Thomas P. Grodt (2016)

"Rules") as stipulated;approved the stipulatedsanctionforcases 10-040 and findingsofviolationsof the New Hampshire Rules of ProfessionalConduct (the Committee approved the factsas stipulated.The Committee then approved the The Committee approved the Motion. Having reviewed the Record, the

Holden, Vice Chair,Susan R. Chollet,and Margaret R. Kerouac were absent. Movafaghi, Georges J.Roy, Richard D. Sager and Martha Van Oot. Elaine Chair,PeterG. Beeson, Richard H. Darling,David W. McGrath, Mona T. Members presentincludedDavid M. Rothstein,Chair,Heather E. Krans, Vice Agreement to Pay Costs ofDisciplinaryMatter (collectively,the "Record"). Stipulationas to Facts,Violationsand Sanction (the"Stipulation");and the #13-040 With PreviouslyConsolidated #10-040 and #11-050 (the"Motion");the Committee Process (asto #10-040 and #11-050) and to ConsolidateDocket "Committee") deliberatedthe Assented-To Motion to Permit Waiver ofHearings On September 20, 2016, the ProfessionalConduct Committee (the

Grodt, Thomas P. advs. Attorney DisciplineOffice - #13-040 Grodt, Thomas P. advs. Richard A. Newcomb - #11-050; Grodt, Thomas P. advs. Raymond A. & Pamela F. Gerrior -#10-040;

Margaret R. Kerouac BarbaraJ. 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 Hampshire03301 Mona T. Movafaghi David M. Rothstein,Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 David W. McGrath

with physicalsymptoms he was experiencing. The thinkingbehind this alsoplanned to use the time to continue to see histherapistand deal suspension,hopefullywithout furtherdisciplinarycomplaints. Mr. Grodt cases,essentiallyto give Mr. Grodt time to serve the three-year 3. DisciplinaryCounsel agreed to staythe issueof sanctionon the 2012

reinstatement."3 "priorto or inconjunctionwith [Respondent's]requestfor sanction.The sanctionon the 2012 caseswas "stayed,"to be addressed the 2012 casesaddressingfactsand ruleviolations,but not as to 2012 ("the2012 cases").2 In 2012, Respondent signed stipulationson same time as the 2010 misconduct, butwhich were not resolveduntil contributedto misconduct in two othercaseswhich occurred around the complicationsofwhat was laterdiagnosed as thyroidcancer,also December 2010 ("the2010 case").*These problems, along with resultedin a three-yearsuspension from the practiceoflaw effective 2. Respondent's depressionand anxietycontributedto misconduct which

resolvethreedocketed matters. reasons setforthbelow, the partiessubmit thisglobalStipulationto healthchallengesover a period ofseven years. For theseand other Respondent who has dealtwith unique mental healthand physical 1. This case presentsa very unusual proceduralhistory.Italsopresentsa

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

prosecutionofthe threecases. agreement to reimburse the Committee forallcostsofinvestigationand sanctionofpubliccensure forCase No. 13-040; and voted to approve the imposed forCase No. LD-2010-0005 ("the2010 case");approved a separate concurrently,and retroactively,with the threeyear suspension previously 11-050 ("the2012 cases"),which sanctionisa sixmonth suspension to run p. 3 Page 3of18 DisciplinaryCounsel fileda jointmotion with the PCC to impose the Grodt fullyparticipated,and in March 2011, Mr. Grodt and thenby Mr. Grodt'smentors, theADO initiatedan investigation,inwhich Mr. unable to maintain compliance with the terms ofthe stay. Alertedto this 9. Unfortunately,Mr. Grodt'smental healthissuescontinued,and he was

forming the program and agreed to itsterms. monitoring Mr. Grodt in the practiceoflaw. Mr. Grodt participatedin the implementation ofan elaborate,but compassionate, structurefor ofthe ProfessionalConduct Committee. The staywas conditionedupon 8. The three-yearsuspensionwas originallystayed,upon recommendation

ofviolationsof Rules 1.3,1.4,8.1(b),and 8.4(c). resultofan assented-topetitionfor suspension. The disciplinearose out practiceoflaw, imposed by the Supreme Court on June 28, 2010, as the 7. Mr. Grodt iscurrentlysubjectto athree-yearsuspension from the

Massachusetts. Hampshire on May 27, 1997. He isalsoadmitted to practicelaw in 6. Respondent Thomas P. Grodt was admitted to the practiceoflaw in New

II. Previous Discipline:Three-Year Suspension,

and liver.The cancer isbeing managed by medication. cancer has metastasizedto Respondent's kidney, skull,lungs,ribs,hips, from thyroidcancer,diagnosed inApril 2013. Since thattime,the 5. At alltimes pertinentto the Summerview case,Respondent was suffering

signed pleadingsas a "member" ofthe entity. with two former employees ofthe entities.In theselawsuits,Respondent practiceoflaw by representinghisown entities(two LLCs) in litigation furtherbelow, Respondent negligentlyengaged in the unauthorized 2013 ("theSummerview case"). In the Summerview case,as setforth 2014. Those events resultedin a complaint filedwith the ADO inAugust cases,but foreventswhich occurred from April 2013 through October year suspension expired,as contemplated by the PCC Order in the 2012 4. Respondent would have appliedforreinstatementshortlyafterhisthree-

Grodt never appliedfor reinstatement. in partby the same personalchallengesfacingMr. Grodt. However, Mr. near the eventsleadingto the sanctionin the 2010 case and was caused reinstatement,sincethe underlyingconduct for the 2012 casesoccurred forreinstatementand then-DisciplinaryCounsel would not oppose the staywas thatafterthe term ofsuspension expired,Mr. Grodt could apply p. 4 Page4ofl8

with the threeyear suspension previouslyimposed forCase No. LDofa retroactively-appliedsixmonth suspension running concurrently thisOrder as Exhibits1 and 2, the Committee now imposes the sanction on itsreview ofthe stipulationsforthe 2012 cases,which are attachedto served suspension in the 2010 case,and thathas now concluded. Based was a six-month suspension,to run concurrentlywith the retroactivelyproposed to the PCC, thatthe appropriatesanctionfor the 2012 cases lengthoftime sincethe 2012 Stipulations,the partiesagreed,and atthe time,and both the changes in the Respondent's healthand the 2010), the underlyingpersonaland healthissuesRespondent was facing 15. Given the datesofthe events thatled to the 2012 Stipulations(2008-

theADO. and voluntarilyassentedto the reliefrequestedin a motion to the PCC by 14. Mr. Grodt cooperated with theADO in itsinvestigationofthe 2012 cases,

suspension. misconduct in the 2012 caseswould likelyhave warranted a periodof might have been consolidatedwith the 2010 case. The underlying 13. The 2012 cases,but forunusual staffturnoverattheADO (supra, fn. 2),

Mr. Grodt'sthyroidcancer,which was then undiagnosed. 2010 case,and was exacerbatedby othersymptoms laterattributedto mental healthchallengesthatMr. Grodt was facingatthe time ofthe 12. The misconduct in the 2012 caseswas caused in partby the same

2012 cases;therewas no stipulatedsanctionin eithercase. stipulationswere limitedto thefactsand ruleviolationsinvolved in the occurred during the same time periodcovered by the 2010 case. These suspension. All ofthe misconduct leadingto the 2012 Stipulations in the Newcomb matterbegan in 2008 and concluded with his2010 Gerrior matterbegan in 2009 and concluded in 2010. His representation Newcomb matters("the2012 cases"). Mr. Grodt'srepresentationin the 11. Attached as Exhibits1 and 2 are the Stipulationsinthe Gerrior and

III. Sanction for 2012 Cases (Newcomb & Gerrior)

December 6, 2013. 6, 2011, retroactiveto December 6, 2010. The suspension expiredon 10. The Court imposed the recommended term ofsuspension on September

December 6. Mr. Grodt did not object. the impositionof the entirethree-yearsuspension,retroactiveto suspended discipline.The PCC agreed,and recommended to the Court p. 5 Page 5of18

Other than appearing for LLCs in which he held an ownership interest, was able to actas a lawyer, and was never paid for the representation. signed any pleadingas "Esq.,"never representedto a tribunalthathe litigationbetween the LLCs and two former employees. Mr. Grodt never furthersetforthbelow. The attempted appearances allconcerned 22. Mr. Grodt appliedto appear for theseentitiesin variousforums as

ofboth LLCs. Summerview Real Estate,LLC. Mr. Grodt was a member and partowner appearance in courton behalfofSummerview Energy, LLC and practiceoflaw. This matterwas docketed based on Mr. Grodt's 21. This representationtook placewhile Mr. Grodt was suspended from the

matterwas referredto DisciplinaryCounsel in September 2015. lawsuitthatSummerview Energy LLC initiatedagainstBlanes. The practiceoflaw ("UPL") by representingSummerview Energy LLC in a he alleged, interalia, thatMr. Grodt was engaged in the unauthorized 20. ChristopherLee Blanes fileda grievance dated August 19, 2013, inwhich

V. Overview ofSummerview matter (Docket No. 13-040)

may be able to resume the practice,albeitin a differentformat. cancer. As hisconditionimproves, however, he regainshope thathe 19. Mr. Grodt refrainedfrom applying for reinstatementas he fought the

visitsa counselor,he no longertakesmedication for those conditions. depressionand anxietysymptoms disappeared. While he stillregularly thyroidgland,and upon initiatingthyroidhormone treatment,his depressionand anxiety. Following surgeryto remove hiscancerous 18. For years priorto hiscancer diagnosis,Mr. Grodt sufferedfrom

time job with FedEx Ground. summer of2015, and hisconditionhas stabilized.He has taken a part- 17. Fortunately,Mr. Grodt was introducedto a new drug regimen in the

confirming the medical history. Mr. Grodt has suppliedDisciplinaryCounsel with medical records has sincemetastasizedto hiskidney, skull,lungs,ribs,hips,and liver. offorms ofcancer. What was diagnosed as thyroidcancer inApril 2013 16. For the pastmore than threeyears,Mr. Grodt has sufferedfrom a variety

IV. Mr. Grodt'sMedical History (2013 - Present)

2010-0005. p. 6 Page 6of18

relevanttimes,therewere only two members ofthe LLC. percentageinterestin Summerview Energy, LLC. As a result,atall Summerview Energy. Mr. Simpson eventuallyrelinquishedhiscapital 29. Mr. Grodt eventuallycame to hold a 50% ownership interestin

with Summerview Energy. 28. From February to December 2012, Mr. Grodt investeda totalof$55,000

or actas an attorneyfor the LLC while under suspension. recorded,so thatallmembers ofthe LLC understood he could not appear . . ."Mr. Grodt asked for the resolutionto be introduced,adopted, and regulations,perform administrativefunctions,and help in othermatters. attorney,"Mr. Grodt "could loan the company money, review documents, licensedto practicelaw and could not representthe entity"as an Mr. Trefethenin attendance,statethatalthough Mr. Grodt was not 27. Minutes from a meeting held on January 20, 2012, with Mr. Grodt and

(1%), and Mr. Grodt (1%). includedTrefethen (98% capitalpercentageinterest),James Simpson 26. Members ofSummerview Energy, as ofitsformation inJanuary 2012,

Energy. 25. Steve Trefethenisthe registeredagent and manager ofSummerview

"providing]energy brokerage and aggregationservices." limitedliabilitycompany createdon January 18, 2012 for the purpose of 24. Summerview Energy LLC ("Summerview Energy") isa New Hampshire

VI. Background on Summerview Energy, LLC

agreed thathisengaging in UPL was a resultofnegligence. less-than-certainstateoflaw regardingthisstatute,the partieshave historyand being permittedby atleastone courtto proceed. Given the own entityin court,and did so only afterdisclosinghisdisciplinary faitheffortto review and understand the statutewhen he representedhis the case law interpretingthesestatutes.Mr. Grodt undertook a good contoursofwhat constitutespracticing"commonly isnot well-definedin prohibitsa nonlawyer from representinganother"commonly." The representedby any citizenofgood character."RSA 311:7,however, statuteprovides that"a partyin any cause or proceeding . . .may be he was entitledto do so as a nonlawyer pursuantto RSA 311:1. That 23. Rather,he appeared on behalfofSummerview believingatthe time that

he never appeared in litigationfora thirdparty. p. 7 Page 7of18

LLC." 39. Mr. Grodt signed the Complaint as "Member ofSummerview Energy,

DistrictDivision,Deny. Summerview Energy. Case No. 431-2013-SC-00179, 10th Circuit, employment agreement with Summerview Energy and owed funds to Complaint on April 2, 2013, allegingthatMr. Blanes breached his 38. Mr. Grodt, on behalfofSummerview Energy, fileda Small Claim

receivedhisdiagnosisin April 2013. 37. The firstsymptoms of Mr. Grodt'scancer appeared in February 2013. He

36. Mr. Blanes was firedforcause on January 24, 2013.

18, 2012, as well as an undated Non-Competition Agreement. documents, includinga Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement dated October salesrepresentative.As partofhisemployment, he signed a varietyof 35. Mr. Blanes began working for Summerview Energy in May 2012 as a

Grodt could not appear as itsattorneywhile he was under suspension. 34. Summerview Real Estatealsoadopted a resolutionrecognizingthatMr.

Agents of Summerview Real Estate,LLC." sold through Summerview Real Estate,LLC, excluding energy sold by any commission forenergy sold on behalfofSummerview Energy thatis 33. The offerofmembership to Mr. Grodt "would includea 50% payment of

(40%), and Mr. Grodt (10%). Laura L. Trefethen,as trusteeofthe Laura L. TrefethenRevocable Trust Trefethen,as trusteeofthe Steven M. Trefethen Revocable Trust(50%), 32. As ofJanuary 3, 2012, the members ofSummerview Real Estatewere

31. Mr. Trefethenisthe sole manager ofSummerview Real Estate.

Hampshire." 6, 2002 for the purpose of"thebrokeringofrealestatein New Hampshire manager-managed limitedliabilitycompany createdon May 30. Summerview Real EstateLLC ("Summerview Real Estate")isa New

VII. Background ofSummerview Real Estate,LLC p. 8 Page 8 of18 4This appears to be a typographicalerror,or atleastisconfusing.

on October 29, 2014. 49. Mr. Grodt representedSummerview Energy atthe hearingon the merits

lawyer, to continue to filepleadingsfor the LLC. 48. The Court accepted the pleadingsand allowed Mr. Grodt, now a non-

ruleviolations,which appliedto him as a lawyer. 47. Mr. Grodt completed the affidavitby disclosinghis2010 misconduct and

lawyers4 except as follows: ..." orderor any provisionsofthe Rules ofProfessionalConduct applicableto 2: "That I have not been found by any courtto have violateda court 46. The Rule 1.3D Affidavitsigned by Mr. Grodt, however, statedatQuestion

(otherthan himself,i.e.truly pro se), except as disclosedin the Affidavit. applicableto nonlawyers, and has not appeared on behalfofany party has not been found to have violatedthe rulesofprofessionalconduct good character,i.e.,has not been convictedoffeloniesor misdemeanors, regardingwhether the person seeking to appear on behalfofanotherisof 45. The Rule 1.3D Affidavitismeant to provide the courtwith information

to Rule 1.3D dated May 16, 2014. (1)the Small Claims Manager's Certificate,and (2)an AffidavitPursuant appear for Summerview Energy, Mr. Grodt provided the Court with both 44. On May 16, 2014, in supportofhispositionthathe was entitledto

representSummerview Energy because he was a suspended lawyer. 43. During the litigationMr. Blanes assertedthatMr. Grodt could not

performed a thyroidectomy and removed a largetumor from hisneck. 42. Mr. Grodt'sfirstcancer surgeryoccurred inJune 2013. The surgeons

Motion for Summary Judgment. Energy, includingObjectionsto Defendant'sMotions to Dismiss and/or 41. Mr. Grodt filedvariousmotions and pleadingson behalfofSummerview

Court..."(the"Small Claims Manager's Certificate"). Energy, LLC to prosecuteany and allsmall claims matterbefore the Summerview and authorizedhim to "appear on behalfofSummerview Summerview Energy, confirmed thatMr. Grodt was a member of Certificate"dated April 1, 2012, inwhich Mr. Trefethen,as Manager for 40. Mr. Grodt filedsimultaneouslywith the Complaint a "Manager's p. 9 Page 9of18 DistrictDivision,Deny. The Court consolidatedthe two cases. Minority Business Services,on April 8, 2013. Case No. 431-2013-SC-00186, 10th Circuit, of Summerview Energy, alsofileda Small Claims Complaint againstMr. Blanes'entity, 5Nearly simultaneouswith hissmall claims complaint againstMr. Blanes, Mr. Grodt, on behalf

Court to submit (1) apower ofattorneysigned by the party,authorizing requiresany persons seeking to appear on behalfofa partyin Superior 59. SuperiorCourt Rule 20 governs Non-Attorney Representatives.The Rule

service. 58. The matterwas dismissed on October 29, 2013 for failureto complete

he chose not to pursue the matterfurther. 57. Thereafter,Mr. Grodt did not complete serviceupon Mr. Blanes because

the Petitionerpriorto a furtherhearing." did not appear "thatimmediate and irreparableinjury. . .willresultto 56. On August 21, 2013, the petitionwas denied on an ex parte basisas it

Non-Compete Agreement. as well as the provisionsof the Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement and non-compete and non-disclosureprovisionsofthe SalesRep Agreement, 55. The ex parte petitionalleged, interalia, thatMr. Blanes had violatedthe

54. Mr. Grodt signed the petitionas "Member Summerview Energy, LLC."

CV-00901. The Small Claims mattershad not yet been adjudicated. Summerview Energy in Rockingham SuperiorCourt. Case No. 218-2013parte petitionforinjunctivereliefagainstMr. Blanes on behalfof 53. On August 21, 2013, atMr. Trefethen'surging,Mr. Grodt filedan ex

Summerview Energy for$7,891.08.s 52. On December 5, 2014, the Court enteredjudgment in favor of

the representativeforSummerview Energy. the courtallowed Mr. Grodt to proceed atthe hearingon the meritsas 51. Afterhearingthe objections,and having reviewed the Rule 1.3D Affidavit,

suspension. not an attorneyin good standing, i.e., was stillunder disciplinary as a representativeofSummerview Energy on the grounds thathe was 50. At the hearing,Mr. Blanes again urged the Court to disqualifyMr. Grodt p. 10 Page 10of18

69. Mr. Grodt signed the Complaint "as member Summerview Energy."

Case No. 218-2013-CV-01233. Complaint to Appeal Labor Board Decision regardingMr. Ferris'sclaim. 68. On November 8, 2013, Mr. Grodt filedin Rockingham SuperiorCourt a

67. Mr. Grodt'sthirdcancer surgerytook place in October 2013.

wages and liquidateddamages to Mr.Ferrisof $11,156. 66. After a hearinginwhich Mr. Grodt did not participate,the DOL awarded

65. Mr. Grodt endured a second cancer surgeryon September 19, 2013.

him unpaid weekly wages. Case No. 45910. Mr. Ferrisclaimed thatSummerview Real Estateowed Department ofLabor ("DOL") againstSummerview Real Estate. DOL 64. On May 7, 2013, Mr. Ferrisfileda wage claim with the New Hampshire

from approximately September 25, 2012 to March 2013. 63. Joseph Ferrisworked for Summerview Real Estateas a licensedrealtor

StateofNHDept. ofLabor, in Rockingham X. Summerview Real Estate,LLC and Summerview Energy, LLC v.

has approved thisstipulatedmental state. actiondescribedabove to disclosehissuspended status,the Committee the care taken by Mr. Grodt within hisLLCs and in the small claims requiredby Rule 20 was negligent.In lightofthesecircumstancesand 62. The partiesstipulatedthatMr. Mr. Grodt'sfailureto filedocuments

documents. Mr. Grodt concluded therewas no need to subsequentlyfilethe parte petition,and the decisionmade to pursue the matterno further- Grodt'sbeliefthatthe rulewas vague, the court'squick denialofthe ex haste,thatthe clerk'sofficerequiredno filingof such documents, Mr. 61. Under the circumstances- includingthathe had filedthe petitionin

Summerview's behalf. 60. Mr. Grodt filedneitherdocument with the SuperiorCourt on

event by which thesedocuments must be filed. informationabout theirpastconduct. The Rule setsforthno firm date or the appearance,and (2)an affidavitofthe person to appear,disclosing p. 11 Page 11 of18 2014, Mr. Grodt had appeared on behalfofSummerview in the two small claims actionsin appearances foranyone or anything otherthan the individualhimselfor herself.By February 6This statementwas inaccurateto the extentthisquestionseeks informationregarding

any actionfor any party,otherthan himself,in any court.6 Rule 20 affidavitasking whether he had appeared, pled,or prosecuted 78. Second, Mr. Grodt inaccuratelyanswered "none" to the questionon the

rulesvia Rule 8.5 atthe time he completed the Rule 20 Affidavit. priorviolations.Mr. Grodt was unaware ofthe broad applicabilityofthe Panel.Accordingly, even as a non-lawyer, he should have disclosedhis pursuantto the terms ofthe Stipulationhe submitted to a Hearing Grodt had previouslyadmitted to violatingRules 1.3,1.4,and 8.4(c) to nonlawyer representatives,includingRules 1.3,1.4 and 8.4. Mr. 77. But Rule 8.5 ofthe Rules of ProfessionalConduct appliescertainrules

he was a lawyer. had previouslyviolated, ie., those applying to him in hiscapacitywhen concerned Rules otherthan thosewhich appliedto him and which he believeda "none" answer was correct,as he assumed the inquiry applicableto nonlawyer representatives.Mr. Grodt would testifythathe claims matters,correctlyreferencesrulesofprofessionalconduct 76. This form, unlike the Rule 1.3D AffidavitMr. Grodt signed in the small

conduct applicableto nonlawyer representatives." found by a courtto have violated"any ofthe rulesof professional Question 3 asks whether the individualexecutingtheAffidavithas been 75. First,Mr. Grodt answered "none" to Question 3 on the Rule 20 Affidavit.

74. Mr. Grodt inaccuratelyanswered two questionson the Rule 20 Affidavit.

Rule 20 Appearance on Behalfofa Corporation" on February 6, 2014. 73. Mr. Grodt fileda "Nonlawyer Affidavitas Required by SuperiorCourt

wage claim. authorizedMr. Grodt to acton Summerview's behalffor purposes ofthe 72. The aforesaidManager's Certificatewas executed on May 15, 2013 and

Certificate." Summerview Energy, LLC and authorizedby a validManager's 71. On February 6, 2014 Mr. Grodt filedan appearance "as member of

week. 37 radiationtreatments.The treatmentswere administeredfivedays per 70. During the months of November and December 2013, Mr. Grodt received p. 12 Page 12of18

made for partiesotherthan himselfand entitiesinwhich he held an ownership interest. relief.Mr. Grodt would testifythathe believedthe questionsought informationon filingshe Deny DistrictCourt, as well as in the Rockingham SuperiorCourt actionseeking injunctive

hisappearance in most ofthe otherSummerview matters. 88. Mr. Grodt fileda Rule 33(2) Affidavitnotinghispreviousdisciplineand

wage claim. Summerview Real Estateand Summerview Energy to appeal the Ferris both dated June 16, 2014, authorizingMr. Grodt to acton behalfof 87. The Notice ofAppeal was accompanied by two Manager's Certificates,

appealingthe SuperiorCourt'sOrder ofApril 23, 2014. Grodt fileda Notice ofAppeal in the Supreme Court on July 15, 2014, 86. On behalfofSummerview Real Estateand Summerview Energy, Mr.

Notice ofAppeal filedwith the Supreme Court

XI. Summerview Real Estate,LLC v. Ferris, No. 2014-0468,

treatment. 85. In July2014, Mr. Grodt experienced hisfirstradioactiveiodine

84. Mr. Grodt endured a partialnephrectomy inApril 2014.

attorney'sfees to Mr. Ferris. Order dated April 23, 2014 affirmingthe DOL's award and awarding 83. The Court held a hearingon February 20, 2014, afterwhich itissuedan

purposes of the Ferriswage claim. 82. Thereafter,Mr. Trefethenappeared on behalfofSummerview for

comply with the obligationsofrepresentingSummerview. statementsto the Court, he was not medically stableand could not not appear on behalfofSummerview because, based on Mr. Grodt'sown 81. The SuperiorCourt ordered on February 12, 2014 thatMr. Grodt could

"sweeps in" certainrulesapplicableto nonlawyers. treatmentsand not athisbest. He furtherwas unaware thatRule 8.5 explainedthatatthe time, he was on the heelsof37 radiation 80. Mr. Grodt tolddisciplinarycounsel thathe regretstheseoversights,and

79. The partiesstipulatedthatthe inaccuracieswere negligent. p. 13 Page 13 of18

Committee willnot addresstheADO's position. Because the questionofreadmission isnot before the Committee, the grievancesor violations,theADO willnot oppose hisapplication. Stipulation,and Mr. Grodt appliesfor readmission with no other 97. The ADO has indicatedthatifthe Committee acceptsthe parties'

and observations,he believesthisisan underserved population. directivedocuments forcancer patients.Based on hisown experience he plansto starta practicefocusingon health-careproxy and end-of-life disciplinaryissuesisthereforeextremely importantto him. Ifsuccessful, 96. Mr. Grodt hopes to reapplyforadmission to the bar. Resolving these

stabilizedhiscondition. 95. Mr. Grodt alsostarteda new drug regimen, which seems to have

iodine. 94. In July2015, Mr. Grodt underwent a second treatmentwith radioactive

ribs,hip,liver,skull,and possiblyto hisspleen. 93. By the Spring of2015, the cancer had metastasizedto Mr. Grodt'slungs,

radiationtreatments. 92. In October and November 2014, Mr. Grodt underwent a second setof

metastasisofthe cancer. He wore an eye patch for more than one year. 91. In September 2014, Mr. Grodt experienced double visioncaused by

demonstrated good character. Summerview because,given hisdisciplinaryhistory,Mr. Grodt had not Grodt'srequestto appear as the non-attorneyrepresentativeof 90. In an Order dated September 26, 2014, the Supreme Court denied Mr.

Court Rules was negligent. stipulated,and thisCommittee agrees,thatany violationofthe Supreme conceal hisoveralldisciplinaryhistoryfrom the Court. The parties his2010 lawyer disciplinenegatesany notion thathe was attemptingto natureofthe inquiry. See supra atUf 76-77. Moreover, hisdisclosureof answer was a mistaken understandingon hispartofRule 8.5 and the applicableto a non-lawyer representative.Again, Mr. Grodt contends the violatedany ofthe provisionsofthe rulesofprofessionalconduct 89. Mr. Grodt'sRule 33(2) Affidavitinaccuratelystatedthathe had never p. 14 Page 14 of18 administratively-suspendedlawyer who, unlikeMr. Grodt, "filed 102. Mr. Grodt'sconduct isalsodistinguishablefrom thatofanother

organization. 129 N.H. at180. Settle isthereforedistinguishable. continueto appear "as a matterofcourse" in courtson behalfof that ofan unincorporatedassociationand statedopenly thathe intendedto Settle, the nonlawyer representativehad appeared many times on behalf 101. What constitutespracticing"commonly" has not been established.In

137 N.H. 226(1987). 714-716 (1993); New England Capital Corp. v.The Finlay Company, Inc., 171 (1987); Appeal ofCampaign forRatepayers'Rights, 137 N.H. 707, a matterofcourse for others.SeeRSA311:7; State v. Settle, 129 N.H. anotherperson or entityin an individualcase - but not "commonly" or as appear only (a)on hispersonalbehalf, i.e., truly pro se, or (b)on behalfof 100. New Hampshire case law clarifiesthatRSA 311:1 allows laycounsel to

negligent. constitutedthe unauthorizedpracticeoflaw; and thatthe violationwas 99. Mr. Grodt admits thathisconduct,as setforthherein supra UK 35-90,

lawyer isadmitted to practicelaw in thisjurisdiction. (2)hold out to the publicor otherwiserepresentthatthe presence in thisjurisdictionfor the practiceoflaw; or establishan officeor othersystematicand continuous (1)except as authorizedby theseRules or otherlaw, shallnot: (b) A lawyer who isnot admitted to practicein thisjurisdiction anotherin doing so. the regulationof the legalprofessionin thatjurisdiction,or assist (a) A lawyer shallnot practicelaw in a jurisdictionin violationof

98. Rule 5.5 statesin pertinentpartas follows:

XIII. DisciplinaryRules Violated(Summerview)

by clearand convincing evidence: thatThomas P. Grodt has violatedthe followingRules ofProfessionalConduct The Committee concludes thatthereisclearand convincing evidence

II. RULINGS OF LAW p. 15 Page 15of18

describedherein,violatedRule ofProfessionalConduct 8.4(a). 107. There isclearand convincing evidence thatMr. Grodt'sconduct,as

determinationofthe appropriatesanctionin Case No. 13-040. Accordingly, theserulesare not consideredin the Committee's clearand convincing evidence ofa knowing violationofeitherrule. did not exist.The Committee agrees thatthe record does not provide evidence of"knowing^' misconduct—required under each oftheserules— and 3.4. DisciplinaryCounsel concluded thatclearand convincing theADO alsoconsideredwhether Mr. Grodt'sconduct violatedRule 3.3 Rule 20, or thatinaccuratelyanswered questionsin the Rule 20 Affidavit, Court thateitherfailedto includedocuments requiredby SuperiorCourt 106. Because Mr. Grodt filedappearances in Rockingham County Superior

Rule 3.3 and 3.4:Candor to theTribunal and ViolationofCourt Rules

authorityregardingthe meaning of"commonly" as used in RSA 311:7. during the relevanttimeframe, and because thereisno definitive Committee agrees both due to Mr. Grodt'srecurrentmedical problems the pertinenttime period,and thathisconduct was negligent.The 105. The partieshave furtheragreed thatMr. Grodt was gravelyillthroughout

LLCs inviolationof RSA 311:7. instance.Rather,thiscrossed the lineinto"commonly" representingthe approximately 16 months and in four separateforums, isnot an isolated Summerview entitiesagainsttwo individualsin sixmatters,over stipulated,and thisCommittee agrees,thatrepresentingtwo different 104. Given the case law and the totalityofthe circumstances,the partieshave

before the Supreme Court in filingthe Notice ofAppeal. wage claim,before the SuperiorCourt appealingthatclaim,and then the (short-lived)petitionfor injunctiverelief,before the DOL for the Ferris "commonly" practicingwhen he went on to appear in SuperiorCourt for 311:1 for Mr. Grodt to appear in an isolatedinstance,he ventured into 103. The partiesagree thatalthough itmay have been permissibleunder RSA

requiredRule 1.3D affidavits. Id. at71. paid as an attorney. He alsofailedin any ofthe mattersto filethe 140 N.H. 68, 70 (1995). Tocci was representingthirdpartiesand being representedto othersthathe was a practicingattorney." Tocci'sCase, himselfas an attorney,draftedletterson behalfofclients,and pleadingson behalfofa number ofdifferentclientsinwhich he identified p. 16 Page 16 of18

oflaw violateddutiesowed to public. Under the firstprong ofthe analysis,Mr. Grodt'sunauthorizedpractice

Prong I:Duty Violated

sanction. See id. anY aggravatingor mitigatingfactorsand whether they affectthe baseline Court then looks to the fourthand finalpartofthe analysis:the existenceof Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at303. Once the baselinesanctionisdetermined,the characterizingthe misconduct and determining a 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 existenceofaggravatingor 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,

Sanctions(2005) ("Standards")supportthissanction. law and theAmerican Bar Association'sStandardsforImposing Lawyer appropriatesanctionfor the Rule 5.5 violationfound in thiscase.Both case Case No. 13-040: The partieshave stipulatedthata publiccensure isthe

suspension for the 2012 cases,expired on December 6, 2013. Accordingly, the threeyear suspension,and the retroactively-appliedsix-month No. LD-2010-0005 on September 6, 2011, retroactiveto December 6, 2010. 2010-0005. The Supreme Court imposed the threeyear suspension forCase run concurrentlywith the three-yearsuspension imposed in Case No. LDsanctionforthe 2012 casesisa retroactively-appliedsixmonth suspension to partiesstipulated,and the Committee has now agreed,thatthe appropriate The 2012 Cases: As indicatedpreviously, seeparagraph 15, supra, the

III. SANCTION ANALYSIS p. 17 Page 17of18

history. See Standards § 9.22. In thiscase,one aggravatingfactorispresent: Mr. Grodt'sdisciplinary

Aggravating Factors:

baselinesanctionin Case No. 13-040 ispubliccensure. injury orpotentialinjury to aclient,the publicor the legalsystem."The in conduct thatisa violationofa duty owed as a professionaland causes in New Hampshire) isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer negligently engages conduct fallswithinSection7.3 ofthe Standards:"Reprimand (publiccensure Based on the foregoing,the Committee concludes thatMr. Grodt's

attorney.Mr. Grodt'sbehavior potentiallydisturbedthatbalance. on lawyers,butitmust alsobe open to thosewho cannot find or affordan access tojustice.The courtsystem operatesas smoothly as itdoes by relying 311:1. While an ancientrule,the statutecan be seen as one guaranteeing "commonly practicing,"Mr. Grodt circumvented the policyreasonsbehind RSA There was potentialinjury,however, in thatby crossingthe lineinto i.e., where a statuteempowers nonlawyers to appear on behalfofanother. There isa dearthofcase law addressingUPL in thisparticularcontext,

appearance because he isone ofthe owners. Summerview entities,butviewed the representationalmost as a form oipro se issues.Mr. Grodt did not charge anyone for hisrepresentationofthe fullknowledge ofMr. Grodt'sdisciplinarybackground and an airingofall appearing on behalfofSummerview, the Court permittedthe appearance,with conduct did not cause actualinjury.While Mr. Blanes objectedto Mr. Grodt actualor potentialinjurycaused by Mr. Grodt'smisconduct. Mr. Grodt's The thirdprong ofthe sanctionanalysisrequiresan assessment ofthe

Prong III:Injuryor PotentialInjury

"commonly", the Committee has approved thisfinding. pointatwhich the representationofthe LLCs by a non-lawyer was occurring Respondent, and the unclearguidance providedby RSA 311:7 regardingthe negligent.Given the seriousmedical and emotionalproblems sufferedby the sanctionanalysis,the partieshave stipulatedthatMr. Grodt'smental statewas With respectto Mr.Grodt'smental stateunder the second prong of the

Prong II:Mental State:Intent/Knowing or Negligent p. 18 Page 18 of18

File William C. Saturley,Esquire cc: Sara S. Greene, DisciplinaryCounsel

November 29, 2016 ^V. V m f,

investigationand prosecutionofallofthe consolidatedcases. agreement. Mr. Grodt shallbe responsiblefor allcostsassociatedwith the prosecutionofthisdisciplinarymatter. The Committee approves this Mr. Grodt has signed an agreement to pay costsof the investigationand

Case, 156 N.H. 361, 365 (2007) (quotationand citationomitted). ofthe legalprofession,and preventsimilarconduct in the future." Grew's protectthe public,maintain publicconfidence in the bar,preservethe integrity the Court'sdisciplinarypower "isnot to inflictpunishment but ratherto Standards forImposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards"). The purpose of N.H. 155, 159-60 (2005). This sanctionisalsoin accord with the ABA discipline. See, e.g.,Conner's Case 158 N.H. at303; Richmond's Case, 152 Committee's recommended sanctionisin accord with the purposes ofattorney 6, 2010 (in#10-040 and #11-050), and a publiccensure in #13-040. The matterfor the 2012 casesisa sixmonth suspension,retroactiveto December In sum, the Committee concludes thatthe appropriatedisciplinein this

#13-040. the purposes ofdisciplineand isan appropriatesanctionin case merited,given Mr. Grodt'spreviousdiscipline.A publiccensure serves partiesagree thatno downward departurefrom publiccensure is Although thereare more mitigatingfactorsthan aggravatingfactors,the

and emotional problems. See Standards § 9.32. a dishonestor selfishmotive,physicaldisability,remorse, and personal Mitigatingfactorsincludefulland freedisclosureto theADO, absence of

MitigatingFactors: