Tanner Z. Nolin (2017)

1. Rule 1.1 and 1.3, requiring a lawyer to represent clients competently and with diligence;

2. Rule 1.4, requiring a lawyer to keep clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters;

3. Rule 1.15 and Supreme Court Rule 50, requiring a lawyer to safeguard client property;

4. Rule 8.4(c), making it misconduct to engage in conduct involving deceit; and

5. Rule 8.4(a), making it misconduct to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. In October 2016, the court suspended Attorney Nolin from the practice of law for a period of three-years on the condition that he comply with the terms of a stipulation that he had entered into with the ADO. In addition to imposing requirements for Attorney Nolin’s conduct during the period of suspension, the stipulation provided that if it was determined that Attorney Nolin had violated certain conditions, the PCC would recommend disbarment. See LD-2016-0015, In the Matter of Tanner Z. Nolin, Esquire. In December 2016, the ADO filed a motion with the PCC to impose disbarment, alleging that Attorney Nolin had violated the conditions of his

p. 2 suspension. After reviewing the ADO’s motion, the PCC found that Attorney Nolin had violated the conditions of his suspension and recommended that he be disbarred. Upon receipt of the PCC’s recommendation, an order was issued notifying Attorney Nolin of the recommendation, and giving him and the ADO’s disciplinary counsel an opportunity to advise the court of any legal or factual issues that they wished the court to review. In accordance with Rule 37(16)(c), the order was sent to Attorney Nolin at the latest address that he had provided to the New Hampshire Bar Association. The copies sent to Attorney Nolin at this address were returned as undeliverable. In accordance with Rule 42 E(c), Attorney Nolin is deemed to have been notified of this proceeding. Neither Attorney Nolin nor disciplinary counsel filed a response to the order. The court has reviewed the PCC’s recommendation approving the motion to impose disbarment. After considering the nature, seriousness, and extent of Attorney Nolin’s misconduct, and his failure to comply with the conditions of his suspension, the court concludes that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. THEREFORE, the court orders that Tanner Z. Nolin be disbarred from the practice of law in New Hampshire. He is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, and Lynn, JJ., concurred. DATE: April 6, 2017 ATTEST: Doan Cong Eileen Fox, Clerk