Peter V. Lawlor (2017)

Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards"). 60 (2005). The sanctionisalsoin accord with the ABA Standards forImposing Conner's Case 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 3.3,8.4(c),and 8.4(a),as stipulated. evidence. Itfurtherfound thatPeterV. Lawlor's conduct violatedRules of The Committee approved the factsas stipulatedby clearand convincing

Leonard were absent. PeterG. Beeson was recused. and Martha Van Oot. Susan R. Chollet;Margaret R. Kerouac; and Caroline K. Richard H. Darling;David W. McGrath; Mona T. Movafaghi; Georges J.Roy; M. Rothstein,Chair; Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair; Elaine Holden, Vice Chair; DisciplinaryMatter (attachedas ExhibitB). Members presentincludedDavid ("theStipulation,"attachedas ExhibitA), and theAgreement to Pay Costs of Committee") deliberatedthe Stipulationas to Facts,Violationsand Sanction On April 18, 2017, the ProfessionalConduct Committee ("the

Lawlor, Peter V. advs. Attorney DisciplineOffice - # 16-040

MargaretR. Kerouac BarbaraJ. Guay, LegalAssistant Richard H. Darling* * non attorneymember Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oot PeterG. Beeson Georges J. Roy* Elaine Holden,* 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 Caroline K. Leonard

File Russell F. Hilliard,Esquire cc: Mark P. Cornell,AssistantGeneral Counsel

April 18, 2017

investigationand prosecutionof thismatter. agreement thatMr. Lawlor shallreimburse the Committee for allcostsof Having approved the stipulatedsanction,the Committee approved the with hisclient'sname, but failingto indicatethathe signed the

p. 3 referralwith the ADO based on Mr. Lawlor signingthreedocuments

4. By letterdated October 13, 2016, Judge Mark F. Weaver fileda

to communicate with a client.

reprimand in 1995 forfailingto attendto detailsin a case and failing

3. Mr. Lawlor has one priordisciplinarymatter.Mr. Lawlor receiveda

statusthereisactive.

2. Mr. Lawlor was admitted to practicein Massachusetts in 1983. His

He was admitted to practicein 1985.

1. Mr. Lawlor isan attorneylicensedto practicelaw in New Hampshire.

forthbelow:

(ADO) stipulateto the following factsand recommend a publiccensure as set

Respondent PeterV. Lawlor, Esq.,and the Attorney DisciplineOffice

p. 4 "Joan Fontaine, by Peter Lawlor". The fiduciarybond was filedwith

fiduciarybond thatMr. Lawlor had signed for hisclient,such as

permission to sign her name. There was no indicationon the

hisclient'sname on the bond, Mr. Lawlor obtained hisclient'soral

bond as a witnessto hisclient'ssupposed signature.Priorto signing

the amount of$500,000 on behalfofhisclientand also signed the

8. On or around May 15, 2016, Mr. Lawlor signed a fiduciarybond in

15 and June 1, 2015.

7. Mr. Lawlor signed hisclient'sname on threeoccasion between May

ofher home withoutassistance.

6. Ms. Fontaine isan elderlywoman who had difficultytravelingoutside

Brentwood, Docket # 318-2015-ET-454.

administrationwas filedin the 10th Circuit,Probate Division,

the estateand isthe solebeneficiaryunder the decedent'swill.The

March 31, 2015. Ms. Fontaine was appointed the administratorof

Kazarosian. The Petitionfor EstateAdministrationwas filedon

5. Mr. Lawlor representedJoan Fontaine in the probate estateofJohn

DisciplinaryCounsel on November 30, 2016.

Screening Committee process and thiscase was referredto

consent to sign her name. Mr. Lawlor waived the Complaint

notarizedanother one ofthe signatures. Mr. Lawlor had hisclient's

client'sname. Mr. Lawlor alsowitnessedone ofthesesignaturesand client'spermission,and to accommodate her as a convenience given

p. 5 allthreeofthe documents atissueon behalfofhisclient,with his

12. At the hearing,Mr. Lawlor readilyacknowledged thathe had signed

niece)attendedthe hearing.

discrepancy. Mr. Lawlor, Ms. Fontaine, and Ms. Rosa (Ms. Fontaine's

Court (Hon. Mark Weaver presiding)held a hearing to investigatethe

documents on filein the probate case. On September 7, 2016, the

Fontaine'ssignatureson the above threedocuments and other

11. The staffatthe clerk'sofficenoticedthe discrepancy between Ms.

indicationon the document thathe signed on behalfofisclient.

client'soral permission to sign theAssenton her behalf,therewas no

probate division.Again, although Mr. Lawlor had obtained his

name to an Assentto the FirstAccount thatwas filedwith the

10. Also on or around June 1,2016, Mr. Lawlor signed Ms. Fontaine's

the probate division.

6/1/2016 by Joan Fontaine." The Accounting was then filedwith

The juratstates"This instrumentwas acknowledged beforeme on

Accounting, acknowledging Ms. Fountaine'ssupposed signature.

Fontaine'sconsent. Mr. Lawlor then signed thejuraton the

Accounting thatthe signaturewas made by Mr. Lawlor, with Ms.

with hisclient'soral permission,but therewas no indicationon the

on the Executor's/Administrator'sAccounting. Again, thiswas done

9. On or around June 1,2016, Mr. Lawlor signed Ms. Fontaine'sname p. 6 18. Rule 3.3 statesin pertinentpart:

17. The factssetforthatUK 1-16 above are incorporatedby reference.

Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward theTribunal)

follows:

violationsofthe New Hampshire Rules of ProfessionalConduct, as

16. The partiesagree thatMr. Lawlor's conduct in thiscase involves

importance ofthejurat.

hisclient'sname were wrong and thathe understandsthe

15. Nonetheless,Mr. Lawlor has acknowledged thathisactionsinsigning

in hisdealingswith theADO.

responsibilityforhisactionsatthe hearingbeforeJudge Weaver and

forher as an accommodation. Mr. Lawlor immediately accepted

submit the documents to the Court, and she had requestedhe sign

travelto hisofficeto sign the documents, therewas a deadlineto

14. Mr. Lawlor signed hisclient'sname because hisclientwas not able to

the matterto theADO.

estate,disallowingall ofhiscompensation in the case,and referring

13. The Court enteredan orderremoving Mr. Lawlor as attorneyforthe

officeron theAccounting.

signingas a witnesson the fiduciarybond and signingas thenotarial

the difficultyshe had travellingto hisoffice.He alsoadmitted p. 7 Rule 8.4(a):General Rule

misrepresentationto the Court.

ofpersonalmotive involved. Nonetheless,therewas a

Lawlor was not engaged in self-dealingand he had no personalgain

22. There was no deceitor dishonestywith regard to the client.Mr.

violationRule 8.4(c).

above documents when he filedthe documents with the Court,in

21. Mr. Lawlor misrepresentedto the Court thathisclienthad signed the

misrepresentation; (c)engage inconduct involvingdishonesty,fraud,deceitor

Itisprofessionalmisconduct fora lawyer to:

20. Rule 8.4(c)statesin pertinentpart:

document had been signed and acknowledged by Ms. Fontaine.

notarizedone of those documents, falselyrepresentingthatthe

had witnessed Ms. Fontaine sign thatdocument; and when he

as a witnessto one of those documents, falselyrepresentingthathe

threedocuments withoutindicatinghe was doing so;when he signed

19. Mr. Lawlor violatedRule 3.3(a)when he signed hisclient'sname to

made to the tribunalby the lawyer; correcta falsestatementofmaterialfactor law previously (1)make a falsestatementoffactor law to a tribunalor failto

(a) A lawyer shallnot knowingly: potentialor actualinjurycaused by the lawyer'smisconduct; and (d)

p. 8 sanctions: "(a)the duty violated;(b)the lawyer'smental state;(c)the

fortha four-partanalysisforcourtsto considerin imposing

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

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

Coffey'sCase, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005).

sanction...musttake intoaccount the severityofthe misconduct."

the future.'' Conner's Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). "The

integrityofthe legalprofession,and preventingsimilarconduct in

public,maintaining publicconfidencein the bar, preservingthe

26. The purpose ofthe Court'sdisciplinarypower is"protectingthe

sanction.

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards") support this

25. Both case law and the American Bar Association's Standards for

would serve the purposes ofattorneydiscipline.

censure as the appropriate sanctionin thismatter. This sanction

24. The AttorneyDisciplineOfficeand Mr. Lawlor jointlyrecommend a

N.H. R. Prof.Conduct 8.4(a).

evidence thatMr. Lawlor's conduct,as described herein,violated

23. Having found the foregoingviolation,thereisclearand convincing involvingconduct thatisprejudicialto the administrationof p. 9 following sanctionsare generallyappropriateincases applicationofthe factorssetout in Standard 3.0,the Absent aggravatingor mitigatingcircumstances,upon

6.1 FalseStatements,Fraud, and Misrepresentation

Standards, which providesas follows:

6.1 (FalseStatements,Fraud and Misrepresentation)ofthe

33. Mr. Lawlor'sviolationsofRule 3.3 and 8.4(c)both implicateSection

However, therewas potentialharm thatcould have occurred.

32. Mr. Lawlor's conduct did not cause any actualinjuryto any person.

the actualor potentialinjurycaused by Mr. Lawlor's misconduct.

31. The thirdprong ofthe sanctionanalysisrequiresan assessment of

statewas knowing.

the sanctionanalysis,the partiesagree thatMr. Lawlor's mental

30. With respectto Mr. Lawlor's mental stateunder the second prong of

to thelegalsystem.

29. Under thefirstprong ofthe analysis,Mr. Lawlor violateddutiesowed

whether they affectthe baselinesanction. See id.

analysis:the existenceofany aggravatingor mitigatingfactorsand

determined,the Court then looks to the fourthand finalpartofthe

See Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at303. Once the baselinesanctionis

characterizingthe misconduct and determining a baselinesanction.

28. The firstthreepartsofthe analysiscreatethe framework for

Douglas' Case, 156 N.H. 613, 621 (2007)); Standards § 3.0.

the existenceofaggravatingor mitigatingfactors." Id. (quoting p. 10 8

and mitigatingfactors. E.g.,Conner's Case, 15 p. 10 8 N.H. at303.

35. The baselinesanctionmust be considered inlightofany aggravating

Standards § 6.12.

baselinesanctionfor Mr.Lawlor's conduct isa suspension. See

34. Under the foregoing circumstances,the partiesagree thatthe

effecton the legalproceeding. party,or causes littleor no adverse or potentiallyadverse falsity,and causes littleor no actualor potentialinjuryto a failingto disclosematerialinformationupon learningofits whether submittedstatementsor documents are falseor in engages in an isolatedinstanceofneglectin determining 6.14 Admonition isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer

proceeding. an adverse or potentiallyadverse effecton the legal potentialinjuryto a partyto thelegalproceeding, or causes materialinformationisbeing withheld,and causes injuryor documents are falseor in takingremedial actionwhen negligenteitherin determiningwhether statementsor 6.13 Reprimand isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer is

on the legalproceeding. proceeding,or causes an adverse or potentiallyadverse effect and causes injuryor potentialinjuryto a partyto thelegal improperly being withheld,and takesno remedial action, submittedto the courtor thatmaterialinformationis knows thatfalsestatementsor documents are being 6.12 Suspension isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer

adverse effecton the legalproceeding. to a party,or causes a significantor potentiallysignificant information,and causes seriousor potentiallyseriousinjury submits a falsedocument, or improperly withholdsmaterial with the intentto deceive the court,makes a falsestatement, 6.11 Disbarment isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer,

misrepresentationto a court: justiceor thatinvolvesdishonesty,fraud, deceit,or knowingly, and voluntarilysubmitted;thathe isnot enteringthis

p. 11 proposed dispositioncontainedin thisStipulationare freely,

40. Mr. Lawlor acknowledges thattheadmissions ofmisconduct and the

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

39. Mr. Lawlor understandsthatthisStipulationwillbe reviewed by the

subjectofa separateagreement signed by Mr. Lawlor.

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

enforcement ofthisdisciplinarymatter. See Supreme Court Rule

agrees to pay thecostsincurredby theADO in the investigationand

38. Subjectto the PCC's approval ofMr. Lawlor's Stipulation,Mr. Lawlor

to a publiccensure as the appropriatesanction.

outweigh the aggravatingfactorsand warranta downward departure

37. The partiesagree thatthe mitigatingfactorsevidentin thiscase

Standards §9.32.

offenses,and theimpositionofotherpenaltiesor sanctions. See

and freedisclosureto theADO, remorse, remoteness ofprior

fivemitigatingfactors:absence ofa dishonestor selfishmotive, full

experiencein the practiceoflaw. See Standards § 9.22. There are

36. In thiscase,the only aggravatingfactorisMr. Lawlor's substantial p. 12 10

Dated: H<H&2A 2017 ^£d^.£v

Dated: vla/^ \\a 2017

41, Mr. Lawlor knowingly and intelligentlywaives hisrightto a hearing.

isfullyaware of the consequences ofthe Stipulation.

promises or inducements not setforthin the Stipulation;and thathe

Stipulationas a resultofany threats,coercion,or duress,or ofany formal demand for payment.

p. 13 furtherdetailof the natureand amount ofeach expense, and I alsowaive

3. I waive the provisionsof Supreme Court Rule 37(19)(b)regardingany

receiptof a bill.

approximately $6.50. Iagree to pay thissum within ninety (90)days after

2. As of March 16, 2017, I have been informed thatthe costsare

transcripts,copying, inventory,auditexpenses and publication.

Costs can include,but arenot limitedto:mileage, stenographers,

and enforcement of thisdisciplinarymatter. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(b).

agree to pay the expenses incurredby the Committee in the investigation

Stipulationas to Facts,Violations,and Sanction in the above matter,I

1. Subjectto the ProfessionalConduct Committee's approval of the

oftheAttorneyDisciplineOffice'scollectionefforts.

7. I also agree to be responsiblefor allreasonable costsincurredas a result

enforcement remedies and procedures. See Sup. Ct. R.37(19)(c).

judgment and shallbe subjectto alllegally-availablepost-judgment

courtinany county inthe state,where itshallbe docketed as a final

6. The Committee may file acopy ofthe finalassessment with the superior

willbe due upon itsreceipt.

writing.If I donot notifythe committee thatIdisputethebill,payment

committee willconsiderthe disputeditem and issuea writtendecisionin

disputeinwritingwithinthirtydays ofmy receiptofthebill.The

disputethe bill, Ishallnotifythe committee ofthe specificnature ofthe

dispositionofthismatter,the committee willbillme for thesecosts. IfI

5. I agree to pay thesecosts,and should furthercostsaccrue inthis

be enforced in any Superior Court in New Hampshire.

shallhave the full forceand effectofa civiljudgment. As a result,itmay

4. I understand and agree thatthe assessment ofcostsisdeemed finaland