This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Craig N. Salomon (2017)
involved the mismanagement of the respondent’s personal finances, which disciplinary process. Standards, supra § 9.32(e). The rules violations at issue suspension, especially considering the respondent’s cooperation with the downward devia tion from the baseline sanction determined by the PCC of a conclude that, o n balance, aggravating and mitigating factors warrant a the parties’ briefs, we respectfully disagree with the PCC sanction. We Having considered the PCC’s order, the record submitted on appeal, and
future.” (quotation omitted)). preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and prevent similar conduct in the discipline is. . . to protect the public, maintain public confidence in the bar, See Coddington’s Case, 155 N.H. 66, 68 (2007) (“[T]he purpose of attorney recommendation of the Hearing Panel and the purposes of attorney discipline. stated that a six - month suspension was consistent with both the six - month suspension was the appropriate discipline in this case. The PCC Lawyer Sanctions (2005) (Standards), the PCC concluded that an immediate Relying upon the American Bar Association’s Standards for Imposing
sanction. us is whether the six - month suspension ordered by the PCC is the proper the PCC’s findings and rulings as to the rules violations. T he sole issue before In this case, neither the respondent nor Disciplinary Counsel challenge s
Sup. Ct. R. 37(16)(a). record. The court may affirm, reverse or modify the findings of the PCC. See Under Rule 37(16)(i), an appeal of a P CC order shall be based on the PCC
appeal. III(d)(4)(A), the respondent appealed the PCC order, and w e accepted the and 8.4(a). In accordance with Supreme Court Rule s 37(16)(a) and 37A, respondent had violated New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct 3.4(c) stipulation signed by the respondent and Disciplinary Counsel, that the law in New Hampshire for six months. The PCC found, b ased upon a the respondent, Attorne y Craig N. Salomon, be suspended from the practice of On August 8, 2016, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) ordered that conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). Having considered the brief s and record submitted on appeal, we
Esquire, the court on May 12, 2017, issued the following order: In Case N o. LD - 20 16 - 0 018, Appeal of Craig N. Salomon,
SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 2
File Irene Dalbec, Supreme Court Lorrie Platt, Supreme Court Allison Cook, Supreme Court Timothy G u das, Supreme C o urt Elizabeth M. Murphy, Esquire Brooke Lovett Shilo, Esquire Russell F. Hilliard, Esquire Professional Conduct Committee, 13 - 011 Distribution:
Clerk Eileen Fox,
DALIANIS, C.J.
, and HICKS, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ., concurred.
modified in part. Affirmed in part; and
the investigation and prosecution of this matter. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(19) (a). Attorney Salomon is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the PCC in
that the stay of the suspension be made permanent. suspension. At the conclusion of the six - month stay, either party may request and may request that the court impose any portion of the six - month of the rules should be docketed as complaints, t he PCC shall notify the court, filed with the ADO against Attorney Salomon regarding past or future violations O ffice (ADO) or Screening Committee determines that any further grievances suspension is stayed for a period of six months. If the A ttorney D iscipline practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of six months; imposition of this The court orders that Attorney Craig N. Salomon be suspended from the
six months and stay this suspension for six months. Sup. Ct. R. 37(1 6) (f), we suspend the respondent from the practice of law for to protect the public and to preserve the integrity of the legal profession, s ee violations. Because we conclude that immediate suspension is not necessary the present case considering the timeframe and nature of the respondent’s past Standards, supra § 9. 22(a), we do not give significant weight to this factor in § 9.32(c). Additionally, although past violations are an aggravating factor, stemmed from his personal financial difficulties. See S t andards, supra Page 1 of6
findingsby clearand convincing evidence: The Committee determined thatthe Record supportsthe following factual
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
six-month suspension was an appropriatesanction. Finally,the Committee agreed thatthe Hearing Panel'srecommendation of a the Committee forallcostsofinvestigationand prosecutionof thismatter. (the"Rules")as stipulated,and voted to approve the agreement to reimburse the findingsofviolationsof the New Hampshire Rules ofProfessionalConduct stipulated,by clearand convincing evidence. The Committee then approved Having reviewed the Record, the Committee approved the factsas
D. Sager and Martha Van Oot. PeterG. Beeson was recused. H. Harris,Margaret R. Kerouac, Mona T. Movafaghi, Georges J.Roy, Richard Chair,Elaine Holden, Vice Chair,Susan R. Chollet,Richard H. Darling,Scott Members presentincluded David M. Rothstein,Chair,Heather E. Krans, Vice Agreement to Pay Costs ofDisciplinaryMatter (collectively,the "Record"). "Report"),Stipulationas to Facts and Rule Violation(the"Stipulation"),and the "Committee") deliberatedthe Oral Argument, Hearing Panel Report (the On June 21, 2016, the ProfessionalConduct Committee (the
SIX-MONTH SUSPENSION AND ORDER ON COSTS
Salomon, Craig N. advs. Attorney DisciplineOffice-#13-011
ScottH. Harris Barbara J.Guay, Legal Assistant Richard H. Darling* * non attorneymember Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oot PeterG. Beeson Richard D. Sager Elaine Holden,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 Georges J. Roy* Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mona T. Movafaghi David M. Rothstein,Chair 4 Chenell Drive,Suite 102 Margaret R. Kerouac
a committeeofthe attorneydiscipline system ProfessionalConduct Committee New Hampshire Supreme Court Page 2of6
profession,and preventingsimilarconduct in the future." Conner's Casey 158 maintainingpublicconfidence in the bar,preservingthe integrityofthe legal The purpose of the Court'sdisciplinarypower is"protectingthe public,
month suspension. Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards") supportthe sanctionofa six- Both case law and theAmerican Bar Association's Standards for
III. ANALYSIS
thatMr. Salomon violatedRules ofProfessionalConduct 3.4(c)and 8.4(a). The Committee concludes thatthereisclearand convincing evidence
thiscase,isderivativeofRespondent's Rule 3.4(c)violation. misconduct for a lawyer to violatethe Rules ofProfessionalConduct and, in validobligationexists.. . ."Rule 8.4(a)provides thatitisprofessional rulesofa tribunalexcept foran open refusalbased on an assertionthatno provides thata lawyer "shallnot.. .knowingly disobey an obligationunder the Hampshire Rules ofProfessionalConduct 3.4(c)and 8.4(a). Rule 3.4(c) The partiesstipulatedthatMr. Salomon knowingly violatedNew
II. RULINGS OF LAW
Hearing Panel. in greaterdetailbelow and in exhibitsadmitted intothe record before the publiccensuresarisingon differentdates. His disciplinaryrecord isdescribed Mr. Salomon has a priordisciplinaryrecord,includingthreeseparate
personaldebts ahead ofhiscourt-imposed obligations. to comply with the Court'sordersbecause he repaidothercreditorsand on a monthly basisuntilthe loan was paid off. He furtheradmits thathe failed amend the Court'spriororderrequiringhim to pay Mr. Meaney a fixedamount hispersonalfinancialsituationor otherdebts,he should have sought to Salomon admits thatifhe was unable to meet the repayment obligationdue to entryofa contempt findingagainstMr. Salomon on February 11, 2013. Mr. receivedfrom a former client,Robert Meaney. These failuresresultedin the ordersof the Rockingham SuperiorCourt thathe repay a personalloan he Mr. Salomon's violationsarose out ofhisrepeatedfailureto abide by
A. Facts Page 3of6
to obey any obligationunder the rulesofa tribunalexcept foran open refusal In determining a baselinesanction, Standards § 6.2 addressesthe failure
IV. SANCTION
time in pursuing a remedy through thejudicialsystem. ofthousands ofdollarsand causing him to incurlossesof both money and The violationcaused substantialinjury,deprivingMr. Salomon's creditor
actualor potentialinjurycaused by Mr. Salomon's misconduct. The thirdprong of the sanctionanalysisrequiresan assessment of the
Prong III:Injuryor PotentialInjury
the sanctionanalysis,itwas knowing. With respectto Mr. Salomon's mental stateunder the second prong of
Prong II:Mental State:Intent/Knowing or Negligent
Court, isa seriousviolation. failureto comply with a courtorderby an attorneywho isan officerof the Under the firstprong of the analysis,the duty atissue,the knowing
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 existenceof aggravatingor 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'sCase, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005). N.H. 299, 303 (2009). "The sanction. . .must take intoaccount the severityof Page 4 of6 month suspension,as recommended by the Hearing Panel. suspension. The Committee concludes thatthe appropriatedisciplineisa sixdownward departureto publiccensure,and do notjustifystayingthe upward departurefrom the baselinesanctionto disbarment,do notjustifya Accordingly, the aggravatingand mitigatingfactorsdo notjustifyan
ofhispriordisciplinaryhistory,the Committee disagrees. Mr. Salomon alsoargued thatany suspension should be stayed. In light
fashioninga sanction. thatharm isnot,in itself,a factorthe Committee can reasonablyconsiderin was not swayed by thisargument. A suspension does harm to any attorney; might cause him to have to closehispracticepermanently. The Committee suspension should itselfbe taken intoconsideration,because given hisage, it Mr. Salomon argued thatthe harm wrought upon him by a six-month
proceeding. 2. The courtimposed otherpenaltieson Mr. Salomon in the contempt
1. Mr. Salomon was cooperativeduring the investigativeprocess;and
The Committee findstwo mitigatingfactors:
two otherattorneys. censure forimproperly implying thathe was practicingin a partnershipwith attachment;a 2007 censure forfailureto safeguardclientproperty;and a 2007 hisfailureto includeadverse materialfactsin a petitionforex parte threepriorpubliccensuresin threeseparatecases:a 2005 censure based on 3. Mr. Salomon's previousdisciplinaryrecord. His record includes
practice);and 2. Mr. Salomon's substantialexperiencein the law (over fortyyears in
billsratherthan satisfyhiscourt-orderedobligationsto Mr. Meaney; 1. Mr. Salomon's selfishmotive, because he chose to pay personal
factors: aggravatingand mitigatingfactors.The Committee findsthreeaggravating Having determined the baselinesanction,the Committee must consider
case issuspension. clientor party...."The Committee findsthatthe baselinesanctionin this isviolatinga courtorderor rule,and causes injuryor potentialinjuryto a that"[sjuspensionisgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer knows thathe or she based on the assertionthatno validobligationexists. Standards § 6.22 states Page 5of6 and organized recordsof the stepstaken to comply with the above clients,opposing counsel,courts,and others,and maintain complete e. Mr. Salomon shallretaincopiesofallnoticelettersissuedto
within thirty(30) days afterthe effectivedate ofthe suspension order. affidavitfiledwith the Court pursuantto Supreme Court Rule 37(13)(d) d. Mr. Salomon shallprovide the Committee with a copy ofthe
fact,or otherfiduciary. appointments as guardian,executor,administrator,trustee,attorney-inallpending proceedings,and resigneffectiveSeptember 7, 2016, from all pending, and to opposing counsel in allpending matters,withdraw from allappropriatecourts,agencies,and tribunalsinwhich proceedings are c. Mr. Salomon shallprovide writtennotificationofhissuspension to
or property. they are entitled,callingattentionto any urgency for obtainingthe files in pending mattersalloriginalfilecontentsand otherpropertyto which transferoftheirfiles,and make availableto allclientsbeing represented attorneysfrom hisfirm,instructthem regardingthe handling and hisclientsoftheirneed to obtainnew counsel,which may includeother Rule 37(13)(a).In hiswrittennoticeto clients,Mr. Salomon shallapprise b. Mr. Salomon shallcomply with the provisionsofSupreme Court
existingclients. 7, 2016. Mr. Salomon shallnot take on any new mattersfor new or a. Mr. Salomon shallcease allpracticeoflaw on or before September
actions: In connection with hissuspension,Mr. Salomon shalltake the following
becomes final,whichever islater,unlesstimelyappealed. This ordershalltake effecton September 7, 2016 or thirtydays afterit
V. EFFECTIVE DATE
omitted). The sanctionisalsoin accord with the Standards. in the future."Grew's Case, 156 N.H. 361, 365 (2007) (quotationand citation bar,preservethe integrityofthe legalprofession,and preventsimilarconduct punishment but ratherto protectthe public,maintain publicconfidence in the (2005). The purpose of the Court'sdisciplinarypower "isnot to inflict e.g.,Conner's Case 158 N.H. at303; Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. 155, 159-60 This sanctionisin accord with the purposes ofattorneydiscipline. See Page 6 of6 File RussellF. Hilliard,Esquire cc: ElizabethM. Murphy, AssistantDisciplinaryCounsel
Chair [avidM. Rothstein
August 8, 2016
Conduct 3.4(c)and 8.4(a). recommends a six-month suspension forviolatingN.H. Rules ofProfessional For allofthe above reasons,the ProfessionalConduct Committee
VIII. CONCLUSION
investigationand prosecutionofthismatter. agreement. Mr. Salomon shallbe responsiblefor allcostsassociatedwith the and prosecutionofthisdisciplinarymatter. The Committee approves this Mr. Salomon has signed an agreement to pay costsof the investigation
VII. COSTS
Sup. Ct. R. 37(16)(a). rightto appeal thisdecisionto the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See also Pursuantto Supreme Court Rule 37(A)(III)(d)(2)(D)(4)(A),the partieshave the
VI. RIGHT TO APPEAL
37(14)(f)without furtherhearingbefore thisCommittee. Salomon may apply for reinstatementpursuantto Supreme Court Rule above requirementsand paid allof the above referencedcosts,Mr. h. Provided thatMr. Salomon has timelycomplied with each ofthe
and prosecutionofthismatter. g. Mr. Salomon shallpay allcostsassociatedwith the investigation
f. Mr. Salomon shallcomply with Rule ofProfessionalConduct 7.5(c).
requirements.