Edward F. Wallace (2017)

ProfessionalConduct 1.15;5.3;8.4(a);and Sup. Ct. R. 50, as stipulated. evidence. Itfurtherfound thatEdward F. Wallace'sconduct violatedRules of The Committee approved the factsas stipulatedby clearand convincing

The Committee grantstheAssented-To Motion f or ProtectiveOrder.

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

Wallace, Edward F. advs. Attorney DisciplineOffice - # 16-049

Margaret R. Kerouac BarbaraJ. Guay, LegalAssistant Richard H. Darling* * non attorney member 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 Caroline K. Leonard

File ChristopherD. Hawkins, Esquire cc: Sara S. Greene, DisciplinaryCounsel

June 20, 2017

ofinvestigationand prosecutionof thismatter. agreement thatEdward F. Wallace shallreimburse the Committee for allcosts Having approved the stipulatedsanction,the Committee approved the

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards"). 155, 159-60 (2005). The sanctionis also in 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 of attorneydiscipline. The Committee also concluded thata Public Censure With Conditions is which is toresolvein the coming months, as describedfurtherbelow.

p. 3 Hampshire clientmattersand only onematterpending in Massachusetts

retiredand has no plans toreturntopracticinglaw. He has no New

4. Though Mr. Wallacein onactivestatusin bothstates,he has essentially

3. Mr. Wallace doesnot have a previousdisciplinaryhistory.

(December 22, 1978) and iscurrentlyon activestatusthere.

2. Mr. Wallace has also been admitted topracticelaw inMassachusetts

Hampshire. Mr. Wallace wasadmittedtopracticeon June 5, 1995.

1. Edward F. Wallace is anattorneylicensedtopracticelaw in New

stipulateas follows:

RespondentEdward F. Wallaceand theAttorneyDisciplineOffice(ADO)

NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT meet withMr. Russo onDecember 6, 2016 at theofficesof theInjury

p. 4 partiesthen communicated through counsel,and Mr. Wallace offered to

Mr. Russoto discuss thematter,butMr. Russofailedtorespond.The

financialrecords.Mr. Wallacepromptlyattempted to communicate with

notdeterminedefinitively what had occurredwithoutaccess tothe firm's

9. Mr. Wallacefirst heard about theODN on November 22, 2016.He could

indicatingthatthe firm'sCTA was overdrawn(the"overdraftnotice" or

8. In November 2016,Mr. Russoreceiveda callfrom EnterpriseBank

counsel in the transaction.

clienttrustaccount(the"CTA"). Bothpartieswererepresentedby

time Mr. Wallace had no involvementwhatsoeverwith the firm'sIOLTA

7. Mr. Russo purchased thepracticeon September 30,2016,afterwhich

Russo.

fouryearswhen Mr. Wallacedecidedtoretireand sellthepracticetoMr.

Mr. Russohad workedas an associateforMr. Wallaceforapproximately

Russo,Esquireand arisesout ofMr. Russo'spurchaseof thepractice.

6. Thisdisciplinarymatterwas initiatedbya complaintfiledbyJosephJ.

61 Spit Brook Road, Unit101,Nashua,New Hampshire.

InjuryLaw CenterofNew Hampshire,PLLC ("thefirm"or"thepractice"),

5. At all timesmaterialto thisproceeding,Mr. Wallacepracticedlaw at the

Events Leading to Grievance and Subsequent Compliance Review intentionalmisconduct with respectto clientfunds.

p. 5 theoverdrafton theIOLTA account.He denied anyknowingor

promptly made restitutiontothefirm inthe amount of$13,797.12 for

agreed to submit to and pay for acompliance review. Mr. Wallace also

errorswith respecttothe CTA, tookresponsibilityforthoseerrors,and

Wallace explainedthe threetransactionsindetail,admitted he made

12. In his timelyresponseto thegrievancelettersubmittedto theADO, Mr.

below.

based on threeclienttransactions,which willbe describedindetail

failed to properlyaccountfor client funds in theCTA. The grievance was

grievancedated December 9,2016 which allegedthatMr. Wallacehad

he reportedMr. Wallaceto theADO, consistentwith Rule8.3(a),in a

11. Because theODN was notcausedby post-closing activity byMr. Russo,

necessary."

thesituation,includingself-reporting to the Attorney DisciplineOfficeif

responsibilityfor them and take any stepsthatmay be required torectify

Attorney Wallace'swatch,then he ispreparedtoacceptpersonal

matter,and statingthat"iftherehave been errorsin the accounts on

2016 requestingaccess to the firm's booksand records to investigate the

10. Mr. Wallace'scounselwrote to counsel forMr. Russo on December 8,

informed Mr. Wallace'scounselhe was not welcome on thepremises.

Law Centerto review thematter.However,Mr. Russo,throughcounsel, accounts inthe CTA. That document reflectsthatfrom July9,2012

p. 6 17. Appended to the Report is a QuickBooksreportshowing all client

trustfunds." [SeeExhibitA atpage 2.]

supportingdocuments identified]the source and disbursement ofclients

account activitywas supported by settlementsheets,and related

performed monthly reconciliations,and that"[individualclienttrust

Mr. Wallacekeptindividualclient ledgers,thathisbook-keeper

misappropriationofclientfunds by Mr. Wallace. The Reportnotesthat

16. The compliancereview didnot uncoverany instancesof

MH, BG, and CP).

in theCTA when he made disbursementsin three clientmatters(clients

15. As setforth more fullybelow,Mr. Wallacenegligentlycaused an overdraft

clienttransactionsoutlinedin the Report.

Report, i.e.thathe made mistakesin thetrustaccountingforthe three

hereto as ExhibitA). Mr. Wallaceadmits thematerialfindings in the

14. Plodzik issuedits Report on March 23,2017 (the "Report,"attached

identifiedin the grievance . . . ."

administrationofthe [CTA] and specificinquiriesrelatingtomatters

2016 and relatedto "a generalreview ofthe maintenance and

compliance reviewcoversa oneyear periodending on December 15,

PA to conduct a compliance review ofMr. Wallace'sIOLTA account. The

13. In lateDecember 2016, theADO contractedwith Plodzik& Sanderson, bookkeeper to hold intereston the CTA account. Mr. Wallace was not

p. 7 QuickBooks called "Other," which was set up in2012 by his previous

alphabetically.In addition,Mr. Wallace utilizeda subaccount in

20. The firm's clients each had aQuickBookssubaccount,arranged

account for BG, aclientthathe was takingwith him post-sale.

funds thathe would continueto hold in trustin a Massachusetts IOLTA

earnedfees(intheMH and CP matters),and a third check representing

September 28, 2016, Mr. Wallace cutthreechecks to himself: two for

reconciled.As partofthatreconciliation,on September 21, 2016 and

bookkeeper of twoyears worked togetherto ensure thatallaccounts were

leadingup to the saleon September 30, 2016, Mr. Wallace and his

19. Mr. WallaceutilizedQuickBookssoftwareto track hisCTA. In thedays

2]-

reconciliationof accounts, prior to September 30, 2016." [See Ex.A, p.

MH, BG, and CPtrustaccounts,whichwereinitiated during the final

relatedto duplicatepayments disbursedfrom the account relatedto the

transactionsresultedin an overdraft [oftheCTA] . . . [t]heoverdrafts

to theADO. The Report notes:"[e]rrorsrelating to these[three]

the explanationthatMr. Wallaceprovidedin his initial written response

18. As to the three clientmattersat issue, the Report essentially confirmed

over 220 clientsin thatperiod.

CTA held over$9.2 million infunds,with over1,200 transactionsfor

throughSeptember 29,2016,when Mr. Wallacesold the practice, the oversighton hispart. p. 8 were created,it wasprobablythe resultof hisbecoming distractedor simplyan 2015 transactions.He believesthatin the 3 instancesinwhich two checks clientsubaccount/ledger.Mr. Wallacehas no memory oftheJanuary 16, Wallace would only have createdone check and then linkedthe check to a onlyILC employee authorizedto do so. Inthe normal course ofbusiness,Mr. 1 Mr. Wallace personallywrote allchecks on the IOLTA account and was the

QuickBooks. The second check was wasnot specificallyassigned

$1,696.61.lOne check was linked to theMH client ledger in

> On January 16, 2015, two checks were createdin QuickBooks for

followingoccurred in the case ofclientMH:

23. As an example,and withoutrepeatingthefindingsin the Report,the

the client'sledger).

the disbursement would show up only inthe"Other"account,and not

largerbalancethatwhat was actually held intrustfortheclient(because

22. This would resultin asituationwhere theclientledgerwould show a

subaccount.

by default,would assignthe disbursementas an entryinthe"Other"

to the clientsubaccount to which itpertained,the QuickBooks software,

check for a givenclientmatterfailed toproperly"link"the disbursement

withinMr. Wallace'saccounting practices, inthatif someone creating a

21. The existence of this "Other"subaccountcreated a "blind spot" ofsorts

came to fullyunderstand how itfunctionedas a resultofthe 2016 ODN.

awareofthis"Other"subaccount at thetimeit wascreated,and only by default. p. 9 QuickBooks for atransactionto beassignedtothe"Other"account otherthan account when no otheraccount isspecified.There isno functionin but defaulted to the "Other" account.Transactionsareassignedto the "Other" 2In each instance, checkswere notlinkedto the individual client accounts,

threetransactions.He acknowledges,however, thatitwas his

Report at3-5. Mr. Wallace has no independent recollectionofthese

24. Similarmistakes occurred inthe BG and CP mattersas noted in the

Law Center ofNew Hampshire, PLLC.

and thuswrote a checkfor$1,696.91 forearnedfees to the Injury

thathe must have failed totakehis feewhen the case resolved,

of$1,696.91. When he saw thisbalance,Mr. Wallace believed

September 28,2016, theMH ledgershowed a (mistaken)balance

> As a result,when Mr. WallaceviewedtheMH ledger on oraround

allamounts to which she was entitled.

totheclientaccount.ClientMH (as well as CPand BG) received

duplicatetransactionand then erroneouslydeletedthe one linked

transaction,he may have realizedhe had inadvertentlycreateda

QuickBooks. While Mr. Wallace doesnot specificallyrecallthis

the "other"subaccountwas processedand clearedthrough

MH ledgerwas erroneouslydeleted,whilethe check assignedto

> The same day the checks were created,the check assignedto the

"Other" account.2

to aclientledgerand thuswas automaticallyassignedto the p. 10 8

althoughMr. Wallace'saccounting errors detailed in the Reportinvolved

over a yearand a halfleading up to the sale of the practice. In addition,

have revealedthatthe"Other"subaccount carried anegativebalance for

regularlyreviewed QuickBookreportsfor all subaccounts,which would

over his bookkeeper. In particular,he admits thathe should have

26. Mr. Wallaceadmitsthat heshouldhaveexercisedmore diligentoversight

September 30, 2016.

inanticipationoftheclosingforthe sale ofthefirm,whichtook place on

and hisbookkeeperwere perhaps rushed to wrap up accounting issues

September 2016 should have alertedtohim to amistake. He believeshe

earned in 2015, and thus,a balance in the MH subaccount as of

have been unusual for him to have failed totake hisfeewhen itwas

WallaceadmitsthatgiventhattheMH case resolved in2015,it would

remainedas anunclearedtransactionfornearly a year.Similarly,Mr.

would have recognized,forexample, thatin the BG mattera check

responsibilityto ensure she wasdoingso. Had he taken these steps, he

article on clienttrustaccounting, but heacknolwedgesit was his

hisbookkeeperwas doing sobecausehe reviewed withher a Bar News

"three-way"reconciliationsasrequiredby Rule50(2)(c)(vi).He believed

25. Mr. Wallacefurtheracknowledgesthat hedidnotadquatelyperform

individualclientmatter, and tosupervisehisbookkeeper.

responsibilitytoensureaccurateaccountingfor hisCTA and each p. 11 (condition)).

promptlyclosetheMassachusettsIOLTA account. (Seeinfra, U 53(b)

open matters. Once the case is fullyresolvedand isclosed,he will

he mustmaintaina clienttrustaccountsolongas hemaintainsany

a claimfortotaldisability.UnderMassachusettstrustaccountingrules,

remainsopenas theclientisreceivingtemporarybenefitsbut ismaking

all funds have been distributed. The workers' compensation case

workers' compensation matter. The personal injury case is settled and

account.That matterinvolved both apersonalinjurycase and a

months, atwhich pointMr. Wallace will closehisMassachusetts IOLTA

matterinvolvingclientC.W. That mattershould resolvein the next 2-8

Massachusettsfor the sole purpose offinalizinga singleMassachusetts

clientmattersin New Hampshire. He maintains one IOLTA account in

28. Mr. Wallacehas no openIOLTA accounts inNew Hampshire and no

CP matters.

the three duplicate payments outlined in the Report for theMH, BG and

2016 in the amount of$13,797.12,an amount representing the total of

27. Mr. Wallacereimbursedthefirm'sCTA bycheckdatedDecember26,

forover a year.

only a fewmattersout ofhundreds, thosematterswere "unreconciled" p. 12 10

otherform ofdepositby such receivingfinancialinstitution, to thesum ofsuch disbursements,or(ii)clearanceof any certified check, or electronictransferoffunds atleastequal receivingfinancialinstitution,ofcash,bank cashier'scheck, (A) (i)deposit,receipt of which is acknowledged bythe (d)Funds may be disbursedfrom lawyertrustaccountsupon incurred. withdrawn by the lawyer only as fees areearned or expenses and expenses thathave been paid in advance, to be (c)A lawyershalldeposit into a clienttrustaccountlegal fees purpose. on thataccount,but only inan amount appropriateforthat accountfor the solepurposeof payingbank servicecharges (b)A lawyer may depositthe lawyer'sown funds in a clienttrust and appropriatelysafeguarded. clientand thirdpartypropertyshallbe identifiedas such distributionofsuch otherpropertyor any portionthereof.All shallbe preservedfor aperiodof sixyears afterfinal of clients orthirdpersonsshall be kept by the lawyerand aspectof those Rules.Sufficientrecords of allotherproperty Supreme Court Rulesand shall comply with everyother thirdpartyfunds as may be required by theNew Hampshire minimum financialrecordswith respectto the clientand Supreme Court Rules. The lawyershallmaintain the accordance with the provisionsof the NewHampshire representationseparatefrom thelawyer'sown property,in isin a lawyer'spossessionin connection with a (a)A lawyershallhold property of clients orthirdpersonsthat

31. Rule 1.15 statesas follows:

30. The facts set forthaboveat^|1-28aboveare incorporated byreference.

follows:

violations of theNew Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, as

29. The partiesagree thatMr. Wallace'sconduct in thiscase involves

nonlawyer shallmake reasonableeffortsto ensure that (b)Each lawyer having directsupervisoryauthorityover the compatible with the professionalobligationsofthelawyer; givingreasonableassurancethatthe person'sconduct is effortsto ensure thatthe firm has in effectmeasures managerial authorityin a law firm shallmake reasonable togetherwith otherlawyers possessescomparable (a)Each partner,and each lawyerwho individuallyor associatedwith a lawyer: With respectto anonlawyer employed or retainedby or

34. Rule 5.3 statesas follows:

33. The factssetforthatIffl1-32 aboveareincorporatedby reference.

Rule 5.3: ResponsibilitiesRegarding Nonlawver Assistants

in hisbeing "out oftrust"in threeclientmatters.

50, and by failingto properlyreconcileallclientaccounts,which resulted

thirdpartyfunds as requiredby New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule

maintain the minimum financialrecordswith respectto the clientand

32. Mr. Wallace violated Rule 1.15 and Supreme Court Rule 50 by failing to

propertyas to which the interestsare not in dispute. The lawyer shallpromptly distributeallportionsofthe be kept separateby the lawyeruntilthe disputeisresolved. whom may be thelawyer) claiminterests,the propertyshall possessionofpropertyin which two or more persons (one of (f) When in the course ofrepresentationa lawyer isin such property. person,shallpromptly rendera fullaccounting regarding entitledto receiveand upon requestby the clientor third any funds or otherpropertythatthe clientor thirdperson is lawyer shallpromptly deliver tothe clientor thirdperson otherwise permittedby law or byagreement with theclient,a the clientor thirdperson. Except as statedin thisruleor thirdperson has an interest,a lawyershallpromptlynotify (e)Upon receivingfunds or otherpropertyinwhich a clientor receivingfinancialinstitution. and (B) availabilityofsuch funds to the lawyer from the p. 14 12

discipline.

thismatter.Thissanctionwould serve thepurposesofattorney

publiccensure with mandatory conditionsas the appropriatesanctionin

37. The AttorneyDisciplineOfficeand Mr. Wallacejointlyrecommend a

R. Prof.Conduct 8.4(a).

evidencethatMr. Wallace'sconduct,as describedherein,violatedN.H.

36. Havingfound theforegoingviolations, there is clearand convincing

reportingperiod.

theCTA and thus several clientmatterswere "out oftrust"duringthe

professional obligations inthathe failed to exert sufficient oversight over

ensure thathis bookkeeper'sconduct was compatiblewith his

35. Mr. Wallace violatedRule 5.3 by failingto make reasonableeffortsto

affectthe baseline sanction. See id. (statingthat"[ajfterdetermining the

existence ofany aggravatingor mitigating factors,and whether they

the Courtthen looks to the fourth andfinalpartof theanalysis:the

theappropriatesanction").Once thebaselinesanctionisdetermined,

the first step is to categorize therespondent'smisconductand identify

Conner'sCase, 158 N.H.at303 (statingthat"[i]napplyingthesefactors,

characterizingthe misconduct and determininga baselinesanction. See

41. The firstthreepartsofthe analysiscreatethe framework for

6 p. 15 13, 621 (2007)); Standards § 3.0.

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

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

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

fourpartanalysisforcourtsto consider in imposingsanctions:"(a)the

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

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

(2005).

the severityofthe misconduct." Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503, 5 p. 15 13

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

legalprofession,and preventingsimilarconduct in the future." Conner's

maintainingpublicconfidenceinthebar,preservingtheintegrityofthe

39. The purpose ofthe Court'sdisciplinarypower is"protectingthe public,

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards7') support thissanction.

38. Both case law and the American Bar Association's Standards for p. 16 14

injuryto a client. with clientpropertyand causes injuryor potential knows or should know thathe isdealingimproperly 4.12 Suspension isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer

or potentialinjuryto a client. knowingly convertsclientpropertyand causes injury 4.11 Disbarment isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer

preserveclientproperty: aregenerallyappropriatein casesinvolvingthefailureto applicationofthe factorssetout in3.0,the followingsanctions Absent aggravatingor mitigatingcircumstances,upon

which provides,in pertinentpart:

46. Mr. Wallace's Rule 1.15 violationimplicatesSection4.0 ofthe Standards

CTA. He promptly took remedial actionand restoredthe funds to the

45. Mr, Wallace'sconduct caused injuryin thatitcreatedan overdraftin the

actualor potentialinjurycaused by Mr. Wallace'smisconduct.

44. The thirdprong ofthe sanctionanalysisrequiresan assessment ofthe

conduct.

negligent.Mr. Wallace did not engage inintentionalor fraudulent

sanctionanalysis,the partiesagree thatMr. Wallace'smental statewas

43. With respectto Mr. Wallace'smental stateunder the second prong of the

hisclients. See Standards § 3.0.

42. Under the firstprong ofthe analysis,Mr. Wallace violateddutiesowed to

mitigatingfactorson the ultimatesanction").

sanction,[the Court]considers]the effect ofany aggravatingor p. 17 15 Standards, isanalogous to apubliccensurein New Hampshire. reprimand in New Hampshire. The term "reprimand,"as used in the ABA 3The term"admonition,"as used in the ABA Standards, is analogous to a

part,because ofMr. Wallace'sretirement,and because ofhis

sanctionin thiscase. The ADO has joinedin thisrecommendation, in

conditionsservesthe purposesof disciplineand isan appropriate

aggravatingand mitigatingcircumstances,a publiccensure with

51. The partiesagree thatgiventhe baselinesanction,and considerationof

attitudetowards proceedings,and remorse. See Standards § 9.32.

consequencesofmisconduct,fulland freedisclosuretoADO, cooperative

absence of a dishonest orselfishmotive,timelygood faithefforttorectify

50. Mitigatingfactors include the absence of prior disciplinary record,

substantialexperiencein the practice of law. See Standards § 9.22.

49. In thiscase thereis oneaggravatingfactorpresent,Mr. Wallace's

mitigatingfactors. E.g.,Conner's Case, p. 17 158 N.H. at303.

48. The baseline sanction must beconsideredin light of anyaggravatingand

Standards §4.13.

baselinesanctionforMr. Wallace'sconductis a publiccensure See

givenMr. Wallace's negligentstateof mind, thepartiesagreethatthe

47. Under the totality of theforegoingcircumstancesdescribedherein,and

ConductCommitteeinconnectionwiththisinvestigationand

C Respondentshall pay theexpensesincurred by theProfessional

account;

MassachusettsIOLTA accountwithin10 daysofclosingsuch

b. Provideproof satisfactory to theADO thathe has closed his

website,and provideproofofcomplianceto theADO;

availableforviewingthrough theNew Hampshire BarAssociation

CounselJanetF.DeVitoin March of20 p. 18 16,which is archived and

a. RespondentshallwatchtheCLE presentedin partby General

ProfessionalConductCommitteeacceptsthisStipulation:

one yearmonitoringperiod, whichshallbegin on thedatethe

53. Mr. Wallaceagreestocomplywiththefollowingconditionsduringthe

suspension istheappropriatesanction.

Stipulationor theMonitoringAgreement,he agreesthat asix-month

52. As setforthfurtherbelow,shouldMr. Wallacebreacha conditionofthis

Procedures For AllegedViolationofConditions D* Mandatory ConditionsofPublicCensure;

Rule 50.

reconciliationsareperformedinfullcompliancewithSupreme Court

practicesareconsistentlyapplied,and monthlyclienttrustaccount

MandatoryConditionstoensurethatbookkeepingand accounting

handlingclientfunds,hewilltakeremedialactionas setforthin the

commitmentthat,shouldhereturntopracticein amannerthatinvolves p. 19 17

six-month suspension. Ifthe Committee determines thatno condition

thata conditionhas been violated,the Committee shallrecommend a

at Paragraphs 53(a)-(c) or 54(a)-(b)have been violated.Ifitdetermines

Committee may determine whether any ofthe conditionsenumerated

a. Upon motion by DisciplinaryCounsel, the ProfessionalConduct

atParagraphs53(a)-(c)or54(a)-(b)above,thefollowingshall apply:

55. If it is allegedthatMr. Wallace violatedany ofthe conditionsenumerated

a period oftwelve consecutivemonths.

trustaccount reconciliationson the 15th ofeach month thereafterfor

to practice,and Mr. Wallace shallfilewiththe ADO hismonthly client

submissionshall be on the15thday of themonth followinghisreturn

practice,submit monthly reconciliationsto theADO. The first

b. Respondent shall,fora period of one yearfollowinghisreturnto

practice;

a. Respondent shallimmediately inform the ADO ofsuch returnto

conditionswillapply:

practice involves holding client funds, however minimal, thefollowing

54. If Mr. Wallacereturnsto thepracticeof law in New Hampshire andsuch

monitoring period.

d. Respondent willengagein noprofessionalmisconductduring the

form ofpayment plan with the PCC; and

Sanderson,and ifunable to pay inlump sum, shall agree tosome

prosecution,includingthe cost of the compliance reviewby Plodzik & p. 20 18

monitoring period.

the subsequent proceeding, even ifsuch findingoccursbeyond the

may be imposed at such time as thereis afindingofmisconduct in

at least in part, during the monitoring period, asix-monthsuspension

("thesubsequent proceeding"), andthe allegedmisconduct occurred,

a. So long as a grievance orreferralisfiledwithinthemonitoringperiod

followingshallapply:

monitoringperiod,thusimplicating theconditionat Paragraph53(d),the

56. If a newgrievanceorreferralisfiledagainstMr. Wallace during the

The PCC shallreviewthe decision ofthe Hearing Panel.

Stipulation shallcontinuein forceand effectpursuant to itsterms.

determinesthatno conditionof theStipulationhas been violated,the

Panelshall recommend a six-monthsuspension.If theHearingPanel

c. If a Hearing Paneldeterminesthata conditionhas been violated, the

conditionlistedin Paragraphs53(a)-(c)or 54(a)-(b)has been violated.

Counsel to demonstrate by a preponderance ofevidence thata

violated.Duringsuch hearing,it shall be the burden ofDisciplinary

under Paragraphs53(a)-(c)or54(a)-(b)ofthisStipulationhas been

may be appointed to decide the soleissueofwhether a condition

remand thematterto theHearingsCommittee sothata HearingPanel

b. Respondent may requestthatthe ProfessionalConduct Committee

forceand effectpursuant to itsterms.

ofthisStipulationhas been violated,the Stipulationshallcontinuein p. 21 19

(III)(aa).

reject,or conditionallyacceptthe stipulation,pursuantto Rule 37A

disposition,and thatthe ProfessionalConduct Committee may accept,

58. Mr. Wallace understandsthatthisstipulationrepresentsa recommended

separateagreement signed by Mr. Wallace.

His agreement to paythecostsincurredby theADO is thesubjectof a

enforcement of this disciplinary matter. See Supreme Court Rule37( p. 21 19).

agrees to pay the costsincurredby theADO in the investigationand

57. Subjectto the PCC's approvalof Mr.Wallace'sStipulation,Mr. Wallace

during the monitoring period.

grievanceor referralinvolvingconduct ofRespondent occurring

e. Nothinghereinshallbe construedto limitprosecutionofany new

enforcementofthe terms and conditionsofthisStipulation.

d. TheRespondent shallbearall costsassociatedwith complianceand

while the subsequent proceedingispending.

Mr. Wallace willnot have tocontinueto complywith thoseprovisions

c. If theconditionsofParagraphs53(a)-(c)or 54(a)-(b)have been met,

underlyingthisStipulationshallnot be closed.

b. Pending the finalresolutionof thesubsequentproceeding, thematter p. 22 20

Dated

Dated: ^/U. £ y p. 22 2017 ^-JUuJ.^t) v/^Lx

Dated: -A*** £ p. 22 2017

60. Mr. Wallaceknowinglyandintelligentlywaiveshisrightto ahearing.

counsel in reachingthisStipulation.

consequences of the stipulation and that he has been represented by

inducementsnot set forth in the stipulation;thathe isfullyaware of the

resultof anythreats,coercion, orduress,or ofany promises or

and voluntarily submitted;thathe is not entering thisstipulationas a

proposeddispositioncontainedin this stipulation arefreely,knowingly,

59. Mr. Wallace acknowledges thattheadmissions ofmisconduct and the p. 23 193 NorthMain Street Concord • New Hampshire 03301-5063• 603-225-6996• fax-224-1380

ProfessionalAssociationjAccoi.mtan.ts& Auditors Plodzik& Sanderson

$7,700.00from the ILC generalaccount,in accordancewith the Unit SalesAgreement,representingthe saleofthepracticeon September30, 2016. Afterthe finalreconciliation,AttorneyWallacewithdrew September20,2016 and September29,2016 in orderto performareconciliationofaccounts,priortothe monthly bookkeepingand bank reconciliationservices. The bookkeeperprovidedserviceson transferredto AttorneyRusso. Both Attorneysutilizedthe same contractedbookkeeper,to perform administrationand accountingthroughSeptember30,2016. AfterSeptember30,2016 fullresponsibility For the purposeofthisreport,AttorneyWallacemaintainedfullresponsibilityforthe IOLTA account September30,2016,wherebyAttorneyWallacesoldalloutstandingsharesoftheILC toAttorneyRusso. respectively.AttorneyWallaceand AttorneyRusso negotiatedthesaleand purchaseoftheILC,effective The followingfactspertinentto the compliancereviewwere disclosedin the grievanceand response, and CP. Matter,which relateto trustaccountactivityinitiatedpriortoSeptember30,2016. relatedto thefollowingmattersidentifiedin thegrievanceand responseas theMH. Matter,B.G. Matter. generalreviewofthemaintenanceand administrationoftheNH IOLTA accountsand specificinquiries by DevineMillimet,counselforAttorneyWallace,datedDecember26,2016. Our proceduresrelatedtoa Edward Wallace(formerowner oftheILC). Additionally,we reviewedtheresponsetothegrievance,filed ILC) datedDecember 9, 2016, concerningthe administrationof the IOLTA accountsunderAttorney We reviewedtheprofessionalmisconductgrievancefiledby AttorneyJosephRusso (currentowner ofthe the IOLTA accounting. bank accountmaintainedin QuickBooks,relatingtoan individualclient,notatrustaccountseparatefrom QuickBooks.Additionally,theterm individualclienttrustaccountrefersto a sub accountoftheIOLTA thisreportand therelatedexhibits,allreferencesto QuickBooksand relatedreportsreferto theIOLTA performadditionalreviewas apartofourprocedures.Forthepurposeofdiscussionrelatedtothebody of and maintenanceofclienttrustaccounts.Back-upcopiesoftheQuickBooksfileswere obtainedin orderto company file,and a separateIOLTA company file,containingonlyactivityrelatedto theadministration ofrecordsat theILC on December 21, 2016. The ILC maintainedtwo QuickBooks files,one general clienttrustaccountactivity,and areviewofQuickBookscompany files,obtainedduringouron-sitereview Our proceduresincludedareviewoftheaccountingrecords,includingbank records,documentssupporting Background

" AlsoHomed inMtuuchuutu The proceduresandassociatedfindingsare asfollows:

eitherforthepurposeforwhichthisreporthasbeenrequestedorforany otherpurpose. ScottT.Eagcn,CFE Consequently,we make no representationregardingthe sufficiencyofthe proceduresdescribedbelow Susan E.Gauthier,CPA is solelythe responsibilityof the New Hampshire Supreme Court AttorneyDisciplineOffice. responsibleforthecompliancereviewofthetrustaccountsoftheILC. The sufficiencyoftheseprocedures Kyle G.Gingras,CPA December 15, 2016. The New HampshireSupreme CourtAttorneyDisciplineOffice'smanagement is accountsofthe InjuryLaw CenterofNew Hampshire,PLLC (theILC),fortheone yearperiodended TylerA.Paine,CPA Supreme CourtAttorneyDisciplineOffice(thespecifiedparty),on the compliancereviewofthe trust AshleyJ.Miller,CPA, MSA We have performedthe proceduresenumeratedbelow,which were agreedto by the New Hampshire

Donna M. LaClair.CPA" Concord,New Hampshire03301 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 AttorneyDisciplineOffice MichaelJ. Campo, CPA. MACCY New HampshireSupreme Court JanetF. DeVito, General Counsel ShcrylA. Pratt, CPA ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES JamesA.Sojka,CPA INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT Edward T.Perry,CI'A and oversighton hispartadministeringthetrustaccountsofthethreeclientsidentifiedinthegrievance." p. 24 concedesthefirm'sIOLTA accountwas overdrawn by atotalof$13,797.12on accountoferrors,inadvertence "Based upon the informationpresentedin the grievance,and our investigationto date,Attorney Wallace Summary ofResponsetoAllegedMisconduct,it states: transactions,detailedbelow,is $13,797.12.In the responseto the grievance,on December 26. 2016 pace 1, underthe which were initiatedduringthe finalreconciliationofaccounts,priorto September30. 2016. The sum ofthe three The overdraftsrelatedto duplicatepaymentsdisbursedfrom theaccountrelatedto the M.H., B.C.and CP. trustaccounts, respectively. InjuryLaw Centeroperatingaccount,authorizedby AttorneyJoseph Russo in the amounts of$6,113.19and $700.00 November 21, 2016 and November 23, 2016 (Exhibit4). The overdraftswere coveredby two transfersoffundsfrom the relatedto thesetransactionsresultedin an overdraftofthe NH IOLTA bank account582780 heldat EnterpriseBank on theM.H. Matter,B.G. Matter,and CP. Matterin thegrievanceand responsewillbe discussedin more detailbelow. Errors Threeadditionaldisbursementswithinthe NH IOLTA 582780 - Other account,relatingto thefollowingmattersidentifiedas distributed. to D.S. were discernableand allactivitynettedto a zerobalance,indicatingthatallclienttrustmoniesrelatedto D.S. were thefunds.Althoughthefundswere notrecordedin aseparatesub accountwithintheledger,theactivityand balancesrelated identifiableas activitypertainingto D.S. and was supportedby asettlementsheet,indicatingthesourceand disbursementof Additionally,we identifiedactivityrelatedto an individualtrustaccountrelatingto D.S. (Exhibit3),thisactivitywas another client ledger account included within the account. accountingrecordthatpredatedthe QuickBooks reportingavailableto us, and theywere not identifiableor assignableto transactionsor therelatedbalancein theaccount,otherthanthebalanceand transactionsappearedto be relatedto a trust transactionswere outsideofthescopeoftheprocedureswe performed,so we did notreviewtheunderlying'reasonsforthe 2014 in theamount of$2,647.26and another,check It 1767,datedJanuary16, 2015 in the amount of$1,000.00.These transactionsofimportin thisaccount,we notedtwo cleareddisbursements,one listedwithoutachecknumber datedJune30, datedDecember 31,2012,which establisheda beginningbalancein theNH IOLTA 582780 - Otherof$3,792.42.Of the In additionto theinterestsweep thefollowingitemswere noted.The ledgeraccountactivitywas opened withthreeentries The majorityoftheactivityin thisaccountrepresentsaccountingfortheinterestsweep activityfortheIOLTA account. Other. A copy oftheaccountquickreportofthe NH IOLTA 582780-Other accountisalsolocatedinthisreport(Exhibit2). ledgerwas notcreated.Unassignedactivitywas recordedin adefaultaccountin QuickBookslistedas, NH IOLTA 582780- Our proceduresidentifiedtrustaccountactivitythatwas notassignedtoan individualclientand forwhich an individualclient by settlementsheets,and relatedsupportingdocumentsidentifythesourceand disbursementofclienttrustfunds. theNH IOLTA bank account582780 isincludedthisreport(Exhibit1). Individualclienttrustaccountactivitywas supported listedalphabeticallyby clientname. A copy oftheaccountquickreportshowingalltransactionspostedtoallclientledgersin trustaccountshad ledgeraccountsestablishedin theNH IOLTA bank account582780 inQuickBooks.Ledgeraccountswere recordsfortheIOLTA bank accountwere maintainedin a designatedIOLTA QuickBookscompany file.Individualclient We reviewedthebalancesand activityrelatedto theNH IOLTA bank account582780 heldatEnterpriseBank. Accounting availablethroughthe reportsfeatureinQuickBooks. performedin QuickBooks,on amonthlybasisby theoutsidebookkeeper.Imagesofpreviousbank reconciliationswere made IOLTA bank accountsand were clearlyidentifiableas trustaccounts.Bank reconciliationsfortheIOLTA accountswere compliancewithSupremeCourtRule50. As pan ofourprocedureswe notedthatclienttrustfundswere depositedintopooled We reviewedthe trustrecordsin orderto document the generalrecordkeepingproceduresto assistyou in determining GeneralRecordkeepin g withdrawalsnoted in the threemattersnamed above. theaccountforoperations.The balancein theNH IOLTA accountsremainedin thetrustaccounts,withtheexceptionofthe remainingbalanceofthegeneralaccountafterthevariousclosingtransactionswere processed.A nominalbalancewas leftin

Page 2 March 23, 2017 New Hampshire Supreme Court AttorneyDisciplineOffice thegrievanceresponse. p. 25 reconciled.We didnotreviewthismatterfurther,otherthanthereviewofsupportingdocumentationattachedatExhibitT of transferto the new IOLTA accountwould have shown as $1,500.00,not $4,000.00,had the ledgeraccountbeen properly ratherwere depositedintoa MassachusettsIOLTA account,in the custodyofAttorneyWallace.The balanceavailablefor Itwas notedin the responseto thegrievancethaithesefunds were not convertedto personaluse by AttorneyWallace,but on September 28,2016 when check #2116 was issued. unreconciledfrom May 2015 throughSeptember2016,and a duplicatepaymentoffundsin theamount of$2,500.00occurred duplicatecheck #1845 remainedon the bank reconciliationuntilApril2016. As a result,the B.G. sub accountwas The clearingof thecheck#1845 createdan additionaloverdraftin theNil IOLTA 582780 - Otheraccount.The uncleared Exhibit6D shows the B.G. trustaccount aftercheck #2116 was issued. QuickBookstoshow how theB.G. trustaccountwould appearin QuickBooks,priorto thecheckgeneration(seeExhibit6C). $4,000.00in theaccount,an accountquickreportforthe B.G. ledgeraccountas ofSeptember20,2016 was generatedin datethecheck was voided)and September28, 2016 (thedatecheck #2116 was created)would have shown a balanceof Due tovoidingthecheckassignedto theB.G. ledgeraccount,a reviewoftheB.G. ledgeraccountbetweenApril18,2016 (the imagesin QuickBooks(seeExhibit6B forcopiesofrelatedQuickBooksreconciliations). reconciliation,untilitwas voidedon April18, 2016,as evidencedby.reviewingthesubsequentmonths bank reconciliation secondcheck,which was assignedto theB.G ledgeraccount,remainedas an unclearedtransactionon theQuickBooksbank thatwas clearedon thisreconciliationwas thecheckthatwas creditedto theNH IOLTA 582780- Other ledgeraccount.The QuickBooksas ofAugust31,2015,thedatetheJune30,2015 bank reconciliationwas completedin QuickBooks.The check A reviewoftheJune30,2015 QuickBooksreconciliationdetailreportimage,shows thattwo checksnumbered 1845 existedin copy of the audit trail report). ledgeraccountand was automaticallyassignedtothe NH IOLTA 582780- Other accountby QuickBooks(seeExhibit6A fora was creditedto theB.G. ledgeraccountin QuickBooks,thesecondcheck,in thesame amount was notassignedto a client audittrailreportforcheck#1845,revealsthattwo checkswere createdin QuickBooks,one checkin theamount of$2,500.00 Neal McGrath,Ph. D. in theamount of$2,500.00as paymentforexpertfeesin theB.G. matter.A searchoftheQuickBooks Edward F. Wallaceon September28,2016 intheamount of$4,000.00.On May 20,2015,check#1845 was issuedpayableto As identifiedthegrievanceand responsetheB.G. accountwas overdrawnas aresultoftheissuanceofcheck#2116 payableto B.G. Matter 2016,when the error was fully identified and reimbursed. theunassignedcheckcreatedan overdraftinthe NH IOLTA 582780-Other ledgeraccount,whichpersistedthroughDecember fundsintheamountof$1,696.91occurredon September28,2016 when check#2117 was issued.Additionally,theclearingof As aresult,theM.H. ledgeraccountwas unreconciledfrom January2015 throughDecember2016,and aduplicatepaymentof account aftercheck #2117 was issued. accountwould appearin QuickBooks,priorto thecheckgeneration(seeExhibit5B). Exhibit5C shows the M.H. ledger quickreportfortheM.H. ledgeraccountas ofSeptember20,2016 was generatedinQuickBooksto show how theM.H. trust September28,2016 (thedatecheck #2117 was created)would haveshown a balanceof$1,696.91intheaccount.An account totheM.H. ledgeraccount,areviewoftheM.H. ledgeraccountbetweenJanuary16,2015 (thedatethecheckwas voided)and assignedtothe"other"accountwas ultimatelyprocessedand clearedthroughQuickBooks.Due tovoidingthecheckassigned A reviewoftheaudittrailreportshows thatthe check creditedto the M.H. ledgeraccountwas voided,whilethecheck and was automaticallyassignedtothe NH IOLTA 582780 - Other account(seeExhibit5A foracopyoftheaudittrailreport). creditedtotheM.H. clientledgerin QuickBooks;thesecondcheck,in thesame amount,was notassignedto aclientledger amount of$1,696.91,revealsthattwo checkswere createdinQuickBooksforthisamounton January16,2015,one checkwas totheILC on September28,2016 in theamount of$1,696.91.A searchoftheQuickBooksaudittrailreportforitemsin the As identifiedthegrievanceand response,theM.H. accountwas overdrawnas aresultoftheissuanceofcheck#2117 payable M.H. Matter

Detailsofthe duplicate payments follow.

Page 3 March 23, 2017 New Hampshire Supreme CourtAttorneyDisciplineOffice us in identifyingtheoriginaltransactionfrom August2014 in additionalreports. p. 26 $9,600.51was lastmodifiedin 9/20/2016at 14:20:00and itnow appearswithcheck#2105 assignedto it.Thisreportassists reporttodeterminewhen thistransactionwas lastmodified.As noted in Exhibit7E thedisbursementin the amount of thosetransactionssincethereconciliation(same reportas Exhibit7B). We displayedthedateentered/lastmodifiedon this At Exhibit7E we recreatedtheAugust 2014 bank reconciliationshowingthetransactionsclearedplusany changesmade to accountfor the absence of a record for check#1668 inQuickBooks. notedby thedifferentfontand formattingofthischeck as compared to otherdisbursementimages reviewed.This could checkimage(obtainedfrom thegrievance),itappearsthatthecheckwas likelyprintedoutsideoftheQuickBookssoftware,as resultsin QuickBooks.We reviewedthecheckimage forcheck#1668 (seeExhibit7D),and upon furtherexaminationofthe forcheck#1668 in theaudittrailreportand the voided/deletedtransactiondetailsreports,notedabove,and alsoreceivedno As notedin thegrievanceand response,thisdisbursementclearedthebank viacheck#1668. We performedthesame searches nothaveachecknumber assignedto it,howeveritwas marked asaclearedtransactionon theAugust2014 reconciliation. ofthisreportshows a checkdatedAugust20,2014 made payableto theILC, in theamount of$9,600.51,thetransactiondid view oftheoriginaltransaction,priortotheissuanceofthesecondcheckin September2016,seeExhibit7C An examination shows the.pdfimage generatedat thetimeoftheoriginalreconciliation,performedon September12,2014,which shows a QuickBooksand selectedtheoptiontogeneratethereportwithtransactionsclearedatthetimeofreconciliation.Thiselection referencedAugust2014 bank reconciliationnotedin theresponseabove. We reprintedtheAugust2014 bank reconciliationin GrievanceresponseExhibitsD and E, notedabove,have been providedatExhibit7B toshow theCP. ledgeractivityand the A copy ofcheck#2105,which clearedthebank on September21,2016 withadateofAugust20,2014 islocatedatExhibit7A. (nominally,#1668)thatpreviouslyboreno number inQuickBooks and was notlinkedtotheCP. account." Based upon thesereportsand analysis,itappearsthenumber "2105" was assignedto theAugust 2014 check of$9,600.51,(2)check #1668,and(3)check#2105,but obtainedno results.ExhibitJ. Finally,Ms. Greenwood ran reportson "Voided/DeletedTransactionDetails"for(I)allchecksin theamount the check isappended as ExhibitJ. the bank on September 21, 2016. Exhibit11 to the Grievance. The September 2016 bank statementreflecting on September 20, 2016 with thedateAugust 20, 2014 and linkedtothe CP. account.Id. That check cleared Ms. Greenwood then ran an audittrailreporton check #2105. ExhibitH. That reportreflectsitwas entered #1668 in QuickBooks. on check #1668 and obtainedno results.We were unable to locateany transactioncorrespondingto check datedAugust20,2014 and associatedwiththeCP. matter. ExhibitG. Ms. Greenwood ran an audittrailreport searchedforallchecksin the amount of$9,600.51.The onlycheckthatmet thisdescriptionwas check #2105 Greenwoods searchedtheQuickBooks accountforcheck#1668,but couldnotlocateit.SeeExhibitF. We then We furtherinvestigatedcheck #1668 to try and ascertainhow it was accountedfor in the system. Ms. anddid not reflect anoverdraft. previouslybore no number. As reflectedin Exhibit8 and ExhibitD, check #2105 "zeroedout" the account, originalreconciliation.It appears the number "2105" was assignedto the August 2014 transactionthat August 2014 was run to reflectalltransactionsclearedplusany changesmade to thosetransactionssincethe auto-populatedby QuickBooks with the dateAugust 20, 2014. ExhibitE shows a reconciliationreportfor with thedateAugust 20, 2014,as itappearedto him on thescreenat the time. We believethe check datewas takethefeein 2014 when themattersettled.He inputthenextnumber in theregister#2105,and cut thecheck 2014. AttorneyWallace,when he viewedtheaccounton September20"',concludedhe had simplyneglectedto not appear on theaccountbecauseithad not been linkedto theCP account,as itshouldhave been,inAugust ExhibitD. Itappearedto him thefeecheckon thatmatterhad been written,but notprinted.Check HI 668 did transactionscheduledforSeptember 30, 2016. He viewedthe CP. account. The view he smv isreflectedon "On September 20,2016,AttorneyWallaceinspectedtheaccountsto buttonthem up fortheclosingofthesale In theresponseto thegrievance,pg. 7, itstates: $9,600.51.ThischeckrelatestotheCP. trustaccountand relatedactivitythatoccurredon August20,2014. As identifiedin thegrievanceand response,check#2105 made payableto the ILC, was issuedon September21,2016 for CP. Matter

Page 4 March 23, 2017 New Hampshire Supreme CourtAttorneyDisciplineOffice p. 27 ProfessionalAssociation March 23,2017 PLODZIK & SANDERSON,

and isnotintendedtobe and shouldnotbe usedby anyoneotherthanthespecifiedparty. Thisreportisintendedsolelyfortheinformationand use oftheNew HampshireSupreme CourtAttorneyDisciplineOffice, mattersmighthavecome to ourattentionthatwould havebeenreportedtoyou. theILC. Accordingly,we do not expresssuch an opinionor conclusion.Had we performedadditionalprocedures,other ofwhich would betheexpressionofan opinionorconclusion,respectively,on thecompliancereviewofthetrustaccountsof InstituteofCertifiedPublicAccountants.We were notengagedtoand didnotconductan examinationorreview,theobjective Thisagreed-uponproceduresengagementwas conductedin accordancewithattestationstandardsestablishedby theAmerican December 2016,when the error was fully identified and reimbursed. duplicatecheckcreatedan additionaloverdraftofthe NH IOLTA 582780 - Other ledgeraccountwhich persistedthrough ledgeraccount,itwould haveshown theledgeraccountas overdrawn.As aresultofthisnotbeingassignedtotheaccountthe creditedtotheNH IOLTA 582780- Otherledgeraccount,nottheCP. account.HadthetransactionbeenclassifiedtotheCP. As notedin theaudittrailreport,a separatetransactionwitha dateofSeptember21,2016 was createdand thecheck was originalpaymentof$9,600.51was properlycreditedtotheCP. ledgeratthetimeofprocessinginAugust2014. 2016 (seeExhibit7G). As notedin thisreportCP. ledgershows azerobalance,withallfundshavingbeen disbursed.The 20,2016 was generatedin QuickBooksto show how theCP. trustaccountwould appearin QuickBookson September20, 14:20:00,thistransactionisassignedtotheCP. ledger.An accountquickreportfortheCP. ledgeraccountas ofSeptember at14:20:00.A reviewoftheaudittrailreportshows thefirsttransactionforcheck#2105 as lastmodifiedon 9/20/2016at checkswere numbered2105. As notedabove,thetransactionthatoriginatedin August2014,was lastmodifiedon 9/20/2016 We performedan audittrailsearchforthe amount ofthe check,$9,600.51,which yielded2 results(seeExhibit7F),both

Page 5 March 23, 2017 New Hampshire Supreme Court AttorneyDisciplineOffice p. 28 Committee willconsiderthe disputeditem and issuea writtendecision. If

writingwithin thirtydays of my receiptof the bill. Iunderstand thatthe

the bill, I will notifythe Committee ofthe specificnatureofthe disputein

Iunderstand thatthe Committee will bill me forthesecosts.If Idispute

$6,791.00. Should furthercostsaccruein thisdispositionofthismatter,

2. As of May 23, 2017, I havebeen informedthatthe costsare approximately

and publication.

to:mileage,stenographers,transcripts,copying,inventory,auditexpenses

matter. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(b). Costs can include,but are not limited

the Committee in theinvestigationand enforcementof thisdisciplinary

Conditions intheabove matter,I agree to pay theexpenses incurredby

Stipulationof Facts,Rule Violations,and Sanction:Public Censure with

1. Subjectto the ProfessionalConduct Committee's approval ofthe

Dated: Jj,\*s G L: JQ\rt<- G 2017

conditions.

the enforcement ofcompliance to the terms ofthe Stipulationand related

7. I also agree to be responsiblefor allfuturecoststhatwould resultfrom

AttorneyDisciplineOffice'scollectionefforts.

6. I also agree to be responsiblefor allcostsincurred as a resultofthe

enforcementremedies and procedures. SeeSup. Ct. R. 37(19)(c).

judgment and shallbe subjectto all legally-availablepost-judgment

court in any county inthe state,where itshallbe docketed as a final

5. The Committee may filea copy of the finalassessment with the superior

be enforcedin any Superior Court in New Hampshire.

shall have the fullforceand effect of a civiljudgment. As a result, it may

4. I understand and agree thatthe assessment ofcostsisdeemed finaland

formal demand for payment.

furtherdetailofthe nature and amount ofeach expense,and I alsowaive

3. I waivetheprovisionsof SupremeCourtRule37(19)(b)regardingany

upon itsreceipt.

I donot notifythe committeethatIdisputethe bill,payment will be due p. 30 File Edward F. Wallace, Esquire Sara S. Greene, Disciplinary Counsel

Distribution:

Upon consideration, the Committee voted to close the matter.

and conditions of the monitoring requirements. June 20, 2017, Order was issued. Mr. Wallace has complied with the terms been no further complaints docketed by the Attorney Discipline Office since the monitoring requirements. Disciplinary Counsel has indicated that there have On June 20, 2017, the Committee issued an Order accepting the

above captioned matter. On July 17, 2018, the Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the

Wallace, Edward F. advs. Attorney Discipline Office - 16-049

Margaret R. Kerouac Barbara J. Guay, Legal Assistant Peter G. Beeson * non attorney member Kathleen M. Ames* Martha Van Got Ronald K. Ace* Georges J. Roy* Elaine Holden,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-951 1 Edward D. Philpot, Jr. Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mona T. Movafaghi David M. Rothstein, Chair 4 Chcnell Drive, Suite 102 Caroline K. Leonard