Kevin P. Chisholm (2017)

Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards"). 60 (2005).The sanctionis also in accord with the ABA StandardsforImposing Conner'sCase 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009); Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. 155, 159sanctionisin accord with the purposes ofattorneydiscipline. See e.g., The Committee alsoconcluded thata publiccensure isappropriate.Its

ProfessionalConduct 1.1,1.3,1.4,and 8.4(a),as stipulated. evidence.Itfurtherfound thatMr. Chisholm's conduct violatedRules of The Committee approved thefactsas stipulatedby clearand convincing

and Margaret R. Kerouac were absent. Mona T. Movafaghi;Georges J.Roy; and Martha Van Oot. Richard H. Darling PeterG. Beeson; Susan R. Chollet;Caroline K. Leonard; David W. McGrath; M. Rothstein,Chair; Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair; Elaine Holden, Vice Chair; DisciplinaryMatter (attachedas ExhibitB). Members presentincludedDavid ("theStipulation,"attachedas ExhibitA), and theAgreement to PayCosts of Committee") deliberatedthe Stipulationas to Facts,Violationsand Sanction On January 17, 2017, the ProfessionalConduct Committee ("the

Chisholm, Kevin P. advs. Attorney DisciplineOffice-#14-038

Margaret R. Kerouac Barbara J. Guay, LegalAssistant Richard H. Darling* * non attorneymember Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oot PeterG. Beeson Georges J. Roy* ElaineHolden,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 Mona T. Movafaghi Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 David W. McGrath David M. Rothstein,Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 CarolineK. Leonard

File Kevin P.Chisholm, Esquire cc: Brian R. Moushegian, Deputy General Counsel

January*^,2017

investigationand prosecutionofthismatter. agreement thatMr. Chisholm shallreimburse the Committee for allcostsof Havingapprovedthestipulatedsanction,theCommitteeapprovedthe an Associate atthe law firm ofJ.Miller& Associates,PLLC, locatedat

p. 3 4. For a majorityof the timerelevanttothisproceeding,Mr. Chisholm was

07-032.

Communications). See Chisholm,Kevin P. advs.LoriThibault, Docket #

Conduct (the"Rules"),including Rule 1.3(Diligence)and Rule 1.4 (Client

a publiccensurebased on his violations of the Rules of Professional

3. Mr. Chisholm has a disciplinaryhistory.In 2008, Mr. Chisholm received

2. Mr. Chisholm has not been admitted to practicein any otherjurisdiction.

1995.

law in NewHampshire. He was admitted topracticeon October 30,

1. Kevin A. Chisholm ("Mr.Chisholm")isan attorneylicensedto practice

(ADO) stipulateas follows:

Respondent Kevin P.Chisholm, Esq.,and the AttorneyDisciplineOffice

11. On August 22,2013, theCourtconfirmed itsreceiptof the Notice of

Appeal (the "Notice ofAppeal")ofMr. Munroe's conviction withtheCourt.

10. On August 12, 2013, Mr. Chisholmfileda Rule 7 Notice ofMandatory

MillerFirm with a retainerin the amount of$1,500.00.

conviction.Under the terms oftheagreement, Mr. Munroe providedthe

Munroe retainedMr. Chisholm toappeal Mr. Munroe's DWI-FirstOffense

9. Pursuantto aseparatewrittenagreement dated July30, 2013, Mr.

Mr. Munroe, Mr. Munroe was convictedofDWI-First Offense.

8. On July 15,2013, followinga trialatwhich Mr.Chisholm represented

Offense.

retainedMr. Chisholm torepresenthim followinghisarrestforDWI-First

7. Pursuantto a writtenagreement dated June 10, 2013, Mr. Munroe

FirstOffense")conviction.

Mr. Munroe's appeal of hisDrivingWhile Intoxicated-FirstOffense ("DWI-

"Court").He allegedthat,as a resultof thatfailure,the Court dismissed

on Mr. Munroe's behalfwith the New Hampshire Supreme Court (the

a grievancewith theADO based on Mr. Chisholm's failureto file abrief

6. By letterdated August 12, 2014, Mr. Wayne Munroe ("Mr. Munroe") filed

Street,Manchester, New Hampshire 03101.

5. Mr. Chisholm currentlypracticeslaw atChisholm Law Office,195 Elm

Firm").

210 North Main Street,Suite2B, Concord, New Hampshire (the"Miller beforeDecember 23, 2013. Although the 1/8/14Order was mailed to

p. 5 dismissedtheAppealbased on Mr. Munroe's failure tofilea brief on or

15. In an orderdated January 8, 2014 (the"1/8/14Order"),the Court

time,see the 11/7/13 Order.

Order to the MillerFirm'scorrectaddress,Mr. Chisholm did not,atthat

February 6,2014."Althoughthe Court mailed a copy of the11/7/13

copiesofthe State'sbrieformemorandum oflaw...befiledon orbefore

filed on orbeforeDecember 23, 2013,"and that"[a]noriginaland eight

orderedthat"an originaland eight copies of[Mr.Munroe's] briefmust be

confirmed thatithad receivedthe trialtranscript.In addition,the Court

14. In an orderdated November 7, 2013 (the"11/7/13Order"),the Court

to be provided to theCourt.

ofthe trial.Mr. Chisholm receivedthe noticeand caused the transcript

acceptedand thatMr. Munroe must providetheCourt with atranscript

13. On September 4, 2013, the Court notifiedthe partiesthattheAppeal was

up fororalargument."

Mr. Munroe thatafterthe briefsare filed"thecourtusuallysetsthe case

the statehas a chance to respond." Mr. Chisholm furtherexplainedto

requiredto "writea briefon why...the[trial]courtwas wrong and then

thathe had filedthe Notice ofAppeal and thatMr. Chisholm would be

12. In an email dated August 26, 2013, Mr. Chisholm informed Mr. Munroe

willbe issuedregardingfurtherproceedings."

Munroe, Docket No. 2013-0526 (the"Appeal"),notingthat"[a]courtorder p. 6 Chisholm refund the $1,500.00 retainerifhe did not contactMr. Munroe

21. In an email dated May 12, 2014, Mr. Munroe requestedthatMr.

Appeal's dismissal.

thathe was "filing[a]motion toreopen case" inan effort toaddressthe

20. In an email datedApril21, 2014, Mr. Chisholm informed Mr. Munroe

failureto receivethe noticesfrom the Court.

and administrativeissuesthatlikelycontributedto Mr.Chisholm's

19. At allrelevanttimes,the MillerFirm had significantofficemanagement

have not receivedanythingfrom the Court."

informed Mr. Munroe that"Ihave asked m[]y staffand they insistthatwe

can filea motio[]n totryand reopen the case."Mr. Chisholm also

"Inever receivedany docs regardingdeadlinesand the courttoldme I

by the deadline.Mr. Chisholm representedto Mr.Munroe viaemail that

Munroe thattheAppeal was dismissed based on hisfailureto file abrief

18. On April8, 2014, aftercontactingthe Court, Mr. Chisholm informed Mr.

Appeal.

17. In an email datedApril 7, 2014, Mr. Munroe requestedan update on the

time, see the Mandate.

the MillerFirm'scorrectaddress. However, Mr. Chisholm did not,atthat

(the"Mandate") closingthe matter. The Court forwarded the Mandate to

16. On January 24, 2014, the Court issueda Mandate Under Sup. Ct. R. 24

1/8/14Order.

the MillerFirm'scorrectaddress,Mr. Chisholm, again,did not see the and thatitwas no longeravailable.

p. 7 Miller Firm,LynetteDearborn, thatthe retainerhad alreadydisbursed

retainer.However, Mr. Chisholm was informed by an employee ofthe

advised the MillerFirm thatitreimburse a portionof Mr.Munroe's

the MillerFirm. Pursuant to Mr.Munroe's request,Mr. Chisholm

At the time thatthe retainerwas paid,Mr. Chisholm was an Associateof

24. Mr. Munroe's retainerwas in the MillerFirm'spossessionand control.

Petition.

conflicthad developed,and refrainedfrom preparingand/orfilingthe

Chisholm terminatedhisrepresentationofMr. Munroe, believinga

However, based on Mr. Munroe's filingof the grievancewith theADO, Mr.

petitionwere filed,the Court would waive the applicablefiling fee.

a Rule 11 PetitionforOriginalJurisdiction(the"Petition")and, ifsuch a

The Court noted that,in orderto reopen the case,Mr. Munroe could file

Reopen Case based on the Court'spreviousissuanceofthe Mandate.

23. In an orderdated September 25, 2014, the Court denied the Motion to

the Court.

22. On August 18, 2014, Mr. Chisholm filedthe Motion to Reopen Case with

the Motion to Reopen Case.

the end." Mr. Munroe did not hear back from Mr. Chisholm regarding

Chisholm responded viaemail thathe would see the matterthrough "to

about reopening the case beforeJune 1,2014. On May 12th,Mr. p. 8 6

follows:

violationsof the New Hampshire Rules ofProfessionalConduct, as

28. The partiesagreethatMr. Chisholm'sconduct in thiscase involves

II. DisciplinaryRules Violated

poor management and organization.

professional relationship with theMillerFirm, afirmwith a history of

In addition,Mr. Chisholm addressed the professionalissueby ending his

personalissue,which involved amaritalissuethatresultedin divorce.

with hisabilitytopracticelaw. Mr.Chisholm has sinceaddressed the

dealingwith significantpersonaland professionalissueswhich interfered

and hishope thathe could favorablyresolvethe matter. He was also

disappointmentand embarrassment regardingtheAppeal'sdismissal

Chisholm failedto communicate with Mr. Munroe because ofhis

Munroe between May 12, 2014, and August 2014 was improper. Mr.

27. Mr. Chisholm futheradmits thathisfailureto communicate with Mr.

OriginalJurisdiction.

incorrectand thathe should have insteadfileda Rule 11 Petitionfor

Mandate, hisfilingofthe Motion to Reopen Case was procedurally

2 p. 8 6. Mr. Chisholm alsoacknowledges that,followingthe issuanceofthe

on hispart.

filethe briefon or before the December 23, 2013 deadlinewas an error

deadlineto filethe brief,Mr. Chisholm acknowledges thathisfailureto

25. Although Mr. Chisholm did not see the Court'sordersettingforthhis p. 9 7

ofa Rule 11 Petitionfor OriginalJurisdiction.

upon learningofthe Mandate, by filing a Motion to Reopen Caseinstead

Case before the Court issuedthe Mandate on January 24, 2014, and,

33. Mr. Chisholm alsoviolatedRule 1.1 by failingto filea Motion to Reopen

or beforeDecember 23, 2013, resultingin theAppeal's dismissal.

32. Mr. Chisholm violatedRule 1.1 by failingto filea briefintheAppeal on

competence inrepresentingMr. Munroe.

31. Pursuantto Rule 1.1,Mr. Chisholm had a duty to actwith reasonable

requiredto assurecompetent representation. with anotherlawyer who possessesthe skilland knowledge effectivemanner including,where appropriate,associating (4)undertake actionson theclient'sbehalfin atimelyand minimum: (c)In the performance ofclientservice,a lawyer shallata to the client'sinterest. thematterundertaken iscompleted with no avoidable harm (5)attentionto detailsand schedulesnecessaryto assurethat (4)proper preparation;and bringingthose areasto the client'sattention; (3)identificationofareasbeyond the lawyer'scompetence and (2)performance ofthe techniquesofpracticewith skill; lawyer practices; (1)specificknowledge about thefieldsoflaw inwhich the (b)Legal competence requiresata minimum: (a) Alawyer shallprovide competent representationto a client.

30. Rule 1.1 statesin pertinentpart:

29. The allegationssetforthabove are incorporatedhereinby reference.

Conduct or otherlaw. expects assistance not permitted by the Rules ofProfessional lawyer'sconductwhen the lawyer knowsthatthe client (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the and; (4) promptlycomplywithreasonablerequestsforinformation; matter. (3) keeptheclientreasonablyinformedabout thestatusofthe the client'sobjectivesareto beaccomplished; (2) reasonablyconsultwiththe clientabout the means bywhich requiredby theseRules; withrespectto which the client's informedconsentis (1) promptlyinformthe client of any decision or circumstance (a) A lawyer shall:

40. Rule 1.4 statesas follows:

39. The allegations set forth above are incorporated herein by reference.

not filing aPetitionforOriginalJurisdiction.

Case before the Court issuedthe Mandate on January 24, 2014, and by

3 p. 10 8. Mr. Chisholm alsoviolatedRule 1.3 by failingto filea Motion to Reopen

or beforeDecember 23, 2013, resultingin theAppeal's dismissal.

37. Mr. Chisholm violatedRule 1.3 byfailingto filea briefin theAppeal on

diligenceand promptness in representingMr. Munroe.

36. Pursuantto Rule 1.3,Mr. Chisholm had a duty to actwith reasonable

in representinga client. A lawyer shallactwith reasonablediligenceand promptness

35. Rule 1.3 statesas follows:

34. The allegationssetforthabove are incorporatedhereinby reference.

p. 11 maintainingpublic confidence in the bar, preserving the integrity of the

46. The purpose of the Court'sdisciplinarypoweris "protectingthe public,

(2005)(«Standards")supportsthissanction.

45. The American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing LawyerSanctions

would servethe purposes ofattorneydiscipline.

publiccensure as theappropriatesanctionin this matter.Thissanction

44. The AttorneyDisciplineOfficeand Mr. Chisholmjointly recommend a

R. Prof.Conduct 8.4(a).

evidence thatMr. Chisholm's conduct,as describedherein,violatedN.H.

43. Having agreed to theforegoingviolations,thereisclearand convincing

foregoingtime periodconstituteda violationofRule 1.4.

42. Mr. Chisholm's failureto communicate with Mr. Munroe during the

Munroe between May 12, 2014 and August 2014 regardingthe matter.

41. Mr. Chisholm breached thisduty by failingto communicate with Mr.

for information.

the statusofhismatterand to promptly comply with reasonablerequests

40. Mr. Chisholm had a duty to keep Mr. Munroe reasonablyinformed about

informed decisionsregardingthe representation. explanationisreasonablynecessaryto permit the clientto make and alternativecoursesofactionto the extentthatsuch (b) A lawyer shallexplainthe legaland practicalaspectsofa matter p. 12 10

was negligent.Specifically,prior toApril8, 2014,Mr. Chisholm was

the sanction analysis, the parties agreethatMr. Chisholm's mental state

50. With respect toMr. Chisholm'smental state under thesecondprong of

Standards§§ 4.5 and 4.4.

representation and toreasonablycommunicatewith hisclient. See

tohisclient,Mr. Munroe to providecompetent and diligent

49. Underthe firstprongoftheanalysis,Mr. Chisholmviolateddutiesowed

whether theyaffectthebaselinesanction. See id.

analysis:theexistenceofanyaggravatingormitigatingfactorsand

determined, theCourtthen looks to the fourthand finalpartofthe

Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. at303. Once thebaselinesanctionis

characterizingthemisconductand determining a baselinesanction. See

48. The firstthreepartsof theanalysiscreatetheframework for

613, 621 (2007)); Standards §3.0.

aggravatingor mitigating factors." Id. (quoting Douglas' Case, 156 N.H.

injurycaused by the lawyer'smisconduct;and (d)theexistenceof

duty violated;(b)thelawyer'smental state;(c)the potentialor actual

fourpartanalysisforcourtstoconsiderinimposing sanctions:"(a)the

guidance. Conner's Case, 158 N.H.at303. The Standards setfortha

47. Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, itlooks to them for

(2005).

the severityofthe misconduct." Coffey'sCase, 152 N.H. 503, 513

Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). "The sanction...musttake intoaccount p. 13 11

Munroe. However,LynetteDearborn oftheMiller FirminformedMr.

the MillerFirm returntheunearned portionofthe retainerto Mr.

possessionand controloftheMillerFirm. Mr. Chisholmrequestedthat

the retainerare attributabletothe MillerFirm. The retainerwas in the

54. The partiesagreethat anyinjuriesthatMr. Munroe sufferedrelatedto

oftheDWI-First Offense convictionwas dismissed.

53. Mr. Chisholm'sconductcaused injury toMr. Munroe becausehis appeal

actual or potential injury caused byMr. Chisholm's misconduct.

52. The third prongofthe sanctionanalysisrequires anassessmentofthe

thematter.

he experiencedat thetime,and hishope thathe could ultimatelyresolve

at theAppeal'sdismissal, certain personal and professional issuesthat

attributed,insignificantpart,to hisdisappointmentand embarrassment

51. Mr. Chisholm's failureto communicate with Mr. Munroe can be

jurisdictioninsteadofthe Motion to Reopen Case.

Mandate, he was required,procedurally,to file apetitionfororginal

addition,Mr. Chisholm did not know that,followingissuanceofthe

historyof poor officemanagement and administrativepractices.In

representation,theADO takesintoconsiderationthe MillerFirm's

Chishom did not see the orders. In acceptingMr. Chisholm's

mailed to Mr. Chisholm athiscorrectaddress atthe MillerFirm, Mr.

ofthematter,and the Mandate. Although the relevantorderswere

unaware ofthe Court'sorderson the parties'briefingschedule,dismissal p. 14 12

Standards, isanalogousto a publiccensureinNew Hampshire. reprimandinNew Hampshire.The term"reprimand,"as used in the ABA 1The term "admonition,"as used in the ABA Standards, isanalogous to a

potentiallyseriousinjuryto aclient;or (a) a lawyerabandons the practice andcausesserious or

4.41 Disbarment isgenerallyappropriatewhen:

ofthe Standards, which providesas follows:

56. Mr. Chisholm'sviolationsof Rule 1.3and Rule 1.4implicateSection4.4

littleor no actualor potentialinjuryto aclient. he orshe iscompetent tohandle a legalmatter,and causes in an isolatedinstanceof negligence indeterminingwhether 4.54 Admonition isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyerengages

potentialinjuryto aclient. competenttohandlea legalmatterand causes injuryor (b) is negligent indeterminingwhetherhe orshe is injuryto a client;or doctrinesor proceduresand causes injuryor potential (a) demonstratesfailure tounderstandrelevantlegal

4.53 Reprimand1 isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer:

client. not competent, and causes injuryor potentialinjuryto a in an areaofpracticein which the lawyer knows he or she is 4.52 Suspension isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer engages

potentialinjuryto a client. procedures,and the lawyer'sconduct causes injuryor understand the most fundamental legaldoctrinesor ofconduct demonstratesthatthe lawyer does not 4.51 Disbarment isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer'scourse

Standards, which providesas follows:

55. Mr. Chisholm's violationof Rule 1.1 implicatesSection4.5 ofthe

fee,had alreadydisbursedand spentthe retainer.

Chisholm thatthe MillerFirm, which consideredthe payment to be a flat p. 15 13

disclosureto theADO, the remoteness of the prioroffense,personal

includethe absence ofa dishonestor selfishmotive, fulland free

history (2008 public censure). See Standards § 9.22. Mitigating factors

experience in the practice of law (admitted in 1995)and pastdisciplinary

59. In thiscase,the aggravatingfactors are Mr.Chisholm'ssubstantial

mitigatingfactors. E.g.,Conner'sCase, 158 N.H.at303.

58. The baselinesanctionmust be consideredinlightofany aggravatingand

§§ 4.43 and 4.53.

sanctionfor Mr.Chisholm's conduct is apubliccensure. See Standards

57. Under theforegoingcircumstances,thepartiesagreethatthe baseline

potentialinjuryto a client. representinga client,and causes littleor no actualor negligentand does not actwith reasonablediligencein 4.44 Admonition 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 a client. (b) a lawyer engages in a patternofneglectand causes and causes injuryor potentialinjuryto a client,or (a) a lawyer knowingly failsto perform servicesfor a client

4.42 Suspension isgenerallyappropriatewhen:

injuryto a client. clientmattersand causes seriousor potentiallyserious (c) a lawyer engages in a patternof neglectwith respectto client;or and causes seriousor potentiallyseriousinjuryto a (b) a lawyer knowingly failsto perform servicesfor aclient p. 16 14

the consequences of the Stipulation.

inducements not setforthin the Stipulation;and thathe is fullyaware of

resultof anythreats,coercion, orduress,or of anypromisesor

regarding this Stipulation;thathe is not entering this Stipulation as a

and voluntarilysubmitted;thathe could consultwith an attorney

proposeddispositioncontainedin thisStipulationarefreely,knowingly,

63. Mr. Chisholm acknowledgesthattheadmissionsofmisconductand the

PCC pursuantto Sup. Ct. R.37A(III)(aa).

62. Mr. Chisholm understandsthatthisStipulationwill bereviewed by the

isthe subjectof aseparateagreement signed by Mr. Chisholm.

Court Rule 37(19). His agreement to pay the costsincurredby theADO

investigationand enforcement ofthisdisciplinarymatter. See Supreme

Chisholm agrees to pay the costsincurredby theADO in the

61. Subjectto the PCC's approval ofMr. Chisholm's Stipulation,Mr.

case given the harm to Mr. Munroe, i.e., the dismissalofhisAppeal.

the aggravatingfactors,a downward departureisnot warranted inthis

60. The partiesagree that,although the mitigatingfactorsslightlyoutweigh

9.32.

problems atthe time ofthe violation,and remorse. See Standards § p. 17 15

Dated: /^^ustLt/2, 2016 ^>^^f^^^

Dated: |8-h>" 2016 j

64. Mr. Chisholm knowingly and intelligentlywaives hisrightto ahearing. ofmy receiptofthebill.The Committeewillconsiderthe disputed item

p. 18 Committeeof thespecificnature of the dispute inwritingwithin 30 days

Committeeregardingthose costs. IfI dispute thebill,I shallnotifythe

alsoagreeto pay the increased costs, withnoticeto mefrom the

dispositionofthismatter,theCommitteewillbillme forthosecosts.I

totalapproximately$24.50.Shouldfurther costsaccruein the

2. As ofDecember 12, 2016, I have beeninformedthatthe costs presently

publication.

stenographers,transcripts,copying,inventory,auditexpensesand

Ct.R. 37(19)(b).Costs caninclude,but are notlimitedto:mileage,

theinvestigationand enforcement of this disciplinary matter. See Sup.

abovematter, Iagreeto pay theexpensesincurred by theCommitteein

approvaloftheStipulationastoFacts,Violationsand Sanctionin the

1. Subject to theProfessionalConductCommittee's(the"Committee")

p. 19 judgment and shall be subject to alllegally-availablepost-judgment

courtin anycountyin thestate,where it shall bedocketedas a final

7. The Committee may filea copy of the finalassessmentwiththesuperior

Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(b).

assessmentby petitionto thesuperiorcourtinany county in thestate.

Ct.R. 37(19)(b).The Committee mayresolvethematter,or enforcethe

each disputedexpense and explainingmy reasonsfordisagreement.Sup.

thirty(30)days ofreceiptof the Committee'sstatementofexpenses,listing

6. The Assessment shallbecome finalunlessIrespond inwriting,within

be enforced in any SuperiorCourt in New Hampshire.

shallhave the fullforceand effectofa civiljudgment. As a result,itmay

5. I understand and agree thatthe assessment ofcostsisdeemed finaland

formal demand forpayment.

furtherdetailofthe natureand amount ofeach expense, and I alsowaive

4. I waive the provisionsofSupreme Court Rule 37(19)(b) regardingany

dispositionofthismatter.

3. I understand the Committee willnot issuean invoiceuntilthe final

disputea bill,payment will bedue upon itsreceipt.

and issuea writtendecision. If I donot notifythe Committee thatI p. 20 Respondent

Dated: \>llts 2016

Attorney DisciplineOffice'scollectionefforts.

8. I alsoagree to be responsibleforallcostsincurredas a resultofthe