedthat our delay incontactingthem isimpeding theirabilityto Here'sa draftletteryou can use to send to thetwo insurancecompanies. I

August 17,2010.Ms. Harlambiealso stated in her e-mail, inrelevantpart: notice, Ms. Haralambie drafted a sample notice letter and e-mailed it to Ms. Santuccio on 38. When Ms. Santuccio did not put Mr. Cameron and Mr.Gasher'sinsurance companies on

hours, so Idon'tneed a synopsisofphone calls unless it is something significant." Haralambiereponded thatafternoon:"I'mtrying not to run up[u]nneccesarybillable offering to e-mail a synopsisofany telephone calls with the insurance companies. Ms. insurancecompany yet,thatshe would copy Ms.Haralambieon anycorrepondenceand 37. Ms. Santuccio respondedon July 23,2010 that she hadcalledbuthad notspoken to the

correspondence. ofcommunicationswith the insurance company and againrequestedto be copied on any received theestimate,Ms. Haralambiewrote to Ms.Santuccioinquiringas to the status estimate forstructuralproblemswith the summer housetotaled$155,050.00.Having 36. On July 21,2010, Mr. Cormack completedan "Order ofMagnitude Estimate."The

month and that they could then proceed with making a claim. Haralambieadvised Ms. Santucciothat she should have an estimate by the end of the to the statusofthe estimate on December23,2009. On February3,2010,Ms. 35. Ms. Haralambie copied Ms. Santuccio on a follow-up e-mail to Mr. Cormack inquiring as

initiatingsuit. word from you regarding this estimate and your wishesregarding evaluating the property. As you know we cannot proceed until we get estimate from Gordon Cormack and/or theengineer's[sic] that were This letter isjusta quick follow-up regarding ourconversationabout an

34. Ms. Santucciosent Ms.Haralambiea letter onDecember 3, 2009 stating:

notes from conversationswith me. they paid.) Iasked Tom for copiesofallofthe notes in the file,otherthan should have a subrogated claim for theroofpartofthe problem, which Doug's insurance companies? (Phenix is my insurance company, who Are there any notes from the phone conversations he had with Matt &

Gasher'sinsuranceinformation. Ms. Haralambie stated: and coverage dates to Mr. Kelly and that Mr. Kelly had told her he had found Mr. had been done previously, including that she had given Mr.Cameron's policynumber 33. Ms. Haralambie replied, that same day, explaining what she knew, with respect to what p. 9 Page 9of27

I did receive a phone message from National Grange Mutual regarding the

stated: 41. Ms. Santuccio respondedwithan e-mail onNovember 4,2010. In pertinent part, she

will pursuemy case (Emphasis added). candidly that it is notofsufficent priority so that I can retain a firm that you are going to getmoving on my caseimmediatelyor that you tell me believeI have been more than patient.Atthis point, I need toknow that to write to try to get an update or to encourage anextaction to be taken. I November. I should not have to be charged foreverycall or letter I have financialinformation from my new builder early this summer. It is now along....I retained your firmseveralyears ago and gave you the case to getmoving,thenpleaselet me know, and do not keep stringing me getting arecoveryhere. Ifyour firm is toobusy or too uninterested inmy I need action to betakenbecause I need the clock to start running on

not have retaineda law firm. the letter inAugust. IfI wanted to pursue the case pro per [sic], Iwould thinkneeds to be filed if, infact,the insurancecompany hasjustignore[d] own demand letter, and I do not intend to draft acomplaint,which Inow going to receive zealousrepresentation?I should not have to draftmy simultaneouslyrunning his private practice, is itlikelythatmy case is prosecutorialduties,which Iunderstandhe intendsto dowhile need to find another attorney?With Mr. Dewhurstnow having an honest answer here: is your firm interested in pursuingmy case or do I and Idon'tknow whether or not there was a followup....Please give me lettertotheinsurancecompanieswhichIdrafted.Itisnow November 3rd, calendaredit for follow up the endofSeptember, 30 days after sending the I have not heard anything about my case since you told me you had

mail stated: 40. Ms. Haralambie e-mailed Ms. Santuccio onNovember 3,2010. In pertinent part the e-

time down and you will not be charged as the delay is attributed,ultimately,tome." insurancecompanies to Ms.Haralambie.She wrote in the e-mail: "I have notmarked the On September 15,2010,Ms. Santuccio e-mailed scanned copiesofthe letters to the their insured, Mr. Cameron. She did not copy Ms. Haralambie on the letters at that time. their insured, Mr. Gasher, and sent a claim letter to National Grange Mutual regarding 39. On August 30,2010, Ms. Santuccio sent a claim letter to Palmer Insurance regarding

information, as well as a claims telephone number, two years ago. note that I provided Jim Kellyofyour firm this insurance contact Cameron policy; you have the information on the Gasher policy. Please p. 10 Page 10 of27

have all the insurance paperwork that I have, which were in the filewhen I came to the via e-mail stating:"There is an 8 year statuteoflimitationson constructioncases.You that 3 weeksago? Could youpleaserespond?"That same day, Ms. Santuccioresponded December 23,2010 stating: "I have not had a response to the e-mail,which I sent more mail. Ms. Haralambie forwarded the December 1,2010 e-mailto Ms. Santuccioon 43. Ms. Santuccio did notimmediatelyrespond to the Ms.Haralambie'sDecember 1,2010 e-

my claim? discoveryofthe building defect. So am Inow time-barred from pursuing constructioncases, and that claimsmust be broughtwithin3 yearsof understand that NH has a statuteoflimitations and a statuteofrepose for period, and Iasked specificallyabout the statuteoflimitations.)Inow on constructioncases. (I firstcontactedthe firmwellwithinthe 3 year Also,Iwas toldby your firm that NH had a[n] 8 yearstatuteoflimitations

Specifically,she stated: Haramlabiewas also concerned that her casemightbe barred by the statuteoflimitations. 1,2010 again inquiringwhethercopiesofthe insurancepolicieshad been obtained. Ms. point tocontinueto retain the Dewhurst firm, shee-mailedMs. Santuccioon December 42. While there is nodocumented contact regardingwhetherMs. Haralambie agreed at that

ease any transition.... recommend some very capableattorneysin this area andwillbe happy to Ifyou would like to retain other counsel to pursue this claim I can

had in the past few months because Iunderstandyour position. also note that I have not charged you for any phone conversations we have estimatesregarding thehome since I havebecome involvedin this case. I would note that there had been significantdelays in getting anyfinal draft a complaint, I would do that as the firmrepresentingyour claim. I significanttime andcosts wouldbeinvolved.Of courseyou would not more aggressive, but doing so, I am requiredto ask for a retainer as time. At that pointwediscussedthefactthatwe canbecomesignificantly was thefactthat I hadnotheardfromtheinsurancecompanies at that regarding all open casesmoving forward.Your case was discussed, as That being said theattorneysin this office did meet two weeks ago

become veryexpensivefor you. costs down I did notcontactyou as I dounderstandhow everythinghas Insuranceas undeliverable.Knowing yourstanceregardingkeepingthe week orbeginningofthisweek I received the letter back from Palmer datesforwhen MattCameron was working on your home. The endoflast p. 11 Page 11 of27 This was anincorrectunderstandingofthe statute.

malpractice"was mentioned. rule bar her claim. It was during this phone call that the term"possible contacted ourofficeregarding the 3 yeardiscoveryrule, andwould such a Haralambie ofthisstatute.In December of2010 Ms. Haralambie that there is an eight year statuteoflimitations.We advisedMs. 2008. The statuteoflimitationson constructionclaims was read to state ThisofficeundertookrepresentationofMs. HaralambieinAugust of

whethertheywere interpreting the law correctly. In relevant part, the letter stated: another firmseekinga second opinionregarding theDewhurst firm'sliabilityand 49. On January 19,2011, at Mr.Dewhurst'srequest, Ms.Santucciowrote to anattorneyat

provide acopy ofMr. Cameron's insurance policy. proposals for Mr.Cameron's work and notingthat thecompany had deniedthe request to wrote to the adjuster at National Grange Mutualprovidingthecopiesofthe original 48. On January 11,2011,in follow up to aJanuary6,2011 telephonecall, Ms. Santuccio

so whileat theDewhurst firm and does not have acopy ofher reply. See Paragraph16, supra. Ms. Santuccio recallsresponding to this email, but did attaching acopy of Big LeagueEntertainment, 149 N.H. at 484, to the e-mail. 47. On December 28, 2010, Ms. Haralambie forwarded an e-mailto Ms. Santuccio

policies but had to leavemessages because both adjusters were outoftheofficethat day. 46. On December 27,2010,Ms. Santucciocontactedboth insurancecompanies to request the

reassuredMs. Harlambiethat the firm would obtain the necessary insurance policies. the possiblityoffiling a malpractice claim againstthe Dewhurst firm. Mr. Dewhurst Haralambiehad a telephone conferenceregardingthe case. Ms. Haralambie mentioned 45. Later in the afternoonon December 23,2010, Ms. Santuccio,Mr. Dewhurst and Ms.

insurance policies. insolventand any hopeofrecovery would have to come from the inevalutingthe case, since weknew that thebuildersthemselveswere coverage.I would have thought that would have been the first thing to do to knowwhetherthe kindsofproblemsI have hadarewithin the scopeof within 3yearsoflearningofthedefect.I think we need theactualpolicies But there is also astatuteofrepose,whichrequiresthat a claim be filed

44. Ms. Haralambie responded:

firm.I canrequesttheactualpoliciesfromtheinsurancecompanies."1 p. 12 Page 12 of27 noting:"Could you pleaseresolve this this week[.]Iftheinsurancecompany refusedto had heard back from an attorney at the firm they had consulted on their position and 53. Mr. Dewhurst left Ms.Santuccioa handwrittennote in May2011 inquiringwhetherthey

forcoverage. damages to theinsurancecompany and they arecurrentlyreviewingsame Haralambie intheabove matter. We have submittedthe claim and claimand ifthereshouldbe we deny anypossibleclaimby Ms. problem. Asofthis date there has been no furtherindicationofa potential representationcommunication withtheclienthas been a consistent when theengineerprovided us with this information.Throughoutour time that we were unsure what the real damage was, until Julyof2010 company ofsaid builders. In this matter there was asignificantamount of attributedtobuildingdefects. We then sent those figures to theinsurance damage referencedhere wasdiscoveredin Julyof2010 and was then thoughtto becaused by thepoor work ofthebuilders.The significant originallyaddressed.The next being thesignificantstructuraldamage there were twoseparateissues. Oneregardinga leaky roof,which was statuteversusthethreeyearstatuteinconstructionclaims. To thatend work. Thisdiscussionarose regardinginterpretationoftheeightyear further into filing said grievance. Sheexpectednot to bechargedfor this disseminatedby the insurance companies prior tolitigation,she may look regardingthedefendantsinsurance policies, saidpoliciesgenerallynot statedthatifthis office was not to provide herwith furtherinformation firm'spursuitofa civilconstructionclaimon her behalf.She further stated that she is unsure whether she should file a grievance regarding the Thisletterserves as notice that onDecember 23,2010, a clientofthis firm

carrier, stating: 52. On or about March 1,2011, Ms. Santucciowrote to theDewhurst firm'sinsurance

identified. visit occurred on January 27,2011.Structural damage and collateral damage were Adjustment Service,toconduct a sitevisitofMs. Haralambie'ssummer house. The site 51. Ms. Santuccio arrangedfor an insurance adjuster, George Long, from Insurance

firm. She does recall Mr. Dewhurst asking herifshe had heard back. 50. Ms. Santuccio does not recall ever hearing back from the other attorney or anyone in his

believesupportsthat position. negligenceat that time. There is a caseincludedinthesedocuments thatI argument is that Ms. Haralambie discovered the magnitudeofthe regarding the extentofdamage from negligent construction. Our We receivedan accurateestimatethissummer from Ms. Haralambie p. 13 Page 13 of27 aware of the structural problems, at least, asofApril 2008. was when the full extentofthe structural damage was known. This was incorrect because Ms. Haralambie was 2Ms. Santucciobelieved,withoutverifying,thatthestatuteoflimitationswould runfrom July2010 becausethat

thatmeeting with theimpressionthat acomplaintwould be filedby September 1,2011. met with Ms. Santuccioat theMelendy firm in lateAugust 2011. Ms. Haralambieleft 58. Ms. Haralambie decidedthat she wanted Ms. Santuccio tocontinueto represent her and

completed.'2 in2012 or 2013, depending on how you definethejob being 'substantially your dateofloss as July2010. The statuteofreposewould be aproblem do notbelievethere is a statuteproblem and theinsurancecompany has won'tbe covered,we can decide not to proceed and spendmore money. I insurance information. If, when I get the policy (finally) we see that it Disclosure rules within 40 daysofdocketing I should have allofthe Ithinkwhat we can do is start suit, and under thenew Automatic

counsel letter. Ms. Santuccio also explained her thoughts on the case: was moving to theMelendy firm and requested that Ms. Haralambie sign a choiceof 57. On August 12,2011,Ms. Santuccio e-mailed Ms. Haralambie, againexplainingthat she

recalls discussing that request with Ms.Haralambie. wrote to Ms.Santucciorequesting a telephoneinterviewwithher client. Ms. Santuccio retainerwould be to file suit. On that same day, theinsuranceadjuster for Mr. Cameron 56. Ms. Haralambiee-mailed Ms.Santuccioon August10,2011,againinquiringwhat the

want tothrow good money after bad..." assuringme thatmy claim is NOTbarredby the statuteoflimitation, correct? Idon't we aren't going to go anywhere without suing. It ismy understandingthat you are afternoon,inquiringwhat she would needto paytofilethe suit andstating:"Iagreethat cooperationwith theinsurance adjuster."Ms. Haralambiereplied with an e-mail that noting:"It seems that is ouronlyoptionatthis pointgiven the lackofcommunicationand Haralambiewanted her to continue topursuethe claim and file suit in SuperiorCourt telephone calls and many messages left with theadjuster.She inquired whether Ms. hadnot receivedcooperationfromMr. Cameron'sinsurancecompany despite a few transitioningto theMelendy firm. In the e-mail, Ms.Santuccioalsoadvisedthat she still 55. Ms. Santuccio e-mailed Ms.Haralambieon July 7,2011 and advised that shewould be

lettingany more timepass.Ms. Santucciodoes notrecallreceiving thatmessage. Santuccioand left her a messagestatingthat the complaint needed to be filed without 54. With the construction work completed, in early June2011,Ms. Haralambie called Ms.

respond afterDirectcontactthen we need to resolvewith clientatthistime." p. 14 Page 14of27

Santuccio did not receivethate-mail. sentthise-mailto Ms. Santuccio'se-mail address atthe Dewhurst firm. As a result,Ms. Has therebeen serviceofprocess? Have answered [sic]been filed?"Ms. Haralambie my case?Was thecomplainteveramended toincludea count for breachofcontract? 65. Ms. Haralambie e-mailed Ms. Santuccio on April10,2012 asking:"What is the statusof

structurallysound way." Ms.Santucciodid not respond to that email. provisionsofthe contract is that they would construct the building in a for breachofcontract? Ithinkthat is the stronger claim. Oneoftheexpress Ms. Haralambierespondedon January3,2012 stating:"Why isn'tthere acount

misrepresentationinadditionto negligence. claimingalternate theoriesofnegligentmisrepresentationand fraudulent At least thiswillgive you the basic idea and ourclaimsfor relief. I am

lunch. myselfthecompleted versionfrom my home computer when I go to attemptto scan andemailthecompleted versionwith signatureor email Factssectioncompleted. The remainderis,however, accurate. Iwill This does not appear to be thecompleted versionas itdoes not have the

incomplete versionofthe complaint. In relevantpart,she wrote: 64. Ms. Santuccio sent an e-mail to Ms.Haralambieon January3,2012 attaching an

complaint. case in atelephoneconference.Ms. Santuccioexplainedthat she had not yet filed the 63. The nextday, onDecember 22,2011, Ms. Santuccioand Ms. Haralambie discussedthe

"Stillhaven'theard fromyou." 62. Ms. Haralambiee-mailed again, almost a monthlater,on December 21,2011,stating:

loop." Ms. Santuccio did not respond. email me a copy?Ifithasn'tbeen filed,why not? I really feel verymuch outofthe wereplanningtofileourcomplainton September1st.Has it beenfiled?If so,can you 61. Ms. Haralambiee-mailed again on November 29,2011 stating:"The last I heard you

complaint had been filed. Ms.Santucciodid notrespond. 60. On September7,2011,Ms. Haralambiee-mailedMs. Santuccioinquiringwhetherthe

to draft thecomplaint. was expected that the $500.00 would cover the filing fee and a portionofthe time spent also signed an "Hourly Fee Agreement" and made a $500.00 payment on her account. It 59. Ms. Haralambie signed a choiceofcounsel letter onAugust 23,2011. Ms. Haralambie p. 15 Page 15of27 returnsofservice, etc., that you have (when I stoppedby yourofficetoday, the pleadings Haralambie also requested: "Pleaseimmediatelysend me acopy ofany pleadings, been added,ifthecomplainthad been served, andifan answer hadbeen filed. Ms. wanted toknow whether thecomplainthad been filed,ifa breach ofcontractclaim had contact me today. It isnow 5:07 p.m., and I have heardnothing."Ms. Haralambie contact me.Today I impressed upon the person at yourofficemy need to have you left phone messages, and personally stopped at yourofficetwicerequesting that you 70. On August 31,2012, Ms.Haralambiee-mailed Ms. Santuccio stating: "I have emailed,

complaint,buttheychecked the file and could not findanything. was not in theoffice.Ms. Haralambieasked Ms. Santuccio'sstafffor acopy ofthe her andstoppingby Ms. Santuccio'sofficetwice during thesummer when Ms. Santuccio e-mail. Ms.Haralambierecalls calling Ms. Santuccio'sofficeand leaving messages for 69. Ms. Santuccio did not communicate with Ms. Haralambie furtherafterthe June 11,2012

job with clientcommunication. in February.But you are right, and I doapologizefornot doing a better originallyanticipatedupon taking this firm, aswellas losingallmy staff I'm againvery sorry and ran into amuch busiercourtschedulethan

heads up.(My trial was a 2008 case.) The CarrollCounty Superior Court isextremelybacklogged,just as a

delay). day oftrial. (Iwon'tdo that but just allaying your concerns about the allowed and in a similar jury trial in May defendant added anew claim the morning. I can add the breachofcontractclaim,amendments are liberally was outofthe office for mostoflastweek but did get the messages this BreachofContractbut did notrealizeyou had called ahalfdozen times. I I'm very sorry I did not get the April email and did get the message about

68. On June 11,2012, Ms.Santucciosent an e-mailrespondingin relevantpart:

bewilderedby thislackofcontactwitha client." halfa dozenphonemessagesin thepast6 months,includingtwo this week. I amfrankly wrote in thate-mail:"You neverrespondedto this follow up email. I have left at least erroneouslysentto Ms.Santuccio'sDewhurst firme-mailaddress. Ms.Haralambie email."On thatsame date, Ms. Haralambie also forwarded thee-mailthat she had Santuccio'se-mailaddressattheMelendyfirm,stating:"You neverrespondedto this 67. On June8, 2012, Ms.HaralambieforwardedherJanuary3, 2012 e-mail to Ms.

Ms. Santuccio did not return the telephone calls. Melendyfirmand leftmessagesforMs. Santuccioon May 23,2012andJune4,2012. 66. Having not heard anythingfurtherfrom Ms.Santuccio,Ms. Haralambiecalled the p. 16 Page 16 of27

my responsibility. client/attorney relationship has been jeopardized, and this fact I accept as That being said, though I do not believe the caseitselfis jeopardized, the

read it,remains on your sidejustas Idiscussedwith you previously. should take nor do Ibelieveit has jeopardized this matter. The law, as I my failureofcommunication has not changed thecourseIbelieveyou The originalcourse ofactiondiscussedin2011 isstillthebestcourse,and

thisstandard inthiscase. bestpossiblejob for allclientsand Iverymuch regret that Ihave not met Ihope you do acceptthis letter asmy apology. Iwork tirelesslyto do the

from outsidesources. mattersthroughstaffmembers inmy officeand throughseekingadvice respond toclientsand keep all clients updated as to the statusoftheir situation I am working on ways to moreefficientlyand substantively Ioffermy sincerestapologies and regrets for this.Because ofthis let youdown in regards tocommunicationand finalityofyour matter, and duties andresponsibilitiesofmy professionvery seriously.Iknow I have goal tonever feel asthough I have let down aclientbecauseI take the thoughtyou had been contacted regarding this. It ismy hope and uttermost I do have the breachofcontract claim that you hadrequested,and I also

early2012. Ms. Santuccioalso wrote: acquired the practiceoftwo other attorneys and thattwo ofher paralegals had left in 72. Ms. Santuccio also explainedthat when she transferred to theMelendy firm, she had

what was to be done was not done. complaintinmy officewhich causesme greatconcern and anxietythat Superior Court. Over the past few days I havebeen unable to find this complaintviaemail,which was then to be filed in the CarrollCounty upsetwithme. I did draft the complaint andprovideda copy ofthis is unacceptable.You are absolutely right and haveeveryreason to be Priorto that the lasttimewe spoke was in Decemberoflast year, and that nothavingbeen in contact after I received a phonemessage from you. had respondedto an email from you in Mayofthis yearapologizingfor Iunderstandthatyou had come tomy officerecentlywhen Iwas away. I

mailto Ms. Haralambie. In relevant part, that letter stated: 71. On September 4, 2012,Ms. Santuccio responded with a letter,which she also sent by e-

thecomplaintbeforeIleft[September2011][.]" folder wasempty,so I am very concerned - lastsummer you toldme you intended to file p. 17 Page 17 of27

The Committee concludesthat there is clear andconvincingevidencethat Danielle

Stipulationfl1-78.

($176.00)that had been held in her client trust account to Ms.Haralambie. 78. On July 1,2015,Ms. Santuccioreturned the remainderofMs. Haralambie'sfunds

filethe Haralambie lawsuit,Ms. Santuccioattendedto the burdens ofthetransition. the firm asofFebruary1,2012.Based on her assumption that she still had more time to 2012,began towind down their practices.Additionally,two experiencedparalegals left within the firm as seniorpartners,Fay Melendy and Susan Lee, who planned to retire in became overwhelmed with her case load. Ms. Santucciotookon more responsibility 77. AfterMs. Santucciomoved her law practiceto theMelendy firm, in July2011,she

the statuteoflimitationsto run and thattherewas stilltime to filesuit. Although theseassumptionswere incorrect, Ms.Santucciobelievedshe had notallowed 2010 that she put Ms. Haralambie's insurancecompany on noticeofthestructuralclaims. in thealternative,that a three-year statuteoflimitations would run from the date in July that either an eight-year statuteoflimitations would apply to Ms. Haralambie's claim or, legalresearchor outreachtocolleaguesoutside the office toverifyherunderstanding, 76. At all times material to this case, Ms. Santuccio believed,withoutundertakingfurther

Santuccio arranged herown independentsettlementaswell,for $2,500. malpractice claim was settled with the Dewhurst firm priorto a lawsuit being filed. Ms. springof2011 before Ms. Santucciomoved her practiceto theMelendy firm. The Laufer determined that thethree-yearstatuteoflimitations most likely expired in the hiredDanielA. Laufer, Esquiretorepresenther in a possiblemalpracticeclaim. Mr. 75. Ms. Haralambie filed a grievance with the ADO on October 29, 2012. Sheeventually

requestsforinformation. requesting an update on October25,2012. Ms. Santuccio did not respond to anyofthese September 28,2012 and October 23,2012. Ms. Haralambie sentanothere-mail filed. She called Ms.Santuccio'soffice and left additional messageswithstaffon againon September 14,2012,stillunclearas to whether the complaint had actually been 74. Ms. Haralambiecalled Ms.Santucciolaterin the day on September6,2012,and e-mailed

has been filedand served...." saying itwould be easy to amend the complaint. I still do notknow whether any lawsuit action for breachofcontract be added to the tort claim youincluded.You wrote me back 73. Ms. Haralambie e-mailedon September6,2012 stating: "I hadrequestedthat a causeof p. 18 Page 18of27

respectto theapplicablestatuteoflimitationsand toprovideadviceon thebestcourseof constructionlaw topracticein that area and tocompetentlyadviseMs. Haralambie with Haralambie'scauseofaction. Ms. Santuccio failed to aquirespecificknowledge about 82. In fact, a three-year limitation period, as set forth in RSA508:4,1,applied to Ms.

than astatuteoflimitations,sets forth a statuteofrepose. applicableto Ms.Santuccio'sconstructionclaimsrelyingon RSA 508:4-bwhich, rather 81. Ms. Santuccioerroneouslybelievedthat there was aneight-yearstatuteoflimitations

80. Ms. Santuccioowed a duty to Ms. Haralambie to providecompetentrepresentation.

representation. possessesthe skill and knowledge required to assurecompetent including,where appropriate,associatingwithanotherlawyer who 4) undertakeactionson theclient'sbehalfin atimelyand effectivemanner problems oftheclient;and 3) develop a strategy,inconsultationwith theclient,forsolvingthe legal alternativelegal responses; 2) formulatethematerialissues raised,determineapplicablelaw andidentify from otherrelevantsources; 1) gathersufficientfactsregardingtheclient'sproblem from theclient,and (c) In theperformanceofclient service, a lawyer shall at aminimum: undertakeniscompletedwith no avoidable harm to theclient'sinterest. 5) attentionto details and schedules necessary to assure that thematter 4) properpreparation;and areasto the client'sattention; 3) identificationofareas beyond thelawyer'scompetence and bringingthose (2)performanceofthetechniquesofpractice with skill; ^1) specificknowledge about the fieldsoflaw inwhich thelawyerpractices; (b) Legalcompetence requires at a minimum: (a) A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.

79. Rule 1.1 statesas follows:

convincingevidence: RicheySantucciohas violated thefollowingRules ofProfessionalConduct by clear and p. 19 Page 19 of27

89. Rule 1.3 statesas follows:

Stipulationffi[82-91.

violationofRule 1.1 88. Ms. Santuccio'sconduct,as aforesaid, constitutes clear andconvincingevidenceofa

be filed by. datewithintheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsthat Ms.Haralambie'sclaimsneeded to 87. Ms. Santuccio failed to develop a strategy for obtaining the policies and for establishing a

and thatspecificissue. strategy, in consultationwithMs. Haralambie,for addressing herclient'slegal problems defects that had been discovered on theproperty.Ms. Santucciofailedto develop a could evaluatewhetherthere was a chanceofreceiving anyrecoveryfor the structural insurancepolicyinformation,neither Ms. Santuccio nor Ms. Haralambie felt thatthey obtaining the insurance policies from the builders' insurancecompanies. Without the 86. Early in her handlingofthe Haralambie matter, Ms.Santucciofaceddifficultyin

failed to undertake actions on theclient'sbehalfin atimelyand effectivemanner. Haralambie'sbehalfwithintherequiredlimitations period.As such, Ms. Santuccio ratherthan a statuteoflimitations,Ms. Santucciofailed to file alawsuiton Ms. appreciatethat the eight-year time period set forth inRSA 508:4-b is a statuteofrepose that an eight-year statuteoflimitations applied to Ms. Haralambie's claims. Failingto that she represented Ms. Haralambie, in part, because shebelieved,withoutverifying, 85. Ms. Santuccio did not file a lawsuit against the builders during the more than three years

of2011,before Ms. Santuccio moved herpracticeto the Melendy firm. time-barred.Infact,thethree-yearstatuteoflimitationsmost likely expired in thespring time Ms. Haralambie filed her grievance with theADO in October 2012, her claims were matterundertakenwas completedwithno avoidable harm to herclient'sinterest.At the 84. Ms. Santucciofailed to payattentionto details andschedulesnecessaryto assure that the

knowledge required to assurecompetentrepresentation. associatewithanotherlawyeroutsideoftheofficewho possessedthe skill and structural problems.Likewise,she failed to seek out theadviceofanotherlawyeror range for when the statuteoflimitations would run with respect to thesummer house's 83. Ms. Santuccio failed to undertake anappropriateanalysis to determine the date or date

action to pursue Ms.Haralambie'sclaims. p. 20 Page 20 of27

Rules; respecttowhich theclient'sinformedconsentisrequiredby these (1)promptly inform theclientofany decisionor circumstancewith (a) A lawyer shall:

97. Rule 1.4 statesas follows:

Stipulationffi[93-100.

ofRule 1.3. 96. Under the foregoingcircumstances,there is clear andconvincingevidenceofa violation

counsel topursueher legalmalpracticeclaims. against the builders became time-barred and Ms. Haralambie was required to retain other behalfcaused harm to Ms. Haralambie, because Ms.Haralambie'spotentialclaims 95. Ms. Santuccio'sfailure to act with reasonable promptness anddiligenceon herclient's

promptness and diligenceon behalfofherclients. 94. Ms. Santuccio'sconduct as describedabove constitutesa failureto actwith reasonable

oftherepresentation. date, Ms. Santuccio failed to file the lawsuiton her client'sbehalfduring the remainder regarding the statusofthe matter and inquiries as to whether the suit was filed after that with the suggestion to file suit that afternoon. Despite Ms.Haralambie'sinquiries move the case forward would be to file suit against the builders. Ms.Haralambieagreed 93. On July 11,2011,Ms. Santuccio e-mailed Ms. Haralambieadvisingthat the best way to

the lawsuit,inJune 2011 the lawsuitwas stillnot filed. message requesting that the lawsuit be filed. Despite a request inNovember 2010 to file the complaint should be filed. In early June2011,Ms. Haralambie left Ms. Santuccio a 92. In November 2010,Ms. Haralambie advised Ms. Santuccio in an e-mail that she thought

November 2010 and October 2012. companies on noticeofa possible claim and specific requests to file the lawsuit between from Ms.Haralambieto obtain the builders'insurancepolicies, to place theinsurance 91. Ms. Santucciofailed to move Ms. Haralambie'scase forward despite repeatedrequests

her client. 90. Ms. Santuccio had a duty to act withreasonablepromptness and diligence on behalfof

representinga client. A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence andpromptness in p. 21 Page 21of27

Stipulation1)107.

Santuccio'sconduct,as describedherein,violatedRule ofProfessionalConduct 8.4(a). 102. Having found the foregoing violations, there is clear andconvincingevidencethat Ms.

StipulationUK 102-106.

violation. 101. Under the foregoing circumstances, there is clear and convincing evidenceofa Rule1.4

informed ofthatstatus. Santuccio knew she had not filed thecomplaintand she failed to keep Ms.Haralambie 100. After Ms. Haralambie'srequest inNovember 2010 for Ms.Santuccioto file suit, Ms.

in aprompt manner toinquiriesas towhetherthelawsuithad, in fact,been filed. failing to keep Ms.Haralambieapprisedofthe statusoflitigationand failing to respond were orcould be obtained,and whether Ms. Haralambie'sclaimswere time-barred;(3) toreasonablerequestsforinformationregardingwhetherthebuilders'insurancepolicies Haralambieapprisedofthe statusofthe matter and failing torespondin aprompt manner her efforts to obtain the insurance policies from the builders; (2) failing to keep Ms. 99. Ms. Santucciobreachedthat duty by: (1) failing to update Ms.Haralambie with respect to

Rulel.4(a)(3)-(4). statusofher matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. 98. Ms. Santuccioowed Ms. Haralambiea duty to keep herreasonablyinformedabout the

regardingtherepresentation. reasonablynecessarytopermittheclienttomake informed decisions alternativecoursesofactionto theextentthatsuch explanationis (b) Alawyershallexplainthe legal andpracticalaspectsofa matterand otherlaw. assistancenotpermittedby the RulesofProfessionalConduct or lawyer'sconductwhen the lawyer knows that theclientexpects (5)consultwith theclientaboutany relevantlimitationon the (4)promptlycomply with reasonablerequestsforinformation;and (3)keep theclientreasonablyinformedaboutthestatusofthe matter. client'sobjectivesare to beaccomplished; (2)reasonablyconsultwith the client about themeans by which the p. 22 Page 22 of27

The baselinesanctionmust beconsideredin lightof anyaggravatingandmitigating

Prong IV: Aggravating and MitigatingFactors

failure may haveresultedin financial loss as well. action. Depending on the proposed defendants' insurance coverage and financial status, that Ms. Santuccio'sprofessionalmisconduct led to herclient'slossofa potentialcauseof

Prong III:Injuryor PotentialInjury

suggests at least arecklessdisregardfor the governing law. application and that counsel still proceeded as though she misunderstood their significance notice highlighting the meaning and significanceofthese two legal concepts and their proper and statute of repose. Given that Ms. Santuccio's client provided her with case law and written distinctionin the contextofa constructiondefect case betweenthe governing statute of limitation Ms. Santuccio seems to have misunderstood the applicable statuteoflimitations and the analysis,the parties agree that her mental state waspredominantlynegligent. At least initially, With respect to Ms. Santuccio's mental state under the second prongofthe sanction

Prong II:Mental State:Knowing or Negligent

not. Id. at § 7.3. committed malpracticeand sheshouldhave informedtheclientofthatfact atthattime. She did professional insofar as by no later than early2011,she knew or should have known that she had and her filingofthe Complaint. Id. at § 4.63. Fourth, counsel violated the duties owed as a beenless than candid in herrepresentationsto her client about her intention to file a Complaint other ability to pay anyjudgment secured. Id. at § 4.42. Third, Ms. Santuccio seems to have otherwisedevising to secure information about the proposed defendants' insurance coverage or "Standards"), § 4.53. Second, Ms.Santucciodisplayeda lackofdiligence in securingor leadingcasediscussingbothconcepts. SeeABA StandardsforImposingLawyer Sanctions (the continuedmisunderstandingand applicationof theseconceptsdespiteher client alertingher to a limitationand a statuteofrepose.Thisfailureofcompetenceiscomplicatedby herseeming shefailedto determinerelevant statute oflimitationsor todistinguishbetween a statuteof severalof her duties as a lawyer. First, she did not act with the requisite competence insofar as Under the first prongofthe analysis, Ms. Santuccio engaged inconductthat violated

Prong I:Duty Violated

conditions and an order to pay costsofinvestigation and prosecution. agrees with and accepts the recommended sanctionofa public censure with mandatory violationsofRules 1.1,1.3,1.4and 8.4(a). For the reasons set forth below, the Committee The Stipulationincludedan agreementon recommended sanctionsbased on the

III. ANALYSIS p. 23 Page 23of27

regardingtheproceduresfordisciplineofattorneysand with her rightsunder thoserules. 4. The Respondent isfamiliarwith the rulesoftheNew Hampshire Supreme Court

counsel inconnection with thismatter. person or agency concerning this matter. Respondent has had the assistanceofcompetent affirms that she has been subjected to no coercion or other intimidating acts by any 3. This Agreement is a productofthe Respondent's personal decision, and the Respondent

understandstheconsequences ofthisAgreement. 2. The Respondent enters into this Agreement freely,intelligentlyand voluntarily,and

New Hampshire Supreme Court in theseproceedings. October 31, 2006 (Bar number17750).Respondent is subject to thejurisdictionofthe 1. The Respondent was admittedto the Barofthe New Hampshire Supreme Court on

investigationand prosecution. agrees with andacceptstherecommended discretionarydiversionand anorderto pay costsof violationsofRules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4and 8.4(a). For thereasonssetforthbelow, the Committee The Stipulationincludedan agreementon recommended diversionbased on the

(quotation andcitationomitted). profession, andpreventsimilarconductin the future." Grew's Case, 156 N.H. 361, 365 (2007) to protect the public,maintainpublic confidence in the bar, preserve the integrityofthe legal Standards. The purposeoftheCourt'sdisciplinary power "is not to inflictpunishmentbut rather Richmond'sCase, 152 N.H.155,159-60 (2005). This sanction is also in accord with the sanction is in accord with the purposesofattorney discipline. Conner'sCase 158 N.H. at 303; appropriate discipline in this matter is a public censure. TheCommittee'srecommended Having made the aforementioned findings and rulings, the Committee concludes that the

Committee to be the most appropriate resolution. publiccensurewith conditions (that ifunfulfilledwill yield asuspension)was determinedby the granularand appropriate levelofdiscipline, the impositionof the following agreed-to sanction of the gapbetweenthese two potentiallyappropriatesanctions,and to allow for a moretargeted, sanctionin this matter, although a shortsuspensionwould also bewarranted.In order to bridge In lightofthe Standards and the factors noted above, a public censure is an appropriate

aggravatingcircumstances. Santuccio's lackofprior record weighs in herfavor.There are no other distinctly mitigating or factors. Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. 299, 303(2009).In determining the sanction in this case, Ms. p. 24 Page 24 of27

herein. agreement,confirmingthementor'sagreement toperformtheservicesdescribed DisciplineOffice(ADO). The Respondent'smentor shallexecutea mentoring Agreement. The choiceofmentor shall be subject to the approvaloftheAttorney year,withinthirtydays oftheCommittee'sapprovaloftheStipulationand member oftheNew Hampshire Bar serve as a law practicementor for a periodofone a. Respondent shall arrange, at herown expense,to have an attorneywho is an active

Conditions: ProfessionalConduct Committeeapprovesthe Stipulationand Agreement toMandatory long as it takes tocompletethe conditions set forth herein, beginning on the date that the 12. Respondentagrees to the following terms andconditionsfor a periodofone year, or as

ProfessionalConduct Committee approves this proposal. 11. The parties agree to arrange for a law practicementor within30 daysofthe date the

conditionofthisAgreement,theAgreement shall be terminated. 10. Respondent understands and agreesthat, in the event she fails tocomply withany term or

to suchevidentiaryhearing, theRespondentwaivesthat right. offactby clear andconvincingevidence. Nonetheless, having fullknowledge ofher right hearing, Disciplinary Counsel would bearthe burdenofproving each material allegation presentedby DisciplinaryCounsel. TheRespondentunderstands that at suchevidentiary representedby counsel,presentevidence,callwitnesses,and cross-examinethewitnesses hearingin this matter.At any suchhearing,Respondent would have the right to be 9. The Respondent acknowledgesthat she hasthe rightto a full and completeevidentiary

proceedings. Facts,RuleViolationsand Sanction shall be deemed true in any subsequent disciplinary the factualadmissionsand admissionsofruleviolationscontainedin theStipulationas to 8. Respondentagrees that, in the event she fails tocomply withthe termsofthisAgreement,

Violationsand Sanction. 7. As part ofthisAgreement,Respondent shall sign the Stipulation as to Facts, Rule

clientcommunication. professionalmisconductby violatingrules pertaining to hercompetence,diligence, and 6. The underlyingcomplaintin this matterinvolvesallegations thatRespondent engaged in

Conduct Committee,is in accordance with Rule 37(3)(c)(3) and Rule37A(III)(2)(C)(ii). 5. Respondent understandsthat this Agreement, subject to approvalby theProfessional

Sup. Ct. R. 37 and37A. p. 25 Page 25 of27 been violated, theAgreement shall continue in force andeffectpursuant to its suspension.IftheCommittee determines that noconditionofthisAgreement has violated,theCommittee shall impose the agreed-upon sanctionofa six-month thisAgreement has been violated.Ifitdeterminesthata conditionhas been a. The ProfessionalConduct Committee may determinewhether any conditionof

have been violated. DisciplineOfficeshallnotifythe Professional ConductCommittee that thecondition(s) set forth inparagraphs12(a)-(h), supra, theAgreement shall be terminated. TheAttorney 13. If,however,Respondent fails tocomply withany term orconditionofthisAgreement as

Agreement, notto engage in anyprofessionalmisconduct. one year,beginningon the date the ProfessionalConduct Committee approvesthe h. Other than whatmay be presently docketed, theRespondent,agrees for a periodof

manage her law practice and carry out her professional responsibilities. g. The periodicreportsshallarticulatethosemeasuresbeing taken by the Respondent to

Respondent'sreports shall besubmitteddirectly toDisciplinaryCounsel. within 90 daysofthe date that the ADO approves the law practice mentor. The frequently than quarterly, with the first reportto be provided to Disciplinary Counsel f. The Respondent shall supplyDisciplinaryCounsel with periodicreports,no less

DisciplinaryCounsel any matterrelatingto the Respondent'spractice. e. The Respondent shall execute areleasepermitting the mentor to discuss with

describeRespondent'scase load and identify any issuesofconcern to the mentor. apparentproblems that have come to the attentionofthe mentor. The reports shall manageher lawpracticeand carryout herprofessionalresponsibilities, as well as any d. Theperiodicreportsshallarticulatethosemeasuresbeingtaken by theRespondentto

shallbe submitteddirectlyfromthementortoDisciplinaryCounsel. within 90daysofthedatethe ADOapprovesthe lawpracticementor.The reports frequentlythanquarterly,with thefirstreportto be providedtoDisciplinaryCounsel c. The mentor shall supplyDisciplinaryCounselwith periodicreports,no less

ultimate responsibility for decisions she makes in her practice. confidentialityshould be maintained during thesemeetingsand that she bears the maintenanceofthe respondent'scaseload.Respondent agrees that client recommendations for improvements in handling clientcommunicationand procedureinvolvingmatters the Respondent isworking on and to make shall be available during those meetings to discuss specific issuesoflaw andpractice practicementor in theareasofcriminal, family law and civil litigation. The mentor b. Respondentshallmeet monthly,in person, with thementor who will serve as a p. 26 Page 26of27

Standards for the conduct admitted aspartofthisAgreement. agrees that asix-monthsuspension is an appropriate sanction under the ABA subsequentproceeding,shall be sanctionedwitha six-monthsuspension.Respondent e. In addition,Respondentagreesthat such "previous discipline,"ifused in the

subsequentproceeding. partofthisAgreement shall be considered"previous discipline" for purposesofthe stipulation or after a hearing by aHearingPanel),then themisconductadmitted as d. Ifthere is a findingofmisconductin the subsequent proceeding (whether by

thisAgreement. all costsassociatedwith complianceand enforcementoftheterms and conditionsof c. Pursuant toNew Hampshire Supreme Court Rule37(19),theRespondent shall bear

stipulationofthe parties or before a panel appointed by the Hearings Committee. thesubsequentproceeding and to adjudicate it in atimelymanner, eitherby b. The AttorneyDisciplineOfficeagrees to expedite the processing andinvestigationof

above. misconduct, evenifsuch finding occurs beyond the one-yeartimeperiod referenced above, thisAgreement is subject to terminationat such time as there is a findingof misconduct allegedoccurred,at least inpart,during the one-year period referenced within the one-year periodreferencedabove ("the subsequent proceeding"), and the terminationofthisAgreement.Rather, so long as a grievance is filedwiththeADO a. The timingofany findingofsuchmisconductis notdispositiveofthe questionof

acceptsthisAgreement. during a periodofone yearcommencing on the date the ProfessionalConduct Committee 14. This Agreement shall be terminated in the eventRespondentengages inmisconduct

shall continue in force and effect pursuantto its terms. determines that no conditionoftheAgreement has been violated, theAgreement impose the agreed-upon sanctionofa six-monthsuspension.Ifthe Hearing Panel c. Ifa Hearing Paneldeterminesthat aconditionhas been violated,the Panel shall

paragraphs12(a)-(h)has been violated. demonstrate by a preponderanceofthe evidence that aconditionlisted in During such hearing, it shall be the burdenofDisciplinary Counsel to decide the sole issueofwhether aconditionofthisAgreement has been violated. matter to the HearingsCommittee so that a Hearing Panelmay be appointedto b. Respondent may request that the ProfessionalConduct Committee remand the

terms. p. 27 Page 27 of27

File Stephen L. Tober,Esquire cc: Elizabeth M. Murphy, Assistant DisciplinaryCounsel

January/J_,2016

conditionsagreementin itsentiretyand issues this public censurewithmandatory conditions. For allofthe abovereasons,the Committee approves thestipulationand mandatory

thismatter. Santuccioshall be responsible for all costs associatedwith the investigation and prosecutionof and prosecutionofthis disciplinarymatter.The Committeeapproves this agreement. Ms. Danielle L. Richey Santuccio has signed an agreement to pay costsofthe investigation

accepts allofthetermsand conditionsofthisAgreement. 17. The Respondentacknowledgesby signing this Agreement that sheunderstandsand

case. forth in theStipulationas to Facts, Rule Violations andSanctionshall beimposed in this and no additional discipline beyond the agreed upon sanctionofpublic censure as set paragraphs14(a)-(e), supra, theProfessionalConduct Committee shallclosethismatter successfullycompliedwith the conditions enumerated inparagraphs12(a)-(h)and 16. The parties agree thatifthe Attorney Discipline Office verifies that the Respondent has

conductofRespondent occurring during the referenced one-year time period. 15. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit prosecutionofany new complaint involving p. 28 Court

ElizabethM.Murphy.AssistantDisciplinaryCounsel Cases12-042and13-043areclosed. DanielleL.Richey(formerlySantuccio)wassuspendedfromthepractice Santuccio,DanielleRicheyadus.AttorneyDisciplineOffice-#13-043 Santuccio,DanielleRicheyudus.AttorneyDisciplineOffice-#12-042 File WilliamC.Saturley,Esquire

matters.TheProfessionalConductCommitteegrantsthatrequests. suspended.TheAttorneyDisciplineOfficehas,therefore,askedtoclosethese additionalsanctionsintheabovecases.Eveniftheycould,sheisalready professionalconductmatters,nonecouldbeusedtotriggertheimpositionof oflawonJune17.2019.WhileAttorneyRicheyhasbeenthesubjectofother MargaretR.KerouaeBarbaraJ.Guay,LegalAssistant PeterC.Beeson*nonattorneymember KathleenM.Ames*DanielE.Will RonaldK.AcetMarthaVanOot ElaineHolden,*ViceChair603-224-5828•Fax228-9511GeorgesJ.Royt HeatherE.Krans,ViceChairConcord,NewHampshire03301MonaT.Movalaghi DavidM.Rothstein,Chair4ChenellDrive,Suite102CarolineK.Leonard Distribution: AugustE