Charles F. O'Leary (2017)

findingsby clearand convincingevidence: The Committee determined thatthe Record supportsthefollowingfactual

publiccensurewas an appropriatesanction. Finally,theCommittee agreed thatthe Stipulation'srecommendation ofa theCommittee for allcostsofinvestigationand prosecutionofthismatter. (the"Rules")as stipulated,and votedtoapprove theagreement toreimburse thefindingsofviolationsoftheNew Hampshire Rules ofProfessionalConduct stipulated,by clearand convincingevidence. TheCommittee then approved Having reviewed theRecord, the Committee approved thefactsas

Chair was recused. GeorgesJ.Roy, RichardD. Sager and Martha Van Oot. David M.Rothstein, H. Darling, MargaretR. Kerouac, DavidW. McGrath, Mona T.Movafaghi, Chair,ElaineHolden, Vice Chair,PeterG. Beeson,Susan R. Chollet,Richard (collectively,the"Record").Members presentincludedHeather E. Krans,Vice "Stipulation"),and theAgreement to Pay Costs of DisciplinaryMatter "Committee")deliberated the Stipulation as to Factsand RuleViolation(the On September 20,2016,theProfessionalConduct Committee (the

O'Leary,CharlesF. advs.AttorneyDisciplineOffice- #25-030

the IAC claim. claim. In an orderdated November 3, 2014, theSuperiorCourt denied 10. On October 16, 2014, the SuperiorCourt held a hearingon theIAC

on the IAC claim. Hausman's handlingoftheDirectAppeal. They alsodiscussedstrategy 9. Ms. Hausman and Mr. O'Leary spoke by phone atleasttwiceabout Ms.

O'Leary torepresentMr. Grande on theIAC claim. 8. In an orderdated June 19,2014, theSuperiorCourt appointed Mr.

ineffectiveassistanceoftrialcounsel claim (the"IAC claim"). Mr. Grande topursue a Motion for New Trialbased solelyon his DirectAppeal. On April22, 2014, the DirectAppeal was stayedto enable ineffectiveassistanceofcounselwith theSuperiorCourt,insteadofon Grande why she believedthatitwas preferablethathe raisetheissueof 7. In correspondencedatedApril 7,2014, Ms. Hausman explainedto Mr.

Appeal. Defender'sOfficewas appointed to representMr. Grande on theDirect Appeal").Stephanie Hausman ofthe New Hampshire Appellate Supreme Court (the"Court"),which theCourt accepted (the"Direct Donald C. Topham, filed a Notice of Appealwith theNew Hampshire 6. On November 14,2013, Mr. Grande, through then-defensecounsel,

15 yearsinprison. guiltyofarmed robbery. Mr. Grande was latersentencedto serve 7 Vfc to 5. On September 16,2013, following ajurytrial,Oscar Grande was found

below. Thecasewas referredtoDisciplinaryCounsel on April 13,2016. handlingan ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel case as furthersetforth theADO based on Mr.O'Leary'sfailure to file a notice ofappealafter 4. By letterdatedJune 25, 2015,StephanieHausman filed a grievancewith

3. Mr. O'Leary has no disciplinaryhistory.

is"registrationsuspension"(equivalent ofadministrationsuspension). 2. Mr. O'Learywas admitted topracticeinMaine in 1987. His statusthere

He was admitted to practicein 1986. 1. Mr. O'Learyis an attorney licensedto practice law inNew Hampshire.

orders)contactedMr. O'Leary to inform him thatMr. Grande filedthe 19. NeitherMr. Grande nor Ms. Hausman(who was copied ontheCourt's

NOA. resultinginthe Court'sdenial ofhismotion to allowthelate filingofthe 18. However,Mr. Grande failedtofiletheNOA on or before March 23, 2015,

rule onhismotion to allow latefilingofa noticeofappeal." with Rule 7 on or before March 23, 2015, afterwhich thecourtwould directedMr. Grande "tofilea notice of discretionary appeal in compliance the NOA. In an orderdated March 2,2015, the Supreme Court clerk NOA passed),Mr. Grande fileda pro se motion to allow the latefilingof 17. On February 6, 2015 (more than a month afterthedeadline to filethe

theissueupon which he was appointed. 16. AttorneyO'Leary didnot filea Noticeof Appeal inthe Supreme Court on

officeemail. smartphone (whichhe didnot have in2014) which issynched tohis such a mistakewillnot occur again. Forexample,he now has a 15. Mr. O'Learystatesthathe has sinceimproved hispractice toensurethat

fewweeks largelyout of theoffice,and one which he deeplyregrets. emails, an oversightthatoccurred in therush of reviewing emails after a believes hesimplydid not"scrolldown" farenough to get totheoldest emails(whichincludedMs. Hausman'semailregardingtheNOA). He received and opened all of his newer emails,butnottheoldestunopened atthattime.When he returnedto the office aftertheholidays, he 22, 2014, and then the holidaysensued and he did notreview theemails them. He was outof townfrom December 18,2014 throughDecember thathe did not see eitherofMs. Hausman's emails at thetime she sent 14. Mr. O'Learydid not respond toMs. Hausman's email.Mr. O'Learystated

discretionaryNOA by Jan. 2." weeks and Ijustwanted to make sure that you are on trackforfilingthe stating:"Justcheckingin onthiscase again. I will beout forthenext2 13. On December22,2014,Ms. Hausman, onceagain,emailedMr. O'Leary,

Mr. O'Leary failedto respond to thatemail. thepost-trialissues and, if not, whether you intend to doso?" However, "whetheryou havefileda discretionary[NoticeofAppeal(the"NOA")] on 12. On December 18,2014,Ms. Hausman emailedMr. O'Learyasking

Superior Court's decision, which was denied on November 25,2014. 11. On November 12,2014, Mr. O'Learyfiled amotion toreconsiderthe p. 4 Page 4 of7

two emails from Ms. Hausman askingwhether he intendedto filethe NOA for his email uponreturnfrom time awayfrom hisoffice,resulting in his missing Mr. O'LearyviolatedRules 1.1and 1.3when he failed todiligentlyreview

forfilinga discretionaryNOA on behalfofMr. Grande fortheIAC claim. inform himself regardingmandatoryappeals andwhetherhe was responsible Mr. O'Leary violated Rules 1.1and 1.3 when he failed to sufficiently

Rule 1.1 (Competence) and Rule 1.3 (Diligence)

Hampshire Rules ofProfessionalConduct 1.1and 1.3;and 8.4(a). The partiesstipulatedthatMr. O'Leary knowinglyviolatedNew

challengesto a convictionor sentence. reviewproceedings(suchas motions for anew trial)and collateral excludescertaincategoriesfrom thatdefinition,includingpost-conviction (definitionssection),which defines "mandatory appeal," andspecifically 23. Mr. O'Leary admits thathe didnot reviewSupreme Court Rule 3

Hausman to be handling. claimcould be "sweptup" with theDirectAppeal,which he knew Ms. denialofhismotion toreconsider.He negligentlybelievedthatthe IAC remindersfrom Ms.Hausman, did not docketany deadlinesupon the 22. This misapprehensionis whyMr. O'Leary,even in the absence ofany

by Ms. Hausman in the DirectAppeal. Mr. O'Learybelievedthatthe appeal of theIAC claim would betakenup separatediscretionaryNOA filedon Mr. Grande's behalf."Specifically, decided inthecollateralIAC casewould need to be the basisofa on hispart.He did not realizethat"theissuesraised, litigated,and 21. Mr. O'Leary acknowledges thathisfailureto filethe NOA was a mistake

claim intheDirectAppeal. motion fornew trial,theSupreme Court refusedto considerthe IAC 20. Because Mr. Grande failed toappealtheCourt'sdenialof Mr.Grande's

promptly rectifiedthe situation. theNOA. Mr. O'Learystatesthathad he known this,he would have March 23,2015,orthatthe deadlinepassedwithoutMr. Grande'sfiling motion, thattheCourt directedMr. Grande to filethe NOA on or before p. 5 Page 5 of7

hisclient,Mr. Grande. Under thefirstprong oftheanalysis,Mr. O'Learyviolateddutiesowed to

Prong I:Duty Violated

sanction. See id. any aggravatingormitigatingfactorsand whether they affectthe baseline Court then looks tothefourthand finalpartoftheanalysis:theexistenceof Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. at303. Once the baselinesanctionis determined, the characterizingthemisconduct and determininga baselinesanction. See The firstthreepartsoftheanalysiscreatetheframework for

3.0. factors." Id. (quoting Douglas'Case, 156 N.H. 613, 621(2007)); Standards § by thelawyer'smisconduct;and (d)theexistenceofaggravatingormitigating violated;(b)the lawyer's mental state;(c)the potential oractualinjurycaused partanalysis forcourtsto consider in imposingsanctions:"(a)the duty guidance. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at303. The Standards setfortha four- Although theCourt has not adopted the Standards, it looks tothem for

the misconduct." Coffey'sCase, 152 N.H. 503, 513(2005). N.H. 299, 303(2009)."The sanction . . . must take into account theseverityof profession,and preventingsimilarconductin thefuture." Conner'sCase, 158 maintaining publicconfidencein the bar,preservingtheintegrityofthelegal The purpose ofthe Court'sdisciplinarypoweris"protectingthe public,

month suspension. ImposingLawyerSanctions (2005) {"Standards") supportthesanctionof a six- Both case law and theAmericanBarAssociation's Standardsfor

thatMr. O'LearyviolatedRulesofProfessionalConduct1.1,1.3,and8.4(a). The Committeeconcludesthatthere is clear andconvincingevidence

Respondent's Rule 1.1 and 1.3 violations. violate the Rules of Professional Conduct and, inthiscase, isderivativeof Rule8.4(a)providesthatit isprofessionalmisconductfora lawyerto

the IAC claim. p. 6 Page 6 of7 bar,preservetheintegrityofthelegal profession,and preventsimilarconduct punishment but ratherto protectthe public,maintainpublicconfidenceinthe (2005). Thepurpose ofthe Court'sdisciplinarypower "isnot to inflict e.g., Conner'sCase 158 N.H. at303; Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. 155, 159-60 Thissanctionis inaccordwiththepurposesofattorneydiscipline. See

theappropriatesanction. the aggravating factorsand warranta downward departureto areprimandas The partiesagreethatthe mitigating factors evident inthiscase outweigh

9.32. motive, fulland freedisclosureto theADO, and remorse. See Standards § includeabsence ofa priordisciplinaryrecord,absence ofa dishonestor selfish experienceinthe practiceof law. See Standards § 9.22. Mitigating factors In thiscase,theonlyaggravatingfactor is Mr. O'Leary'ssubstantial

factorspresent. See Standards § 9.22. aggravatingand mitigatingfactors. In this case,thereareno aggravating Having determined thebaselinesanction,the Committee must consider

case isa publiccensure. clientor party " The Committee findsthatthe baselinesanctioninthis isviolatinga court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a that"[sjuspensionisgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyerknows thathe orshe based on theassertionthatno valid obligation exists. Standards § 6.22states to obey any obligationunder the rules of atribunalexcept foran open refusal In determininga baselinesanction, Standards § 6.2 addressesthefailure

claim. conductcausedinjurytoMr. Grande, who lost this ability to appeal hisIAC actual or potential injury caused byMr. CLeary's misconduct.Mr. O'Leary's The thirdprong ofthe sanctionanalysisrequiresan assessment ofthe

Prong IU: Injuryor PotentialInjury

negligent. sanctionanalysis,thepartiesagreethatMr. O'Leary'smental statewas With respect toMr. O'Leary'smentalstateunder the second prong ofthe

Prong II: MentalState:Intent/Knowing orNegligent p. 7 Page 7 of7

File Charles F. O'Leary, Esquire ce: Sara S. Greene, DisciplinaryCounsel

thisReprimand forviolatingN.H. Rules ofProfessionalConduct 1.1and 8.4(a). For allofthe above reasons,the ProfessionalConduct Committee issues

investigationand prosecutionofthismatter. agreement. Mr. O'Leary shallbe responsibleforallcostsassociatedwith the and prosecutionofthisdisciplinarymatter. The Committee approves this Mr. O'Leary has signed an agreement to pay costsofthe investigation

omitted). The sanctionisalsoin accord with the Standards. in the future."Grew's Case, 156 N.H.361, 365 (2007)(quotationand citation