Tanner Z. Nolin (2016)

findingsby clearand convincing evidence: The Committee determined thatthe Record supportsthe following factual

Committee forallcostsofinvestigationand prosecutionof thismatter. "Rules")as stipulated,and voted to approve the agreement to reimburse the findingsofviolationsof the New Hampshire Rules of ProfessionalConduct (the stipulatedby clearand convincing evidence. The Committee then approved the Having reviewed the Record, the Committee approved the factsas

Kerouac was recused. Movafaghi, Georges J.Roy, Richard D. Sager and Martha Van Oot. Margaret R. Beeson, Susan R. Chollet,Richard H. Darling,ScottH. Harris,Mona T. Chair,Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair,Elaine Holden, Vice Chair,PeterG. (collectively,the "Record"). Members presentincluded David M. Rothstein, (the"Stipulation")and theAgreement to Pay Costs ofDisciplinaryMatter "Committee") deliberatedthe Stipulationas to Facts,Violationsand Sanction On June 21, 2016, the ProfessionalConduct Committee (the

Nolin,Tanner Z. advs. Attorney DisciplineOffice -#14-028

ScottH. Harris Barbara J. Guay, LegalAssistant Richard H. Darling* * non attorneymember 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,Suite102 Margaret R. Kerouac

"$7500 retainerforDivorce: $3,500 in operatingaccount restin escrow." 10. On thatdate,both Mr. Nolin and Mr. Silverssigned a receiptconfirming

8b Peters. previouslybeen representedby ChristineGordon, Esq. ofWadleigh, Starr take over representationin hisdivorce matter. Mr. Silvershad 9. On April3, 2014, Mr. Silverspaid Mr. Nolin a$7,500 retainer,in cash,to

variousforms emergency relief,as setforthfurtherbelow. 2014. During thistime period,Mr. Silvers'ex-wifesought and received hisdivorce proceedings,from approximately April 3, 2014 untilMay 19, 8. Mr. Nolin representedMr. Silversduring a brief- but critical- time in

December of 2012. Family Division- Claremont. Ms. Silversfileda petitionfordivorce in Silvers. Silversvs. Silvers, Case No. 627-2012-DM-00201, 5th Circuit- 7. Mr. Nolin representedJames M. Silvers,Jr.in hisdivorce from Amanda

as factsregardinghishandling ofthe law firm'soperatingaccount. 6. Below isa summary ofthreeclientmattershandled by Mr. Nolin as well

5. The case was referredto DisciplinaryCounsel on January 27, 2016.

problems and relatedmisconduct stemming from those issues. ADO based on hispersonalknowledge ofMr. Nolin'ssubstanceabuse 4. By letterdated May 24, 2014, Mr. Hanson referredthismatterto the

Esq. opened theirlaw firm in August of2012. practicedlaw atHanson 8b Nolin, LLP. Mr. Nolin and Carl D. Hanson, 3. At the time ofthe events giving riseto thisdisciplinarymatter,Mr. Nolin

2. Mr. Nolin does not have a disciplinaryhistory.

June 22, 2015 inADM-2015-0025.) administrativelysuspended fornon-payment ofhisdues (orderdated was admitted to practiceon November 5, 2008. Mr. Nolin iscurrently 1. Mr. Nolin isan attorneylicensedto practicelaw in New Hampshire. He

requesteda RestrainingOrder enjoiningMr. Silversfrom entering necessarymaterials,and keys forthe businessto Ms. Silvers.Italso over it,and compelling Mr. Silversto turnover alldocuments, over the businessin Ms. Silvers,divestingMr. Silversofany authority sitevisit.The Motion requestedan Order vestingcomplete authority January 2014, when Ms. Silvers'expertappraiserhad conducted a itwas no longeroperational,despitebeing fullyoperationalas lateas Silvershad mismanaged the RecyclingServicesto such an extentthat (c)Motion for ExParteRelief. Inessence,thisMotion allegedthatMr.

suddenly closed. Recycling Services,Inc.(forwhich Ms. Silverswas a co-borrower)had thatthe former couple'sbusiness,and primary assetofthe marriage, behind in alimony. ItfurtherallegedthatMs. Silvershad justlearned and forFunds to beEscrowed. ItallegedthatMr. Silverswas $ 1,000 (b)Motion forOrders Regarding [Respondent's]Nonpayment ofAlimony

allegingthatMr. Silvershad missed variousdiscoverydeadlines. (a)Motion to Compel Respondent's Compliance with Discovery Order,

Silvers: Jeremey Eggleton, ofOrr & Reno, filedthe following on behalfofAmanda 15. The followingday, April 17, 2014, attorneysJudithFaircloughand

boxes ofdocuments and pleadings. previousattorney,Ms. Gordon. The fileconsistedofseveralbankers' 14. On April 16, 2014, Mr. Nolin picked up Mr. Silvers'entirefilefrom his

invoicesto Mr. Silvers. describedherein,he never trackedhistime or otherwise submitted those fees. Although Mr. Nolin did some work for Mr. Silvers,as operatingaccount approximately one week later,priorto having earned 13. Mr. Nolin transferredthe $3,500 from the trustaccount intothe firm's

$3,500 intothe firm'sclienttrustaccount. before he had earned the legalfee. Mr. Nolin depositedthe remaining account. Instead,he kept $4,000 forhimself,therebypaying himself 12. Mr. Nolin never depositedthe entire$7,500 intothe firm'sclienttrust

divorcematterwith another$4,000 to begiven priorto the finalhearing." by Mr. Silversto Mr. Nolin inthe amount of $3,500 "as a retainerin my authorization,on a second receipt.This receiptacknowledged payment 11. Shortlythereafter,Mr. Nolin signed Mr. Silvers'name, without p. 4 Page 4of20

to reach Mr. Nolin in the days followingthe Court'sApril 30 ordersand Contempt and to Compel, settingforththe chronology ofcounsel'sefforts 21. On May 12, 2014, Ms. Silversfileda VerifiedEx ParteMotion for

Mr. Nolin'scooperation. emailed Mr. Nolin twice and calledhisofficetwice in attemptto obtain effectuatethe reliefgrantedin the Court'sApril 30th orders. Mr. Eggleton Ms. Silvers,attempted without successto getin touch with Mr. Nolin to 20. In the approximately eleven days thatfollowed,Mr. Eggleton, on behalfof

19. Mr. Nolin did not inform Mr. Silverofthe Court'sApril 30, 2014 Order.

(c)Granting the restrainingorder.

and in an Addendum]" necessaryfor Ms.Silversto operatethe business; "keys,passwords, codes and otherinformation[setforthspecifically (b)Ordering Mr. Silversto turnover,within 72 hours ofthe Order, all

Services; (a)DivestingMr. Silversofallcontrolor authorityover Recycling

complete controlover Recycling Services,Inc.in her and further: Ms. Silvers.The Court grantedthe bulk ofher requestedrelief,vesting 18. The Court issuedorderson April 30, 2014 relativeto the reliefsought by

approximately one hour, during which Mr. Nolin made an offerofproof. hearingon the motions filedApril 17, 2014. The hearinglasted 17. On April 25, 2014, Mr. Nolin appeared on behalfofMr. Silversatthe

He did not fileany pleadingson Mr. Silvers'behalf. anticipationofthathearing,Mr. Nolin reviewed Mr. Silvers'filematerials. 16. Mr. Nolin filedan appearance the day ofthe hearing,April 25, 2014. In

accounts)ofMr. Silver'sto recover$1,000,000. requestingthatthe Court attachrealproperty(and otherpropertyand dissipatingthe maritalassets,in particularthe business,and (d)Petitionto Attach with Notice,allegingthatMr. Silverswas willfully

scheduled a hearingon the motion forApril 25, 2014. The motion was denied on an ex partebasis. Judge Yazinski employee ofthe business,or coming within 500 feetofMs. Silvers. upon the premises of RecyclingServices,communicating with any p. 5 Page 5of20

April 30 Order. Ms. Faircloughemailed Mr. Nolin about this,and Mr. signatoryauthorityon the Mascoma bank accounts consistentwith the The purpose ofthe teleconferencewas to arrange for the transferof Ms. Faircloughand an attorneyrepresentingMascoma Savings Bank. 29. Also on May 14, 2014, Mr. Nolinmissed a scheduled teleconferencewith

promptly forwarded itto Mr. Silvers. Order. He obtainedone from Mr. Eggleton laterthatday, however, and Silvers'matterand did not have a copy ofthe Court'sMay 12, 2014 contacthim directly."At the time, Mr. Hanson was not handling Mr. Nolin was in the hospitalas of"yesterdayafternoon.I am not able to 28. Mr. Hanson responded the same day, informing Mr. SilversthatMr.

don'twant to getarrested." 2014. He stated,"[PJleasecallme as soon as you have an opportunityI toldMr. Hanson thatMr. Nolin "was not right"atthe hearingon April 25, Mr. Silvers'failureto comply with theApril 30, 2014 Order. Mr. Silvers hearingwhich referencedthe Court'searliercontempt findingbased on Silvershad become concerned because he had receiveda noticeof 27. Mr. Hanson corresponded furtherwith Mr. Silverson May 14, 2014. Mr.

remained in the hospitalforapproximately threedays. heavilythathe became unconscious and sufferedalcoholpoisoning. He 26. On or around May 13, 2014, Mr. Nolin was hospitalized.He drank so

number to Mr. Silvers. to discuss." (Emphasis in original).Mr. Hanson provided hiscellphone thought he was meeting with you today at12:00 noon. Please callme saw your email to Tanner thisafternoonand am concerned about him. I May 2014. On May 12, 2014, Mr. Hanson wrote to Mr. Silvers,stating"I 25. Mr. Hanson likewisehad difficultyreachingMr. Nolin in the earlypartof

complied, and ifnot,to"determine sanctions,for May 21, 2014. 24. The Court seta hearingon the issueofwhether Mr. Silvershad

23. Mr. Nolin did sharethe Court'sMay 12, 2014 Order with Mr. Silvers.

forarrest." orderisnot complied with in allaspects,the courtmay issuea warrant in contempt: "Sanctionswill beconsideredafterhearing;however, ifthis 22. The Court grantedthe Motion forContempt thatday, findingMr. Silvers

notingthatMr. Silvershad not complied with those orders. p. 6 Page 6 of20

thathe had referredhisconcerns about Mr. Nolin to the Lawyers' Mr. Eggleton about Mr. Nolin'swell-being. Mr. Hanson informed him held. Judge Yazinski,however, did inquireinformallyof Mr. Hanson and thatno furthersanctionor capiaswas warranted,and no hearingwas withdraw had not yet been granted. He and Mr. Eggleton determined 35. On May 21, 2014, Mr. Hanson appeared in courtbecause hismotion to

Silvers'matter,and he admits thathe did not earn the entire$7,500. hearingon April25, 2016, he performed littlesubstantivework on Mr. Mr. Silverson thathearing. He acknowledges, however, thatafterthe Silvers'filebefore theApril 25, 2016 hearingand thathe appeared for 34. Mr. Nolin statesthathe spenta significantamount oftime reviewing Mr.

Silvers'matter. Mr. Hanson fileda motion to withdraw on Mr. Nolin'sbehalfin Mr. returnto work, and concerned about any furtherprejudiceto Mr. Silvers, 33. On May 19, 2014, not having heard from Mr. Nolin about when he would

her that"Tanner has a portionofthe fileathishome." Ms. Faircloughas he could be under the circumstances,but reminded Recycling Services,Inc.were complex. Mr. Hanson was as responsiveto quicklybecoming evidentthatthe issuessurroundingturnoverof 15, 2014. Mr. Hanson did not representMr. Silvers,however, and itwas to answer certainquestionsposed by Ms. Faircloughin her email ofMay 32. On May 16, 2014, Mr. Hanson corresponded with Mr. Silversattempting

....you are being an absolutesaintI am basicallyon lock down here . . Judith/Jamie about my withdrawal (you can sign for me in allmatters) Hanson from the hospital,stating"can you communicate with 31. In response to thisemail from Ms. Fairclough,Mr. Nolin emailed Mr.

assistance. directlybut thatshe urgentlyrequiredMr. Nolin'scooperationand Hanson thatshe obviouslycould not communicate with Mr. Silvers correspond directlywith Ms. Fairclough. She toldMr. Nolin and Mr. Silvers,who had been unable to reach Mr. Nolin and thus attempted to forwarding an email thatMs. Faircloughreceiveddirectlyfrom Mr. 30. On May 15, 2014, Ms. Faircloughwrote to Mr. Nolin,cc'ingMr. Hanson,

be availableand provided Mr. Hanson's cellphone number. quitesome time." Mr. Nolin toldMs. FaircloughthatMr. Hanson would Nolin confirmed the same day thathe was "currentlyhospitalizedfor p. 7 Page 7of20

Motion to Compel Production. Mr. Nolin did not respond to the Motion 42. On March 31, 2014, Bureau staffattorneyAdrian LaRochelle fileda

March 14, 2014 as requiredby the Scheduling Order. failedto submit a preliminarywitness listto the Hearings Officerby Mr. Nolinmultipletimes without response by Mr. Nolin. Mr. Nolinalso on behalfof Mr.Kenny. The Bureau staffattorneycalledand emailed 2014. Responses were due by March 7, 2014. Mr. Nolindid not respond 41. The Bureau propounded discoveryrequeststo Mr.Nolin on February 14,

Mr. Nolin and staffattorneysfor the Bureau. 2014. These deadlineswere based on an assented-tomotion between settingforthdiscoverydeadlinesand a finalhearingdate ofApril28, 40. On January 31, 2014, a Hearings Officerissueda Scheduling Order

without any specificterms ofrepayment. businesschecking account,includingtakingloansfrom the account Itfurtheralleged"varioussuspecttransactions"within theTtanks and sold sharesofTtanks while failingto disclosematerialinformation. Mr. Kenny, as soleincorporatorofTtanks Environmental, Ltd.,offered fines,costsofinvestigation,and disgorgement. The Bureau allegedthat allegingviolationsofRSA 421-B and requestinga cease and desistorder, 39. The Bureau fileda "StaffPetitionfor Reliefon November 26, 2013,

Mr. Nolin forfuturelegalwork. for Mr.Nolin'srepresentationbefore the Bureau, Mr. Kenny would use kind. Mr. Kenny and Mr. Nolin agreed (invague terms) thatin exchange a legalfee for thisrepresentationnor did he sign a fee agreement ofany Environmental, Ltd., No. 1-2012000007. Mr. Kenny did not pay Mr. Nolin Regulation ("theBureau"). In the Matter ofKenny and Ttanks 38. Mr. Nolin representedNeil Kenny before the Bureau ofSecurities

37. Mr. SilversthereafterretainedAnthony DiPadova, Esq.

cooperationwith the Orders ofApril30, 2014. $1,089.00inattorneys'fees for feesincurredin compellingMr. Silvers' 36. Thereafter,on July 10,2014, the Court grantedOrr & Reno's requestfor

referralto theADO. AssistanceProgram ("LAP")and thathe was inthe processofdraftinga p. 8 Page 8 of20 Officeofthe SecretaryofStateto inquireabout status.He learnedfor the 51. Mr. Hanson, unable to find any fileforMr. Kenny's matter,calledthe

about the case and reached Mr. Hanson. when Mr. Kenny calledthe office inlateMay or earlyJune to inquire case. Rather,they came to lightfollowingMr. Nolin'shospitalization, 50. Mr. Nolin never informed Mr. Kenny ofany of thesedevelopments in his

was denied. Defaultand Motion forLate filing."The Bureau objectedand the Motion 49. On May 2, 2014, Mr. Nolin filedan "Objectionto State'sMotion for

days. See RSA 421-B:22, 23, 26. investigation,and to pay $25,000 as an administrativefinewithin 30 Ttanks, to pay $10,000 within 30 days to the Bureau forcostsof disgorgewithin 30 days $89,561.00 thathe misappropriatedfrom 48. The Hearings Officerordered, interalia, Mr. Kenny to cease and desist,to

Bureau'sStaffPetitionforReliefby a preponderance of the evidence." petitionand athearingsupportthe conclusionsoflaw enumerated in the and Order" which found thatthe "factsas presentedin the Bureau'sstaff 47. On April 30, 2014, Hearings OfficerMoquin issued"Findings,Rulings

Bureau presenteditsevidence. either.The Hearings Officerwent forward with the hearingand the inform Mr. Kenny of the hearingdate.Thus, Mr. Kenny did not appear 46. Mr. Nolin did not appear attheApril 28, 2014 hearingand did not

Scheduling Order. the upcoming April 28, 2014 hearingby the deadlinesetforthin the thatdate,Mr. Nolin had failedto filea finalwitness and exhibitlistfor discoverywhatsoever nor responded to her attemptsto contacthim. By AlternativelyforDefaultbecause Mr. Nolinhad not produced any 45. On April22, 2014, Ms. LaRochelle filed aMotion to Compel and

grantingit. inform Mr. Kenny of the Bureau'sMotion to Compel and the Order 44. Mr. Nolin produced no discoveryon behalfofMr. Kenny, nor did he

Bureau'sMotion to Compel. 43. On April 16,2014, Hearings Officer Kevin B.Moquin grantedthe

or comply with the discoverydeadlines. p. 9 Page 9 of20

attemptto mitigatethe financialharm to Mr.LaClair. retainer.Mr. Hanson returned$1,000 ofhisown funds to Mr. LaClair in Ms. Ranson thereaftercontactedMr. Hanson regardingMr. LaClair's May 22, 2014 mediationwith Mr. LaClair.Unable toreach Mr. Nolin, 59. Mr. LaClair thereafterhiredattorneyAliceRanson, who appeared atthe

2014 without success. 58. Mr. LaClairattemptedtocontactMr. NolinduringMarch and April of

mediation date was latermoved to May 22, 2014. mediation was scheduled on April 9,2014 forApril28, 2014. The 57. Mr. Nolin never filedan appearance on behalfof Mr. LaClair. A

priorto earningit. He put$1,000 intotheclienttrustaccount,and spentthe remainder 56. Mr. Nolin did not depositthe fullretainerintothe clienttrustaccount.

Circuit,Family Division,Newport. Rebecca Parker and William LaClair, Case No. 662-2014-DM-00022, 5th Rebecca Parker,the mother of Mr. LaClair'schildren. In the Matter of cash,to representhim with regard to a ParentingPetitionfiledby Ms. 55. On March 9, 2014, William LaClairpaid Mr. Nolin a$2,000 retainer,in

54. Mr. Kenny thereaftersettleda malpracticeclaim againstMr. Nolin.

The Motion was opposed by the Bureau and itwas ultimatelydenied. 2014, Mr. Hanson appeared for a hearingon hisMotion to SetAside. 53. The Court grantedMr. Hanson's requestfor ahearing. On September 8,

whereabouts." Hanson "isunaware of [Mr. Nolin's]currentstatusand ofhis substanceabuse problem," and thatas of the date ofthe Motion, Mr. thatas ofApril 2014, Mr. Hanson was aware Mr. Nolin "has a serious OfficerthatMr. Nolinnever calendaredtheApril28, 2014 hearingdate, and to Schedule a Hearing.In thisMotion,he informed the Hearings 52. On July 16, 2014, Mr. Hanson fileda Motion to Set Aside DefaultOrder

Order findingagainstMr. Kenny issuedon April30, 2014. with alldiscoverydeadlinesor appear atthe hearing,and the Court's first timeabout the chronologyofevents,Mr. Nolin'sfailuretocomply p. 10 Page 10of20

daughter. New Hampshire. He liveswith hiswife and young pre-schoolaged 66. Mr. Nolin iscurrentlyemployed atWatts Water Technology in Franklin,

the LAP on May 6, 2016. He signed a three-yearMonitoringAgreement with Cecie Hartigan and treatmentfor25 days atthe Phoenix House in Keene, New Hampshire. 65. Mr. Nolin has been sober sinceJune 9, 2015, following in-patient

outlinedabove were prejudicedas a resultof Mr. Nolin'saddiction. shortperiod of time (March - May 2014) thatthe specificclientmatters requiredhospitalizationfor anumber ofdays. Itwas in thisrelatively problem occurred in May of 2014, when he drank so heavilythathe 64. Mr. Nolinisa recoveringalcoholic.The nadirof Mr.Nolin'sdrinking

Mr. Nolin'sAlcohol Addiction,Recovery, and Current Status

theseunauthorizedwithdrawals. 63. Mr. Nolin admits thathe owes Mr. Hanson approximately $11,000 for

personalexpenses. for these"mini-loans"and thathe had been using the funds for his unauthorizedwithdrawals. Mr. Nolin agreed thathe owed Mr. Hanson 62. In January of2014, Mr. Hanson confrontedMr. Nolin about the

operatingexpenses. checking it. He reliedon Mr. Nolin'shonesty in handling the firm's signatoryon the operatingaccount,he simply was not in the habitof handle paying the law office'sbills,and although Mr. Hanson was a December of 2013. He and Mr. Nolin had agreed thatMr. Nolin would 61. Mr. Hanson was unaware of thesewithdrawals untilapproximately

withdrawals,and on atleastseven occasions,alcohol. such as gas,groceries,restaurants,a gym membership, cash withdrawals ranging from $10 to$603 for avarietyofpersonalexpenses expenses were not authorizedby hispartner,Mr. Hanson. They included operatingaccount forpersonalpurposes and livingexpenses. These withdrew funds,using the law firm'sdebitcard,from the law firm 60. From approximately September 2012 to January 2014, Mr. Nolin

Misappropriation ofFunds from Law Firm Operating Account p. 11 Page 11 of20

71. Mr. Nolin violatedRule 1.4 when he:

accomplished. them about the means by which theirobjectiveswere to be informed about the statusoftheirmatterand to reasonablyconsultwith 70. Mr. Nolin had a duty under Rule 1.4 to keep hisclientsreasonably

(d)Failedto perform any work on behalfofMr. LaClair.

Findings issuedon April 30, 2014; and hearing,or respond to/effectivelyaddressthe Hearings Officer's respond to opposing counsel'smotions, appear atthe April 28, 2014 (c)Failedto respond to or conduct any discoveryin the Kenny matter,

contempt motions and requestsforfeesfiledby opposing counsel; (b)Failedto effectivelyrepresentMr. Silverswith regard to subsequent

assisthim in responding to and effectuatingsame; (a)Failedto inform Mr. Silversof the Court'sApril 30, 2014 Order and

LaClair matterswhen he: 69. Mr. Nolin violatedRule 1.1 and Rule 1.3 in the Silvers,Kenny, and

promptness in representinghisclients. 68. Mr. Nolin had a duty under Rule 1.3 to actwith reasonablediligenceand

a timelyand effectivemanner. avoidable harm to theirinterests,and undertake actionon theirbehalfin sufficientlyto assurethathisclients'matterwas undertaken with no practicewith skill,prepare properly,attendto detailsand schedules 67. Mr. Nolinhad a duty under Rule 1.1 to perform the techniquesof

Rules 1.1 and 1.3:Competence and Diligence

by clearand convincing evidence: thatTanner Z. Nolinhas violatedthe followingRules of ProfessionalConduct The Committee concludes thatthereisclearand convincingevidence

II. RULINGS OF LAW p. 12 Page 12of20

incurred. withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees are earned or expenses and expenses thathave been paid in advance, to be (d) Alawyer shalldepositintoa clienttrustaccount legalfees purpose. on thataccount,but only in an amount appropriateforthat account forthe sole purpose of paying bank servicecharges (c)A lawyer may depositthe lawyer'sown funds in a clienttrust shallcomply with every otheraspectof those Rules. specifiedin the New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules and lawyer shallmaintain the minimum financialrecords such funds or otherpropertyor any portionthereof.The preservedfor aperiod of sixyears afterfinaldistributionof time ofreceiptto the time of finaldistributionand shallbe of the clientatany time in the lawyer'spossessionfrom the maintenance and dispositionofallfunds and otherproperty (b)Records shallbe maintained by the lawyer ofthe handling, promptly upon receipt,and safeguarded. propertyshallbe identifiedas propertyofthe client, ofthe New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules. All other designatedtrustaccounts in accordance with the provisions property. Funds shallbe depositedin one or more clearly representationshallbe held separatefrom the lawyer'sown in the lawyer'spossessionin connection with a (a)Propertyofclientsor thirdpersons which a lawyer isholding

72. Rule 1.15 statesin pertinentpartas follows:

completely afterreceivingthe $2,000 retainer. (c)In the LaClair matter,failedto communicate with Mr. LaClair

motion seeking default),and judgment issuedagainsthisclient;and Order, hearingdate,motions ofopposing counsel (includingthe (b)In the Kenny matter,failed to informhisclientofthe Scheduling

matter; counsel,and the developments in generalin Mr. Silvers'divorce 30 and May 12, 2014 Orders,the demands being made by opposing (a)In the Silversmatter,failed to informMr. Silvers oftheCourt'sApril p. 13 Page 13of20

describedherein,violatedN.H. R. Prof.Conduct 8.4(a). 79. There isclearand convincing evidence thatMr. Nolin'sconduct, as

authorizationfrom Mr. Hanson. expenses from the firm operatingaccount without disclosureto or $11,000 from hispartnerMr. Hanson by repeatedlypaying hispersonal 78. Mr. Nolin violatedRule 8.4(c)when he misappropriatedapproximately

the clienttrustaccount. and he received$7,500 from Mr. Silversbut only depostied$3,500 into from Mr. LaClair but only deposited$ 1,000 intothe clienttrustaccount, partnerMr. Hanson. Specifically,Mr. Nolinreceiveda $2,000 retainer for himself,without disclosingthe fullretainerreceivedby him to hislaw account only a portionof retainersreceivedby him, keeping the balance 77. Mr. Nolin violatedRule 8.4(c)when he depositedintothe law firm trust

been paid $7,500 by Mr. Silvers. authorizationto areceiptnotingpayment of$4,000, when infacthe had 76. Mr. Nolin violatedRule 8.4(c)when he signed Mr. Silvers'name without misrepresentation; (c)engage in conduct involvingdishonesty,fraud,deceitor Itisprofessionalmisconduct for alawyer to:

75. Rule 8.4(c)statesas follows:

violationofRule 1.15. beforethey were earned,he commingled clientmoney with hisown in funds and $1,000 of Mr. LaClair's funds). Inwithdrawingthesefunds clienttrustaccount priorto having earned them ($3,500 of Mr.Silvers' 74. Mr. Nolin violatedRule 1.15 when he withdrew clientfunds from the

hisclienttrustaccount. funds ($4,000 paid byMr. Silversand $1,000 paid byMr. LaClair)into 73. Mr. Nolin violated Rule 1.15 when he failed todepositclientretainer p. 14 Page 14 of20

and intentional. sanctionanalysis,the partiesagreethatMr. Nolin'smental statewas knowing With respectto Mr.Nolin'smental stateunder the second prong ofthe

Prong II:Mental State:Intent/Knowing or Negligent

5.1. hisclients,as wellas dutiesowed as topublic. See Standards §§ 4.1,4.4,and Under the firstprong ofthe analysis,Mr. Nolinviolateddutiesowed to

Prong I:Duty Violated

sanction. See id. any aggravatingor mitigatingfactorsand whether they affectthe baseline Court then looks to the fourthand finalpartof the analysis:the existenceof Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at303. Once the baselinesanctionisdetermined, the characterizingthe misconduct and determininga baselinesanction. See The firstthreepartsofthe analysiscreatethe framework for

3.0. factors." Id. (quoting Douglas' Case, 156 N.H. 613, 621 (2007)); Standards § by the lawyer'smisconduct; and (d)the existenceof aggravatingor mitigating violated;(b)the lawyer'smental state;(c)the potentialor actualinjurycaused partanalysisforcourtsto considerin imposing sanctions:"(a)the duty guidance. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at303. The Standards setfortha four- Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, itlooks to them for

the misconduct." Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005). N.H. 299, 303 (2009). "The sanction. . .must take intoaccount the severityof profession,and preventingsimilarconduct in the future.'' Conner's Case, 158 maintainingpublicconfidence in the bar,preservingthe integrityofthe legal The purpose ofthe Court'sdisciplinarypower is"protectingthe public,

three-yearsuspensionwith conditions. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards") supportthe sanctionof a Both case law and the American Bar Association's Standards for

III. ANALYSIS p. 15 Page 15 of20

properlycommunicate with hisclientsimplicatesSection4.4 of the 83. Mr. Nolin'sfailureto be diligenton behalfofhisclientsand hisfailureto

no actualor potentialinjuryto a client. negligentin dealingwith clientpropertyand causes littleor 4.14 Admonition isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer is

potentialinjuryto a client. negligentin dealingwith clientpropertyand causes injuryor 4.13 Reprimand isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer is

propertyand causes injuryor potentialinjuryto a client. should know thathe isdealingimproperly with client 4.12 Suspension isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer knows or

potentialinjuryto a client. knowingly convertsclientpropertyand causes injuryor 4.11 Disbarment isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer

Section4.1 ofthe Standards, which provides,in pertinentpart: 82. Mr. Nolin'sviolationsof Rule 1.15 and Supreme Court Rule 50, implicate

misconduct. 81. The following Standards are instructiveregardingMr. Nolin's

dishonestconduct. professionand the public'sconfidence in the bar by engaging in misappropriations.Moreover, Mr. Nolin harmed the integrityofthe legal fees. Mr. Hanson was injuredfinanciallyby Mr. Nolin's sanctionedhisnoncompliance by orderingthathe pay Orr 8b Reno's legal Nolin'smisconduct. The Court found Mr. Silversin contempt and costs,and disgorgement. Mr. Silverslikewisewas prejudicedby Mr. issueda judgment againstMr. Kenny ofover $124,000 representingfees, and Mr. Silvers.As a resultofMr. Nolin'smisconduct, the Bureau 80. Mr. Nolin'sconduct caused injuryto hisclients,in particularMr. Kenny

actualor potentialinjurycaused by Mr. Nolin'smisconduct. The thirdprong ofthe sanctionanalysisrequiresan assessment of the

Prong III:Injuryor PotentialInjury p. 16 Page 16of20 censure in New Hampshire. Hampshire. The term"reprimand,"as used in the ABA Standards, isanalogousto a public 1The term "admonition,"as used in the ABA Standards, isanalogous to areprimand in New

containthe elements listedin Standard 5.11 and that knowingly engages in criminalconduct which does not 5.12 Suspension isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer to practice. thatseriouslyadverselyreflectson the lawyer'sfitness involvingdishonesty,fraud,deceit,or misrepresentation (b) a lawyer engages in any otherintentionalconduct or solicitationof anotherto commit any oftheseoffenses; killingof another;or an attemptor conspiracyor importationofcontrolledsubstances;or the intentional misappropriation,or theft;or the sale,distributionor swearing, misrepresentation,fraud,extortion, interferencewith the administrationofjustice,false necessaryelement ofwhich includesintentional (a) a lawyer engages in seriouscriminalconduct a 5.11 Disbarment isgenerallyappropriatewhen:

Standards, which provides,in pertinentpart: 84. Mr. Nolin'sviolationof Rule 8.4(c),implicatesSection 5.1 ofthe

potentialinjuryto a client. representinga client,and causes littleor no actualor negligentand does not actwith reasonablediligencein 4.44 Admonition1 isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer is a client. representinga client,and causes injuryor potentialinjuryto negligentand does not actwith reasonablediligencein 4.43 Reprimand isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer is

injuryor potentialinjuryto aclient. (b) a lawyer engages in a patternofneglectand causes and causes injuryor potentialinjuryto a client,or (a) a lawyer knowingly failsto perform servicesfora client

4.42 Suspension isgenerallyappropriatewhen:

Standards, which provides,in pertinentpart: p. 17 Page 17 of20

the appropriatesanction. Stipulationor the MonitoringAgreement, he agrees thatdisbarment is 90. As setforthfurtherbelow, should Mr. Nolin breach a conditionofthis

and preventsimilarlapsesin the future,isan appropriatesanction. three-yearsuspension,with conditionsdesignedto rehabilitateMr. Nolin thiscase,combined with the baselinesanctionanalysis,indicatethata 89. The partiesagree thatthe aggravatingand mitigatingfactorsevidentin

stayingsober weigh in favorofa downward departurefrom disbarment. three-yearLAP Monitoring Agreement, and hiscontinued commitment to demonstrated sobrietyof nearlyone year,hisvoluntaryexecutionofthe Standards § 9.32. Moreover, theADO and the Respondent agree thathis to ADO and cooperativeattitudetoward proceedings and remorse. See faitheffortto rectifyconsequences ofmisconduct, fulland freedisclosure priordisciplinaryrecord,personaland emotional problems, timelygood 88. However, fivemitigatingfactorsare alsopresent,includingabsence ofa

dishonestor selfishmotive and multipleoffenses. See Standards § 9.22. 87. In thiscase,thereare two aggravatingfactorspresent: Mr. Nolin's

mitigatingfactors. E.g.,Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at303. 86. The baselinesanctionmust be consideredin lightofany aggravatingand

4.41,and 5.11(b). sanctionforMr. Nolin'sconduct isdisbarment. See Standards §§ 4.11, 85. Under the foregoingcircumstances,the partiesagree thatthe baseline

fitnessto practicelaw. in any otherconduct thatreflectsadverselyon the lawyer's 5.14 Admonition is generallyappropriatewhen a lawyerengages reflectson the lawyer'sfitnessto practicelaw. fraud, deceit, ormisrepresentationand thatadversely engages in any otherconduct thatinvolvesdishonesty, 5.13 Reprimand isgenerallyappropriate when alawyerknowingly practice. seriouslyadverselyreflects on thelawyer'sfitnessto p. 18 Page 18of20

periodofthe suspension. d. Respondentwill engage in no professionalmisconductduringthe

form ofpayment plan with the PCC. prosecution,and ifunable to pay inlump sum, shallagreeto some Conduct Committee in connection with thisinvestigationand c. Respondent shallpay the expensesincurredby the Professional

of the date thatthe Committee acceptsthe Stipulation. the firstreportto be provided to DisciplinaryCounsel within60 days regardingMr. Nolin'scompliance with the Monitoring Agreement, with b. Ms. Hartiganshallsupply DisciplinaryCounsel with quarterlyreports

and meet with hisMonitor periodicallyas requiredby Ms. Hartigan. LAP ExecutiveDirectorCecileHartigan,contacthisMonitor weekly, per week,submitto randomalcoholand drugtestsattherequestof attendthreesupportgroup (suchas AlcoholicsAnonymous) meetings Nolin abstainfrom alcoholor drug use for aperiodof threeyears, MonitoringAgreement. Those requirements,in brief,are thatMr. a. Respondent shallcomply with allrequirementssetforthin the LAP

Conduct Committee acceptsthisStipulation: yearsofsuspension,which shallbegin onthe date the Professional 91. Mr. Nolinagreestocomply with thefollowingconditionsduring the three

(quotationand citationomitted). preventsimilarconduct in the future.'' Grew's Case, 156 N.H. 361, 365 (2007) publicconfidence in the bar,preservethe integrityofthe legalprofession,and power "isnot to inflictpunishment but ratherto protectthe public,maintain Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards"). The purpose of the Court'sdisciplinary (2005). This sanctionisalsoin accord with the ABA Standards forImposing Conner's Case 158 N.H. at303; Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. 155, 159-60 sanctionis inaccord with the purposes ofattorneydiscipline. See e.g., a three-yearsuspension with conditions.The Committee's recommended The Committee concludes thatthe appropriatedisciplinein thismatteris

IV. SANCTION p. 19 Page 19of20

subsequent proceeding ispending. not have to continueto comply with those provisionswhile the (c)If the conditions of Paragraphs91(a)-(c)have been met,Mr. Nolinwill

underlyingthisStipulationshallnot be closed. (b)Pending the final resolution of thesubsequentproceeding, thematter

findingoccurs beyond the three-yearsuspension period. finding ofmisconduct in thesubsequentproceeding,even ifsuch suspension,a disbarmentmay be imposedatsuch time asthereis a misconduct occurred,atleastinpart,during the three-yearperiodof ofsuspension("thesubsequentproceeding"),and the alleged (a)So long as a grievance or referral isfiledwithin the three-year period

91(d),the followingshallapply: yearperiodofsuspension,thusimplicatingthe conditionatParagraph 93. If a new grievanceor referralis filedagainstMr. Nolinduring the three

The PCC shallreview the decisionofthe Hearing Panel. Stipulationshallcontinuein forceand effectpursuantto itsterms. determines thatno conditionofthe Stipulationhas been violated,the Panel shallrecommend a disbarment. Ifthe Hearing Panel (c)If aHearing Panel determines thata conditionhas been violated,the

(a)-(c)has been violated. preponderance ofevidence thata conditionlistedin Paragraphs 104 be the burden of DisciplinaryCounsel to demonstrate by a (c)ofthisStipulationhas been violated.During such hearing,itshall decide the soleissueofwhether a conditionunder Paragraphs 91 (a)the Hearings Committee so thata Hearing Panel may be appointed to (b)Respondent may requestthatthe Committee remand the matterto

itsterms. violated,the Stipulationshallcontinuein forceand effectpursuantto Committee determines thatno conditionofthisStipulationhas been violated,the Committee shallrecommend a disbarment. Ifthe have been violated.Ifitdetermines thata conditionhas been whether any of the conditionsenumerated atParagraphs 91 (a)-(c) (a)Upon motion by DisciplinaryCounsel,the Committee may determine

Paragraphs 91(a)-(c)above,thefollowingshallapply: 92. If it is allegedthatMr. Nolin violatedany ofthe conditionsenumerated at p. 20 Page 20 of20

File Tanner Z. Nolin cc: Sara S. Greene, DisciplinaryCounsel

1.1;1.3; 1.4; 1.15;8.4(c);8.4(a)and Supreme Court Rule 50. suspension with conditionsforviolatingN.H. Rules ofProfessionalConduct For allof the above reasons,the Committee recommends a three-year

investigationand prosecutionofthismatter. agreement. Mr. Nolin shallbe responsiblefor allcostsassociatedwith the and prosecutionof thisdisciplinarymatter. The Committee approves this Tanner Z. Nolin has signed an agreement to pay costsof the investigation

during the three-yearperiod ofsuspension. grievance or referralinvolvingconduct of Respondent occurring (e)Nothing hereinshallbe construedto limitprosecutionofany new

enforcement ofthe terms and conditionsofthisStipulation. (d)The Respondent shallbear allcostsassociatedwith compliance and