Christopher C. Buck (2017)

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards"). 155, 159-60 (2005). The sanctionisalsoin accord with the ABA Standards for See e.g.,Conner's Case 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009); Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. appropriate.Itssanctionisin accord with the purposes ofattorneydiscipline. The Committee alsoconcluded thata Six-Month Suspension is

ProfessionalConduct 3.4(c);8.1;and 8.4(a),as stipulated. evidence. Itfurtherfound thatChristopherC. Buck's conduct violatedRules of The Committee approved the factsas stipulatedby clearand convincing

and Mona T. Movafaghi were absent. Krans, Vice Chair; Susan R. Chollet;Richard H. Darling;Margaret R. Kerouac; Leonard; David W. McGrath; Georges J.Roy; and Martha Van Oot. Heather E. M. Rothstein,Chair; Elaine Holden, Vice Chair; PeterG. Beeson; Caroline K. DisciplinaryMatter (attachedas ExhibitB). Members presentincludedDavid ("theStipulation,"attachedas ExhibitA), and theAgreement to Pay Costs of Committee") deliberatedthe Stipulationas to Facts,Violationsand Sanction On June 20, 2017, the ProfessionalConduct Committee ("the

Buck, Christopher C. advs. Attorney DisciplineOffice - # 16-038

Margaret R. Kerouac BarbaraJ. Guay, Legal Assistant Richard H. Darling* * non attorney member 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 ChristopherC. Buck cc: ElizabethM. Murphy, AssistantDisciplinaryCounsel

costsof investigationand prosecutionof thismatter. agreement thatChristopherC. Buck shallreimburse the Committee for all Having approved the stipulatedsanction,the Committee approved the p. 3 New HampshireSupreme CourtClerkEileenFox ("Ms.Fox")forwarding

5. This disciplinarymatterarisesfrom an October7,2016 referralfrom

4. Mr. Buck does not have a previous disciplinary history.

Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801.

practice as The BuckLaw Firmlocatedat 315SpringbrookCircle,

3. At all timesmaterialtothisproceeding,Mr. Buck maintained a solo

2. Mr. Buck has not beenadmittedtopracticelaw in any otherjurisdiction.

C. Buck- ADM-2015-0024.

from thepracticeoflaw on June22,2015. In theMatterofChristopher

Hampshireon November 5,2008. He was administrativelysuspended

1. Christopher C. Buck ("Mr.Buck")was admitted to practice law inNew

("ADO") stipulateas follows:

Respondent ChristopherC. Buck and the Attorney DisciplineOffice

p. 4 inventoryofMr. Buck'sfilesand to takeactionto protectthe interests of

2015, if itbelievedthat anattorneyshould be appointed to take an

The CourtfurtherorderedthattheADO advisetheCourtbyAugust3,

theADO byWednesday,July22,2015,that he hadcompletedthis task.

beensuspendedfrom thepracticeoflawinNew Hampshireand notify

Court'sorder,Mr. Buck was tonotifyhisclientsinwritingthat he had

Mr. Buck's trustaccountsand otherfinancialrecords.As part of the

Mr. Buck from the practiceof law inNew Hampshire andforan audit of

8. As aresult,on June22,2015,theCourtenteredan ordersuspending

requirement.

compliancewith Supreme Court Rule 53, which governs theMCLE

7. Mr. Buck failedtorespondto theshow causeorderorbringhimselfinto

practiceof lawin New Hampshire.

30, 2014, and to pay latefeesassessed or be suspendedfrom the

legaleducation("MCLE") requirementforthereportingyearendingJune

Bucktofilehiscertificateofcompliancewiththeminimum continuing

SupremeCourt("Court")issued ashow causeorderwhichrequiredMr.

6. By way offurtherbackground,on May 1,2015,theNew Hampshire

DisciplinaryCounsel on December 15,2016.

Buck's filesand trustaccountingrecords.The matterwas referredto

the July29,2016 reportofcounselappointedto take an inventoryofMr. p. 5 $300 checks forattorney'sfees.My withdrawal to the court themonthly alimonypayments of$2,400. I only receivethe entirelytoward attorney'sfees. Tobe clear, I donot handle client's doctor, and then the $300monthly payment will go directly. Ihave a $500 payment tomake tomy former Opposing partywas ordered to paymy attorney'sfees tome 2. $300 monthly as part of a negotiatedsettlement.

agreement is$50. case settledin June, 2015. My monthly revenue under the Matters,LLC and counselagreed to areferralfee,and the 1. A former small-claimsclient,who I referredto One Client

cases): longer,and have submittedmy withdrawals in allofthe payments (though I do not perform any legal services any parties. In particular, I receivethe followingmonthly practiceare recurring paymentsfrom clients or opposing relationshipswithmy clients. The onlyvestigesofmy solo position in December of2014,1began winding down my I donot have any currentclients.When Iacceptedthe

11. Mr. Buck's response furtherexplained:

thisresponse is ahelpfulstepinthatdirection. familythatmy law license is worth holding onto[sic].I hope still dealing with those issues, I have been persuaded bymy the fees, orthe fines, and wasburiedin debt.Though I'm suspensionbecause,frankly,I didn't havethemeans to pay attentiontothelettersregarding CLE's[sic]or my and informedall ofmy clients ofthe same. Ididn'tpay At thebeginningof this year, I moved to a new non-legal job,

10. Mr. Buck fileda responseon July20,2015, stating:

was suspended.

funds, and, if so, whether he had notified all his clients in writingthathe

any active oropen New Hampshire clientfilesand New Hampshire client

ADO in writingno laterthan July22, 2015 as to whether Mr. Buck had

Kruse ("Mr.Kruse")senta letter toMr. Buck requiringhim tonotifythe

9. By letterdated June 25, 2015, then Deputy General Counsel James L. p. 6 September4,2015. Mr. Buck did not reply.

16. Mr. Kruseleft anothertelephonevoicemessageforMr. Buck on

ADO didnot receiveany oftheadditionalrequestedinformation.

theinformationwas forthcoming.DespiteMr. Buck'sassurances, the

15. In an August 26,2015 telephone call,Mr. Buck assuredMr. Kruse that

Kruse.

14. Thereafter,Mr. Buck failedtoprovidethe requestedinformationtoMr.

handling ofclientfunds."

confirmationfrom Mr. Buck by August14,2015 regarding"hisproper

However,Mr. Kruse reiteratedthathe had requestedfurther

attorneytoinventoryfiles or totakeany otheractionatthattime.

that under thecircumstances,itappearedunnecessaryto appointan

13. On the same day,Mr. Kruse senta letterto Ms. Fox wherein he advised

confirm hisstatementsno laterthan August 14,2015.

necessary,but requestedthatMr. Buck provideadditionalinformationto

he agreedthatan attorneyto inventory filesand an auditwould not be

12. On July29,2015,Mr. Kruse sent afollowup letter toMr. Buck in which

theirsin trust,and willwritechecks to them forthwith. divorceclientsof my suspension,sinceI stillhave monies of Pursuantto the Court'sorder,I willinform the two former

retainer. thisyear,but did not connect,so thatIcould returnhim his case, and we correspondedbrieflyby email at beginning of since2013. He went on torepresenthimselfin hisdivorce formerclient,whom I have notworkedforin any capacity 3. Otherwise, I have an amount of$600 to returnto a 2014 atthe conclusionofthe case. and disengagementletterto myclientwere completedin p. 7 New Hampshire to performan inventoryand instructingMr. Samdperil

Samdperil,Esq. ("Mr.Sarndperil") ofSamdperil & Welsh, PLLC, Exeter,

21. On October 13, 2015, the Courtenteredan orderappointingRichardE.

lettersdated June 25, 2015 and July29, 2015.

respond inwritingto theADO addressingthequestionssetforthin his

20. Mr. Kruse repliedvia email onOctober 2,2015, and requestedMr. Buck

letme know. Ihope that'sencouraging enough to avoid an audit. Please

closeout my trustaccount. That would have thingscompletelywrapped up. Ican then I can cuta check to my otherformer client,thedivorcecase.

to thedoctor. her medicalbills tothedoctor.Illpay $1,100 from my trust I alsojustgot intouch withthe both ofthem about paying

attorney'sfees. Counsel isDavid Carron. checks from now on, and then cutchecks to me for transitioningallaccountingover to him. He would collectall representation,and I'm working with Counsel on The woman making $300 payments monthly has new I'vemade progresson untanglingmyself from former clients.

line"Clientwind down." In hisemail,Mr. Buck stated:

19. On October 2, 2015,Mr. Buck sentan email toMr. Kruse with asubject

he requestedthattheADO withdraw the recommendation for an audit.

18. Mr. Buck sentan email on September 18, 2015, to Mr.Kruse inwhich

files.

thatan attorneybe appointed for an inventory ofMr. Buck'sremaining

Court ofMr. Buck'sfailure to respond to theADO, and recommending

17. On September 14, 2015,Mr. Kruse senta lettertoMs. Fox advising the not replyto theemail.

p. 8 weekend times and Iwilldo my best to accommodate you."Mr. Buck did

regular business hours.Pleasefeelfreeto suggest someeveningor

furtherwrote:"Iunderstand thatyou havework obligationsduring

stating that heneededtoproceedas the Courtordered.Mr. Samdperil

26. On October 27, 2015,Mr. Samdperil once again emailed Mr. Buck

had notcompletedthepleadingbutwould send a copywhen hedid.

business hours onweekdays,"wasunder a lot ofpressureatwork,"and

followingday.Mr. Buck repliedthat he was notavailableto meetduring

that he had notreceivedanypleadingsand suggestinga meetingforthe

25. On October26,2015,Mr. SamdperilsentMr. Buck an email,indicating

Court,and would copy him on any pleading.

thathe intendedto filean objectionor motion to reconsiderwith the

24. Mr. Buck respondedtoMr. Samdperilviaemailthatsame day,advising

requestinga time to take possessionofthefiles.

23. On October 20,2015,Mr. Samdperil sent afollow-upemail toMr. Buck

with an email to arrangethe transferof Mr.Buck's files.

emailaddress tofacilitatecorrespondence.Mr. Samdperilfollowedup

Mr. Buck acknowledgedreceipt ofthe order, andprovidedan updated

and advisedhim of the Court's order ofOctober13, 2015. Atthattime,

22. On October19,2015,Mr. SamdperilcontactedMr. Buck viatelephone

fiduciaryaccounts of Mr. Buck.

totakepossessionofthe New Hampshire clientfiles,trustand other theinventory.. . . p. 9 or reportback totheCourt thatyou arenot cooperatingwith senton October 27 and October 30. I need to move forward Ihave receivedno replyto my lasttwo emails,which were

certifiedmail and email stating:

30. On November 3, 2015, Mr. Samdperil senta letterto Mr.Buck via

October 27, 2014.

The case summary in theremainingmatter showedno newactivitysince

Buck was counsel ofrecordfor 14cases,and allbutone were closed.

Buck appeared as counselof record. Mr.Samdperil was advisedthatMr.

3, 2015and requesteda searchof allcases(in allcourts)where Mr.

29. Mr. Samdperil alsocontactedtheCircuitCourt callcenteron November

00814, 9thCircuitCourt - Family Division -Nashua).

Barkley.(Randy Barkley & Marie Barkley,Case No. 226-2008-DM-

issuesfor one client,Ms. VictoriaMcLaughlin,formerly known as Marie

thatallmatterswere closed with the exception of someon-goingfinancial

Mr. Buck's mattershad been transferredto him. Mr. Carron advised

2015, Mr. SamdperilcontactedDavid Carron,Esq. to verifythatsome of

investigatethe matter with theinformationhe did have. OnNovember 3,

28. GivenMr. Buck's lack of response,Mr. Samdperilattemptedto

replyto the email.

phone, so feelfreeto contactme over the weekend." Mr. Buck did not

I am around thisweekend if there is agood time.Ireceiveemails on my

thought Iwould make onemore attempt to schedule somethingwith you.

27. On October30,2015,Mr. SamdperilemailedMr. Buck again stating: I p. 10 8

1The actualamount ofthe refund was $ p. 10 841.50.

Court isclear.. . . without incurringmore expenses,but my directionfrom the appreciatethatyou want to tieup looseends yourself appropriate,disbursementswillbe made to clients.I provide me access to your clientfilesand accounts. If Despiteany arrangements you may have made, you must

attached. same thing,which was alsomailed toyou yesterday,is tomorrow,Thursday, 11/5/15. A copy of aletterstatingthe you deliver all NHclientfilesand accounts to me by5:00 Iassume you alsoreceived myemailyesterdayaskingthat

stating:

32. Mr. Samdperil replied onNovember 4, 2015, via email, in relevantpart,

allmonies willbe paid and my trustaccount can be closed. $700!or so togo to the lastclientafter that.Which is to say, request)tomorrow, and Ihave arrangements forthelast One former client'scheck is goingout in themail (ather

stated:

thathe had two remainingfiles.With respecttoclienttrustfunds,he

one would statethat"thereisnothing to audit."Mr. Buck alsoindicated

2015. Mr. Buck statedthathe was "working on motions now," and that

31. Mr. Buck senta replythatday toMr. Samdperil'semail ofOctober30,

isyour opportunityto do so. . . . have listedabove, Iam stillopen todiscussingthatand this Ifyou would liketo make differentarrangements than what I

password so thatI may accessthosematerials. pleaseprovide me with theappropriateusername and your filesmay be accessibleviaDropBox. Ifthatisthe case, addressis below. It is myunderstandingthatsome or all of by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 5, 2015. My office and trustand otherfiduciaryaccounts deliveredto my office With thatin mind, Iwould likeall New Hampshire clientfiles a recentbank statement.

p. 11 SamdperilindicatedthatMr. Buck had provided hisaccountledgerand

takepossessionof Mr.Buck's clientfileson January 8,2016. Mr.

thatMr. Buck had been in contactwith him and he was scheduled to

37. On January8,2016,Mr. Samdperil sent a letter to the Court advising

tohistrustand fiduciaryaccounts by January 8, 2016.

immediately provideMr. Samdperil with hisclientfilesand with access

36. On December 22, 2015, the Court issuedan Order thatMr. Buck

Court'sOrder.

investigationregardingMr. Buck'scontinuednon-compliancewith the

Court and requestedan Order referringthe matterto theADO for further

35. Mr. Samdperil filed asecond reportdated December 14,2015 with the

attemptsto access Mr. Buck's filesand accounts.

Samdperil'sdetailedaccount ofcommunications with Mr. Buck and his

Clerk ofthe New Hampshire Supreme Court. The reportsetforthMr.

34. On November 20, 2015, Mr. Samdperilfiledan Interimreportwith the

from Mr. Buck.

thereafter,Mr. Samdperil did not receiveany furthercommunications

emailMr. Buck indicateda furtherresponsewas forthcoming,but,

acknowledged receiptofthe certifiedletteron November 5,2015. In the

33. On November 10, 2015, Mr. Buck contactedMr. Samdperilviaemailand

offilesand accounts. thatis easier.But I need to move forward with theinventory Again, Iam happy to pickup filesatyour office orhome if p. 12 10

been notified ofAttorneyBuck's suspension. taken possessionofthoseclientfiles,and those clientshave or financialinformationhas been forthcoming.Counsel has or returnedby December p. 12 10, 2015. No furtherbank records recordspurportto show thatallclientfunds were disbursed monies afterhissuspension,AttorneyBuck's financial extentthatAttorney Buck continued to receiveand disburse Hampshire and does not have any currentclients.To the Buck isnot currentlyengaged in thepracticeof law in New and Odysseycase summaries, counselbelievesthatAttorney and financial informationthatAttorney Buckhas provided, Based upon AttorneyBuck's representations,theclientfiles

42. In hisconclusion,Mr. Samdperil stated:

contacts,Attorney Buck has never provided thatdocument. verifythattheaccountis in fact closed. Despiterepeated December 2015 IOLTA bank statementso thatcounsel can CounselrequestedthatAttorneyBuck provide a copy of his

thereport,Mr. Samdperil advised:

41. On July29, 2016,Mr. Samdperilfileda fourthreportwith the Court. In

December 2015 IOLTA statement.

40. Thereafter,Mr. Buck did notprovideMr. Samdperilwith a copyof the

has indicatedthathe willprovidethatdocument. can verifythattheaccountis in fact closed. AttorneyBuck hisDecember 2015 IOLTA bank statementso thatcounsel Counsel is still waiting forAttorneyBuck to provide a copy of

39. Mr. Samdperil furtherstated:

2015 order. has substantiallycomplied with theCourt'sDecember 22, account has a $0 balance and is now closed,AttorneyBuck informationin orderto confirmAttorneyBuck's IOLTA Although counsel is stillwaitingforadditionalbank

wherein Mr. Samdperil advised:

38. On February 15, 2016,Mr. Samdperilfiledhis third report to the Court, p. 13 11

November 4, 2016.

47. Mr. Buck didnotfilea reply or produce therequesteddocuments by

ledgersand client ledgersforthe same time period.

January 1, 2015, through thedateof theletter,as well as account

requestedthatMr. Buck produce hisIOLTA bank statementsfrom

from Mr. Buck by November 4, 2016. In theletter,Ms. DeVito also

docketed the referral as a complaint andrequesteda mandatory reply

46. On October 17, 2016, GeneralCounselJanetDeVito ("Ms.DeVito")

Samdperil, Ms. Fox referredthismatterto theADO.

45. On October 7, 2016, based upon theJuly29, 2016 reportof Mr.

and itemizedbillingreportwith the Court.

44. On August 3, 2016, Mr. Samdperil filedhisfinalAttorney'sStatement

warranted.

theADO conduct a furtherinvestigation,ifthe Court determined itwas

43. Mr. Samdperil requestedthatthematterbe closedand requestedthat

Attorney Buck's trustaccount spreadsheet. clientfunds were dispersedin the manner representedin cannot verifythatclienttrustaccounts are closedand that promised trustaccount bank recordsmeans thatcounsel omitted.]Additionally,AttorneyBuck's failureto provide in thosecases,particularlyafterhissuspension.[Footnote questionsabout the natureofAttorney Buck's involvement those matters. These circumstancesareunusual and raise periodoftime afterhissuspension and afterhe withdrew in receive,dispenseor hold clientmonies for asignificant As noted in priorreports,Attorney Buck continued to p. 14 12

thathe had previouslybeen unable to find,$841.00. The check cleared

toMr. Samdperil. OnDecember 10, 2015,Mr. Buck refunded a client,

December 2015 transactionswereconsistent with the explanationsgiven

2015 theIOLTA account was $0.00 aftercheck #4158 cleared.The

52. A reviewoftheIOLTA bank statementreflectsthatas ofDecember 21,

2015 through December 31, 2016.

2017,Mr. Buck providedhisIOLTA account statementsfromJanuary1,

counsel on February 6,2017 regardingthe matter. On February 8,

scheduledforFebruary 6,2017. Mr. Buck spoke with undersigned

undersignedcounsellaterthatafternoonand a telephoneconference was

to providethe IOLTA statementsby email. Mr. Buck emailed

undersignedcounsel'slegalassistant,Ms. GladysStrickhart, requesting

51. On February3,2017,Mr. Buck called theADO and spoke with

February 6, 2017.

schedulean appointmentto meet withundersignedcounselno laterthan

February 6, 2017. Itwas alsorequestedthatMr. Buck calltheADO to

Ms. DeVito'srequests andrequiringthat all documents beproducedby

50. On January19,2017,undersignedcounselwrotetoMr. Buck renewing

matterto DisciplinaryCounsel forfurtheraction.

49. On December 15, 2016, the ComplaintScreeningCommittee referredthe

letter.

requesting an immediate response.Mr. Buck did not respond tothat

48. On November 7, 2016,Ms. DeVitosenta follow-uplettertoMr. Buck p. 15 13

account atsuch time as hisadministrativesuspensionisliftedand his

57. Mr. Buck understandsthathe willneed to open a new clienttrust

2017.

2017. He providedverificationthattheaccount was closedon April20,

ADO's request,Mr. Buck closedhisclienttrustaccount on April p. 15 13,

practicinglaw atthattime and was administrativelysuspended. At the

appropriateto closehisclienttrustaccount. He was not actively

56. After December 2015, Mr. Buck had been unsure as to whether itwas

counsel.

2015 orderand has been reasonablycooperativewith undersigned

reasonsfortheclienttrustaccount activityafterthe Court'sJune 22,

documentation includingaccount ledgers,sufficientlyexplainedhis

55. Since February 2017, Mr. Buck has provided therequested

to do so atthistime.

has not enteredintoa formal contractwith NHLAP and does not intend

Program ("NHLAP") attendedthemeeting atMr. Buck's request.Mr. Buck

theADO. Ms. Cecie Hartigan ofthe New Hampshire Lawyer's Assistance

54. Mr. Buck met in person with undersigned counsel on March 29, 2017 at

24, 2017 was cancelledatMr. Buck's request.

53. A meeting originallyscheduledwith undersigned counsel forFebruary

through the December 2016 statement.

on December 21, 2015. A $0.00 balance was maintained in the account p. 16 14

counselingand treatmentthrough an individualtherapistand his

issuesthatincludeddepressionand anxietyforwhich he sought

61. During 2015 and 2016, Mr. Buck was sufferingfrom mental health

with a New Hampshire company.

new employment opportunity,anticipatinga job offer,as a web developer

enrollmentintheprogram because,as ofJune 5,2017, he ispursuinga

scheduled to starton June 5, 2017. Mr. Buck plansto deferhis

Hampshire Code Bootcamp program in lateMay, 2017. The program is

practiceof law. Mr.Buck was acceptedintothe Universityof New

60. At thistime,Mr. Buck plansto pursue work thatdoes not involvethe

terminated(due to areductioninforce).

June 5, 2017, Mr. Buck's employment with LibertyMutual was

receivedsuch benefitsfrom LibertyMutual untilJune 5, 2017. As of

been receivingshort-termdisabilitybenefitsforseveralweeks and

a "Business Systems Analyst" sinceJanuary 5, 2015. Mr. Buck has

59. Mr. Buck has been employedatLibertyMutual in a non-legal capacity as

stressfulto him.

ends meet" as a solopractitioner.His practicearea,family law,was also

decided to close his law practice because he was not financially "making

receiving a job offer from Liberty MutualInsuranceCompany. Mr. Buck

58. Mr. Buck began to wind downhislaw practicein November 20 p. 16 14, after

practiceof law as a solo practitioner.

disciplinarysuspension isserved and ifhe chooses to resume the p. 17 15

ofJune 22, 20 p. 17 15, October 13,2015 and December 22, 2015.

67. Mr. Buck knew thathe was obligatedto comply with theCourt'sorders

obligationexists; except foran open refusalbased on an assertionthatno valid (c)knowingly disobey an obligationunder the rulesofa tribunal A lawyer shallnot:

66. Rule 3.4(c)statesas follows:

65. The factssetforthabove areincorporatedby reference.

Rule 3.4(c):Fairness toOpposing Party and Counsel

ofthe New Hampshire Rules ofProfessionalConduct, as follows:

64. The partiesagree thatMr. Buck's conduct inthiscase involvesviolations

followSupreme Court ordersand hislackofcooperationwith theADO.

appropriateresolutionfor Mr.Buck's conduct includinghisfailureto

63. The partieshave agreed to theRule violationsand sanctionbelow as the

treatmentonce he has healthinsurancebenefits.

hishealthinsurancebenefits.Mr. Buck intendsto resume active

time, Mr.Buck's continuedtreatmentisdependent upon the statusof

2017, he and hiswifebegan therapywith a marriage counselor. At this

62. In December 2016, he began treatmentwith apsychiatristand in March

job atLibertyMutual.

issues.Mr. Buck alsoexperienced severestresswhich he relatedto his

a diagnosisofADHD. He was alsoexperiencingsignificantfinancial

primary carephysician. He alsoreceivedtreatmentforissuesrelatedto p. 18 16

informationfrom an admissionsor disciplinaryauthority, matter,or knowingly fail torespond to a lawfuldemand for misapprehension known by theperson to have arisenin the (b) fail todisclosea factnecessaryto correcta (a) knowingly make a falsestatementofmaterialfact;or disciplinarymatter,shallnot: with a bar admission applicationor in connectionwith a An applicantforadmission tothe bar,or alawyer inconnection

74. Rule 8.1 statesas follows:

73. The factssetforthabove are incorporatedby reference.

Rule 8.1;Bar Admission and DisciplinaryMatters

3.4(c).

Buck's conduct,as describedherein,constitutesa violationofRule

72. The partiesagreethatthereisclearand convincingevidencethatMr.

3.4(c).

October 13, 2015 and December 22, 2015 constitutesa violationofRule

71. Mr. Buck'sfailure to comply with theCourt'sOrders ofJune 22, 2015,

failedtoprovidehisDecember2015 IOLTA statementtoMr. Samdperil.

70. Mr. Buck failedto comply with the December 22, 2015 orderwhen he

clienttrustaccount informationpromptly.

cooperatewith Mr. Samdperil tofacilitateturningover clientfilesand

69. Mr. Buck failedtocomplywith theOctober13, 2015 order byfailingto

was necessary.

to cooperate with theADO's requeststo determine whether an inventory

immediatelysuspend hisuse ofhisclienttrustaccount,and hisfailure

68. Mr. Buck failedtocomplywith theJune 22, 2015 order byfailingto p. 19 17

sanctionwould servethe purposes ofattorneydiscipline.

month suspensionistheappropriatesanctionin thismatter. This

82. The AttorneyDisciplineOfficeand Mr. Buck jointlyagree thata six-

8.4(a).

evidence thatMr. Buck's conduct,as describedherein,violatedRule

81. Having found theforegoingviolations,thereisclearand convincing

documentation and informationfrom theAttorneyDisciplineOffice.

Buck violatedRule 8.1(b)when he failed to complywith the requestsfor

80. The partiesagree thatthereisclearand convincingevidencethatMr.

79. Mr. Buck failedto replyto Ms.DeVito'sinquiries.

October p. 19 17, 2016 and November 7, 2016 letters.

78. Mr. Buck alsoknew thathe was requiredto respond to Ms.DeVito's

77. Mr. Buck failed toprovidedocumentation thatMr. Kruse requested.

the summer of2015.

76. Mr. Buck knew thathe was requiredtocooperatewith Mr. Kruseduring

inferredfrom thecircumstances.See Rule 1.0(f).

75. The term "knowingly"not onlyincludesactualknowledge,but knowledge

disciplinaryauthority. (c) fail toattenda hearingwhen ordered to do so by a informationotherwiseprotectedby Rule 1.6;or except thatthisRule does not requiredisclosureof p. 20 18

affectthe baselinesanction. See id. (statingthat"[a]fterdeterminingthe

existenceofany aggravatingor mitigatingfactors,and whether they

the Court then looks to thefourthand finalpartofthe analysis:the

theappropriatesanction").Once the baselinesanctionisdetermined,

thefirststepis tocategorizethe respondent'smisconduct and identify

Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at303 (statingthat"[i]napplying thesefactors,

characterizingthemisconduct and determininga baselinesanction. See

86. The firstthreepartsoftheanalysiscreatetheframework for

613, 621 (2007)); Standards § 3.0.

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

injurycaused by thelawyer'smisconduct; and (d)theexistenceof

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

fourpartanalysisforcourtstoconsiderinimposing sanctions:"(a)the

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

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

513 (2005).

account the severityofthe misconduct." Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503,

Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). "The sanction. . .must takeinto

legalprofession,and preventingsimilarconduct inthefuture." Conner's

maintainingpublicconfidence inthebar,preservingtheintegrityofthe

84. The purposeoftheCourt'sdisciplinary power is"protectingthepublic,

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) {"Standards") supportthissanction.

83. Both case lawand the American Bar Association's Standardsfor p. 21 19

causes injuryor potentialinjuryto a clientor a party,or thathe or she isviolatinga courtorder or rule,and 6.22 Suspension isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer knows

proceeding. causes seriousor potentiallyseriousinterferencewith a legal seriousinjuryor potentiallyseriousinjuryto a partyor obtaina benefitforthelawyer or another,and causes knowingly violatesa courtorderor rulewith theintentto 6.21 Disbarment isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer

Counsel) implicatesSection6.2 ofthe Standards. That Sectionprovides:

92. Mr. Buck's violationof Rule 3.4(c)(Fairnessto Opposing Partyand

suspension. See Standards §§ 6.22 and 7.2.

91. The partiesagree thatthebaselinesanctionin thismatterisa

Mr. Buck.

forinformationand documentation could have easilybeen provided by

Samdperil were divertedto addressMr. Buck's matterwhen the requests

professionin thatresourcesofthe Supreme Court, theADO and Mr.

90. Mr. Buck's conduct resultedin actualinjuryto thelegalsystem and the

actualor potentialinjurycaused by Mr. Buck's misconduct.

89. The thirdprong ofthe sanctionanalysisrequiresan assessment ofthe

knowing with respectto the Rule violations.

sanctionanalysis,thepartiesagree thatMr. Buck's mental statewas

88. With respectto Mr.Buck's mental stateunder the second prong ofthe

thelegalsystem and thelegalprofession. See Standards §§ 6.2 and 7.0.

87. Under the firstprong ofthe analysis,Mr. Buck violateddutiesowed to

mitigatingfactorson the ultimatesanction").

sanction,[theCourt] considers]the effect ofany aggravatingor p. 22 20

Standards, would callfora baselinesanctionofa suspension.

94. Mr. Buck's conduct inthismatter,when consideredunder the

the public,or thelegalsystem. (Emphasis added.) and causes littleor no actualor potentialinjuryto a client, thelawyer'sconduct violatesa duty owed as a professional, inan isolatedinstanceofnegligenceindeterminingwhether 7.4 Admonition isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer engages

to a client,thepublic,or thelegalsystem. owed as a professionaland causes injuryor potentialinjury negligentlyengages inconduct thatis aviolationof aduty 7.3 Reprimand isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer

injurytoa client,the public,or the legalsystem. duty as a professionaland causes injuryor potential knowingly engages inconduct thatisa violationofa 7.2 Suspension isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer

seriousinjuryto a client,the public,or thelegalsystem. the lawyer or another,and causes seriousor potentially owed as a professionalwith theintentto obtaina benefitfor knowingly engages in conduct thatisa violationofa duty 7.1 Disbarment isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer

Section 7.0 ofthe Standards. That Sectionprovides:

93. Mr. Buck's violationofRule 8.1(b)(DisciplinaryMatters)implicates

interferencewith a legalproceeding.(Emphasis added.) injuryto a party,or causes littleor no actualor potential courtorderor rule,and causes littleor no actualor potential inan isolatedinstanceofnegligencein complying with a 6.24 Admonition isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer engages

proceeding. causes interferenceor potentialinterferencewith a legal causes injuryor potentialinjuryto a clientor otherparty,or negligentlyfailsto comply with a courtorderor rule,and 6.23 Reprimand isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer

proceeding. causes interferenceor potentialinterferencewith a legal p. 23 21

enforcement ofthisdisciplinarymatter. See Supreme Court Rule 37(19).

to pay thecostsincurredby theADO in the investigationand

99. Subjectto the PCC's approval of Mr.Buck's Stipulation,Mr. Buck agrees

ofdisciplineand isan appropriatesanctionin thiscase.

suspensionisappropriate.A six-month suspension servesthepurposes

year and a halfperiod.The partiesagreethatthe baselinesanctionof a

departureisnot appropriategiven Mr.Buck's lackofcooperationover a

98. Despitethe mitigatingfactors,the partiesagree thata downward

Standards § 9.32.

stressorsoftenprevented him from completing the promised task. See

requestsof Mr.Kruse and Mr. Samdperil, butfound thathisdaily

open hismail. Mr. Buck alsoreportsa fullintentionto comply with the

addressingcertainobligations,includingtime periodswhere he did not

issuesduring 2015 and 2016. Both issuescaused him to avoid

Specifically,Mr. Buck was experiencingmental healthand financial

ofa dishonestor selfishmotive, and personaland emotional problems.

97. Mitigatingfactorsincludeabsence ofa priordisciplinaryrecord,absence

Standards § 9.22.

96. In thiscase,thereare no applicableaggravatingfactorspresent. See

mitigatingfactors. E.g.,Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at303.

95. The baselinesanctionmust be consideredin lightofany aggravatingand p. 24 22

102. Mr. Buck knowinglyand intelligently waiveshisrightto ahearing.

fullyaware oftheconsequences ofthe Stipulation.

he has a righttoobtaincounselregardingthisStipulation;and thathe is

inducements not setforthintheStipulation;thathe understandsthat

resultofany threats,coercion, orduress,or ofany promises or

and voluntarilysubmitted;thathe is notenteringthisStipulationas a

proposed disposition contained in this Stipulation arefreely,knowingly,

101. Mr. Buck acknowledgesthattheadmissionsofmisconduct and the

theStipulationpursuantto Rule 37A(III)(aa)(l).

disposition,and thatthe PCC may accept,reject,or conditionallyaccept

100. Mr. Buck understandsthatthisStipulationrepresentsa recommended

separateagreement signedby Mr.Buck.

Hisagreement to pay thecostsincurredby theADO is thesubjectof a p. 25 J

itsreceipt. do notnotifythe CommitteethatI dispute a bill,payment willbe due upon

Committee willconsiderthe disputeditemand issuea writtendecision. If I

of the dispute in writing within 30 days of my receipt of the bill. The

costs.IfI dispute thebill,IshallnotifytheCommitteeof thespecificnature

theincreasedcosts, withnoticeto mefrom theCommitteeregardingthose

this matter, theCommitteewillbillme forthese costs. I also agree to pay

approximately$40.25. Should further costs accrue in the disposition of

2. As ofMay 8,2017,I have beeninformedthatthecostspresently total

transcripts,copying,inventory,auditexpenses and publication.

37(19)(b).Costs can include,but arenot limitedto:mileage,stenographers,

investigationand enforcement ofthisdisciplinarymatter. See Sup. Ct. R.

matter,Iagree to pay the expenses incurredby the Committee in the

approval of the Stipulationas to Facts,Violationsand Sanction in the above

1. Subject to the ProfessionalConduct Committee's ("Committee") final

NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT p. 26 Respondent ChristopherC. Buck, Esquire *4f- Dated: Q/ p. 25 J,2017

AttorneyDisciplineOffice'scollectionefforts.

8. I also agree to be responsibleforall costs incurred as a result of the

enforcementremediesand procedures. See Sup.Ct.R. 37(19)(c).

judgmentand shallbe subjecttoalllegally-availablepost-judgment

courtin anycountyin the state, where it shall bedocketedas a final

7. The Committeemay fileacopyofthefinalassessmentwiththesuperior

Sup. Ct R. 37(19)(b). assessmentbypetitionto thesuperiorcourtin any county in thestate.

37(19)(b).The Committeemay resolvethe matter, orenforcethe

disputedexpenseand explainingmy reasonsfordisagreement.Sup.Ct.R.

(30)daysofreceiptoftheCommittee'sstatementofexpenses,Ustingeach

6. The Assessmentshallbecome finalunlessIrespondinwriting,withinthirty

enforcedin anySuperiorCourtinNew Hampshire.

shallhavethefullforceand effectofaciviljudgment.As aresult,itmay be

o. I understand andagreethat the assessment of costs is deemedfinaland

formaldemand forpayment.

furtherdetailof the nature and amount of eachexpense,and Ialsowaive

4. I waivetheprovisionsofSupremeCourtRule37(19)(b)regardingany

dispositionofthismatter.

3. I understand the Committee willnot issuean invoiceuntilthe final