Joseph S. Hoppock (2017)

Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards"). 60 (2005). Thesanctionisalsoin accord with the ABA Standards forImposing Conner's Case 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009); Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. 155, 159sanctionisin accord with the purposes of attorneydiscipline. See e.g., The Committee alsoconcluded thata Reprimand isappropriate.Its

ProfessionalConduct 4.4 and 8.4(a),as stipulated. evidence. Itfurtherfound thatJoseph S. Hoppock'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

Hoppock, Joseph S. advs. Attorney DisciplineOffice -#16-027

Margaret R. Kerouac BarbaraJ. Guay, LegalAssistant Richard H. Darling* * non attorneymember 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 William C. Saturley,Esquire cc: Sara S. Greene, DisciplinaryCounsel

June 20, 2017

ofinvestigationand prosecutionof thismatter. agreement thatJoseph S. Hoppock shallreimburse the Committee for allcosts Having approved the stipulatedsanction,the Committee approved the p. 3 11907715.1

•Case No. 649-2015-DM-00235.

jurisdiction.

2. Mr. Hoppock has not been admitted to practicelaw in any other

Mr. Hoppock was admitted to practicein 1988.

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

A. Respondent'sbackground

4.4.

Keene. Some of those communications, as setforthfullybelow, violatedRule

Nancy Herman v.Joanna Herman,1 pending in the 8thCircuit-FamilyDivision-

opposing counsel in the matterentitled In the MatterofWendell Herman and

This disciplinarymatterarisesfrom Mr. Hoppock's communications with

I. Facts

(ADO) stipulateas follows:

Respondent Joseph S. Hoppock, Esq.,and theAttorney DisciplineOffice

tofelonydomestic violence/criminalthreateningforhisactson February

from thatdatethrough August 31, 2015. On August 31, he pled guilty

8. Shawn was incarceratedattheCheshire County House ofCorrections

7. Divorce proceedings began in March 2015.

arrived. Shawn exitedthehouse and was arrested.

then hitShawn on thehead with the pistol.Thereafter,the police

handed itto Joanna when she demanded it.There isno disputethatshe

anyone, and claims that,instead,he took thegun out ofhispocket and

ableto takepossessionofthegun. Shawn denieshe pointedthegun at

allegesthathe threatenedto killher,and thataftera struggle,she was

nine-millimeterhandgun and severalhollow-pointbullets.Joanna

down thedoor. Shawn had been drinking.He had in hispossessiona

children,ata time whenJoanna'sboyfriend waspresent,by kicking

forcefullyenteredthe apartment inwhich Joanna residedwith theirtwo

6. Joanna began to seeanotherman. On February 9, 2015, Shawn

two children.They separatedon October 1,2014.

5. Shawn and JoannaHerman weremarriedon October1,2005. They had

B. Factual background: the divorce ofShawn and Joanna Herman.

4. Mr. Hoppock has no previousdisciplinaryhistory.

Keene, NH.

Law OfficesofJosephS. Hoppock,PLLC, 16 ChurchStreet,SuiteA,

3. At alltimesmaterialto thisproceeding,Mr. Hoppock practicedlawat the p. 5 11907715.1 o

matterwas dismissed.

following a hearing,the SuperiorCourt denied Joanna'sclaims and the

12. The fraudulentconveyance actionlastedmany months. Eventually,

Hermans in thismatter.

earlierreceiptof$27,500). Mr. Hoppock initiallyrepresentedthe

improper as itdeprived her ofher shareofthehome equity(despiteher

conveyance actionagainstthem. She claimed themortgage was

11. Joanna then accused the Hermans offraud by initiatinga fraudulent

loan.

incident,Shawn gave hisparentsa mortgage on the home to securethe

forShawn's childsupportobligations.FollowingtheFebruary 9

settlementforher equityin thefamilyhome, and thebalance,overtime,

agreement.$50,000 ofthatwent to Joanna: $27,500 as a property

$70,000 to allow him tofulfillhis obligations toJoanna under the

settlementin November2014. Wendelland Nancy loanedShawn

10. Shawn and Joanna hadagreed,bythemselves,to the terms ofaproperty

C The fraudulent conveyance action againsttheGrandparents.

inextremediscordbetweenJoanna and Shawn and hisfamily.

Herman'seffortstoexercisetheir grandparentvisitationrights,resulted

Herman) and Joanna over the equityin thefamilyhome and over the

9. Thisevent,and litigationbetweenShawn'sparents(Wendalland Nancy

StatePrison.

9. He was sentencedtoservefourtoeightyearsintheNew Hampshire p. 6 11907715.1.

later,Mr. Hoppock emailed Mr. Parentagain,stating,"your clientis

18. Mr. Parentdid not immediately respond. Approximately 40 minutes

conveyance action.)

He alreadyhad experiencewith Joanna inlitigation(viathefraudulent

a predictionofthecoursetheconflict wouldtake,ratherthan a warning.

months from thetime ofShawn's forcibleentryintoJoanna'shome, was

entitledclient."Mr. Hoppock contends thisemail,which was sentthree

Hoppock wrote"Ilook forward toprotractedwarfarewith youand your

17. Earlyin thevisitationdispute,in a May 8,2015 email to Mr.Parent,Mr.

16. Theodore Parent,Esquire,representsJoanna on thevisitationissue.

between her children and any member of thepaternalHerman family.

Joanna. Throughout the proceeding,Joanna has opposed anyvisitation

visitation with their grandchildren (then ages 9 and 2), residing with

15. Mr. Hoppock representedthe Hermans intheirattempttosecure

their ...extendedfamilymembers includingthe paternal grandparents."

start thereconciliationprocessis toreconnectthe[twochildren]with

appointed,conductedan investigation,and concluded"thebest place to

14. Whilethedivorcewas proceeding,a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) was

the paternalgrandparents."

opposed tomandated court-ordered contact between the childrenand ...

IntheFinalDecree,Joannamade clearthatsheremained"adamantly

13. The divorcebetweenShawn andJoannawas concludedinApril2016.

D- The Grandparents' effortsto secure visitationrights. p. 7 11907715.1c-

stating"[w]henshe [Joanna]stopspretendingto bethevictimand

21. On July 9,2015,Mr. Hoppock emailedMr. Parent andMs. O'Donnell,

comments areoutrageous."

warfare.' So don't tell me whatnelpsthegrandparent'sclaim.' Your

closer tohome. . . . She, or you, really want this to be 'protracted

every human on theplanetforher circumstances. She needs to look

is a cowardand has no ability for introspection. Shewants to blame

attributable to them. It's Shawn'sfault,no wait;it'sHoppock'sfault;she

thatJoanna "has cut offthe entire Hermanfamilyfor behaviors not

disingenuousforthesecomments. . .." Mr. Hoppock wenton to say

part:"Areyou serious?You aredespicable,disgraceful and

Parent,cc'ing Kathy O'Donnell,attorneyforShawn. His emailread in

grandparents'rightsclaim."Inresponse,Mr. Hoppock emailedMr.

counterclaimfiledagainstJoanna byMr. Hoppock "surehelpsthe

conveyance action,Mr. Parentsarcasticallycommented thatthe

20. On June24,2015,in anemailexchangeoverpleadingsin thefraudulent

Hermans.

forGrandparentVisitationRights("theVisitationCase")on behalfofthe

paternalfamily,on oraroundMay 17,2015,Mr. Hoppock fileda Petition

19. BecauseJoannadidnotagreetovisitsbetweenthechildrenand the

attorney.I need say no more. See you in court."

becauseIfullyexpectwe willsettlenothingso longasyou areher

deceitfuland controllingso Iexpectprotractedlitigation(i.e.warfare) p. 8 6 11907715.1^

withoutan orderofthe Court specifically allowingher to do so." ruledin response tothe Motion: "[Joanna]shallnot relocatethechildren filedan Ex ParteMotion to Prevent RelocationofMinor Children.The Court 2The GAL's concerns were confirmed in March 2017, when Shawn's counsel

not going tosettlethegrandparents'case." Hefurtherwrote that"any

Parentwrote the Guardian ad Litem on behalfofJoanna, saying"we are

23. On April 14, 201 p. 8 6, shortlybefore ahearingon the Hermans' Petition,Mr.

again."2

to ...make sureno one from the Herman familyever sees thechildren

away. You are rightthishas been the plan from thebeginningin order

cateringjob forsomeone with no post-secondaryeducationis850 miles

attemptto circumvent thecourt'sorders. There is no way the only

GAL expressed to Mr.Hoppock her beliefthat"themove is ablatant

example, Joanna statedshe wanted torelocateto North Carolina.The

Casewere shared in part by the Guardian ad Litem, InMay 201 p. 8 6.,for

22. Mr. Hoppock's concernswithJoanna Herman's actionsin theVisitation

doing to thesechildren."

inexplicable;it isindeeddisgracefuland so isyoursforwhatyou are

progress;until thenwe willproceed. . .Her behaviorisbeyond

attitudeandwantstoparticipatein thesolution,shemay wellrealize

disgraceful....[I]nshort; when she is done with the entitledvictim

Shawn forallofthemileageyou canmanipulate;sheandyou areindeed

She istheone (oryou)who isnotmoving beyondthepastand blaming

decidestodo somethingtohelpsolvethismess,maybe we cantalk p. 9 U907715.1„

before the Family Court. 3Despitethelabel"FinalHearing,"the partiescontinueto disputetheissues,

"Joanna'sjudgment in opposing any contactbetween thechildrenand

Joanna was traumatizedby theevents of February 9, 2015," and that

26. However, the Court alsorecognizedthat"[t]hereis noquestionthat

over thechildren."

any way with Joanna'srelationshipwithher childrenor her authority

"no plausibleevidence thatgrandparentalvisitationwould interferein

Shawn and the paternalsideofthefamily. TheCourt found therewas

doing so,the Court noted Joanna'seffortsto alienatethechildrenfrom

grantingWendelland Nancycertain visitation rights (the"Order").In

in theVisitationCase.3 On May 12, 2016, the Court enteredan order

25. On April26,2016 andApril27,2016,theCourtheldtheFinalHearing

crime oftheirson.

punishing theHermans (bycontestingthevisitationrequest)forthe

Nazispunishedpeople for the crimes of their relatives,Joanna was

states that hemade thisreferencetoNazisas ananalogy,i.e.just as

manipulativehyperbolewe haveheardforovera year."Mr. Hoppock

relatives forthecrimes of family members . . . This is thesame

April21,2016: "Ido recallfrom historythat theNAZI'spunished

24. Hoppock emailedMr. Parent,cc'ingMs. O'Donnelland theHermans,on

to be anathema toJoanna."

forcedcontactamongst...thegrandparentsand thechildren...isgoing p. 10 11907715.1o

Once she changes her attitude,theentireworld willchange forher.

children'sbestinterestsahead ofher silly,meaningless feelings.. . .

30. On June 14, 2016, he emailed Mr. Parent,"[Joanna]needs to puther

presumptuousness."

through thethickblubberofyour condescension and

laughing,your hypocrisywillbe evidenteven toyou and you willsee it

hidingthe childrenfrom theirfamily. Perhaps when you are done

was denied and your clientwillbe restrainedfrom running away and

Hoppock responded, "Thank you formaking my day too;your motion ...

factthatyou could get more bees with honey than vinegar." Mr.

formaking my day. Ilaughed aloud attheironyofyour bringingup the

29. In an email exchangedatedJune 2,2016, Mr. Parentwrote,"Thank you

between Mr. Hoppock and Mr. Parentcontinued.

motion forreconsideration,the contentiouscommunications continued

28. Following the Order in theVisitationCase and the denialofJoanna's

increasedthefrictionbetween theparties. email communications have not been helpful,and have offenseand unproductivetacticsoftheirattorney.These grandparentseitherimplicitly or explicitlycondoned the Itisnot unreasonable forher to believethatthe grandparentsin theform of these emailsfrom their attorney. offenseat what sheperceivesto be personalattacksby the counsel for Joanna.Joanna has understandably taken great tenorof emailssentby counselfor thegrandparentsto The friction has been further exacerbated by the tone and

27. RegardingMr. Hoppock'sconduct in the litigation, the Court observed:

Shawn."

theirgrandparentsiscloudedby the trauma shesufferedat thehands of p. 11 11907715.1Q

statementsthatshe was "pretendingto be thevictim"and had an

was incarcerated.While hesincerelybelievedatthetime ofmaking the

Herman, had infact been thevictimof afelonyforwhich her ex-husband

34. Mr. Hoppock furtherunderstandsthatthe opposing party,Joanna

comments were inappropriateand violatedRule 4.4.

Parentina way thatpotentiallydamaged hisclients'interests.The

counter-productiveand thathe personallyattackedJoanna and Mr.

between theparties.He acknowledges thathischoice ofwords was

33. Mr. Hoppock now admits thathiscomments increasedthefriction

to reflect"on her behavior and "incentiveto settlethe cases."

pointing to weaknesses inJoanna'sposition,and givingJoanna "pause

his purpose in using suchlanguagewas toadvancethelitigationby

arguedthathiscomments were accurate and appropriate, assertingthat

decisions not in their best interest. In his response to thegrievance,he

heldbeliefthat Joannawas manipulatingthechildrenand making

verystrongfeelingsabout theVisitationCase,includinghisgenuinely

32. Mr. Hoppock statesthathe is apassionateadvocateand thathe had

abusive.

Mr. Hoppock's emails toMr. Parentand theGAL, which she considered

31. On July13,2016,JoannafiledthegrievanceagainstMr. Hoppock,citing

E. The grievance,and an acknowledgement.

the 'protractedwarfare'Ipredicted."

Untilthenwe litigateand litigateand litigateand therewillbe more of p. 12 11907715.11n

representingthe Hermans as setforthhereinviolatedRule 4.4.

39. Mr. Hoppock's communications to opposing counsel inthe course of

person. primary purpose to embarrass,delay or burden a third thelawyer knows or itisobvious thattheactionhas the (a)In representinga client,a lawyer shallnot take any actionif

38. Rule 4.4 statesinpertinentpartas follows:

37. The factssetforthat^} 1-36 above areincorporatedby reference.

Rule 4.4:Respect for RightsofThird Persons

follows:

violationsofthe New Hampshire Rules ofProfessionalConduct, as

36. The partiesagree thatMr. Hoppock's conduct inthiscase involves

be an effectiveadvocatewithoutresortingtopersonalattacks.

Parentconcerning Ms. Herman. He isconfidentthatinthefuturehe can

Committee Comment. He deeplyregretshiscommunications to Mr.

to"embarrass,delay, orburden a thirdperson." See Rule 4.4,Ethics

standard"as to whatactionsmay qualifyashavingtheprimarypurpose

Model Rule,in that it uses theword "obvious"to "set ahigherobjective

New Hampshire'sRule4.4,which"differssubstantially"from theABA

35. As a result of thisdisciplinarymatter,Mr. Hoppock is well-educated on

advocacy.

thathisaccusationsmay have gone beyond thebounds of zealous

"entitledvictimattitude"intheVisitationCase,he now acknowledges p. 13 11907715.111

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

fourpartanalysisforcourtstoconsiderinimposingsanctions:"(a)the

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

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

(2005).

the severityofthemisconduct." Coffey's Case, 152 N.H.503, 513

Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). "Thesanction...musttakeintoaccount

legalprofession,and preventingsimilarconduct in thefuture." Conner's

maintaining publicconfidencein the bar, preservingthe integrity of the

43. The purpose of the Court'sdisciplinarypoweris"protectingthepublic,

ImposingLawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards") supportthissanction.

42. Bothcase law and theAmericanBarAssociation's Standardsfor

would servethe purposesofattorneydiscipline.

reprimand isthe appropriatesanctionin thismatter. This sanction

41. The AttorneyDisciplineOfficeand Mr. Hoppock jointlyagreethat a

R. Prof.Conduct 8.4(a).

evidencethatMr. Hoppock'sconduct,asdescribedherein,violatedN.H.

40. Havingfoundtheforegoingviolation,thereisclearand convincing

actualor potentialinjurycaused by Mr. Hoppock's misconduct.

48. The thirdprong ofthe sanctionanalysisrequiresan assessment ofthe

affectedhisobjectivityin the matter.

includinghishistorywith Joanna'scounsel. These factorsnegatively

thechildren,and hisown personalfeelingsconcerning thelitigation,

vindicatehisclients'rights,hisbeliefthatJoanna'sactionswere injuring

harm Joanna. His judgment was clouded by the depth ofhisdesireto

was not intentionalin thathe was actingwithout a specificintentto

the sanctionanalysis,the partiesagree thatMr. Hoppock's mental state

47. With respectto Mr. Hoppock'smental stateunder the second prong of

tothepublicand thelegalsystem. See Standards § 6.0.

46. Under thefirstprong ofthe analysis,Mr. Hoppock violateddutiesowed

mitigatingfactorson theultimatesanction").

sanction,[the Court]consider[s]the effect of any aggravating or

affectthebaselinesanction. Seeid. (statingthat"[a]fterdeterminingthe

existenceofanyaggravatingormitigatingfactors,and whether they

the Court then looks to thefourthand finalpart of the analysis: the

theappropriatesanction").Once thebaselinesanction isdetermined,

thefirststepistocategorizetherespondent'smisconductandidentify

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

characterizing the misconduct and determining a baselinesanction. See

45. The firstthreepartsof theanalysiscreatetheframework for p. 15 11907715.11o

Standards, isanalogous to a publiccensure in New Hampshire. reprimand in New Hampshire. The term "reprimand,"as used in the ABA 4The term "admonition,"as used in the ABA Standards, isanalogous to a

interferencewith a legalproceeding. injuryto a party,or causes littleor no actualor potential courtorderor rule,and causes littleor no actualor potential inan isolatedinstanceofnegligenceincomplying with a Admonition4 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

interferenceor potentialinterferencewith a legalproceeding. injuryor potentialinjuryto a clientor a party,or causes thathe or she isviolatinga courtorderor rule,and causes 6.22 Suspension isgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer knows

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

based on an assertionthatno validobligationexists: obligationunder the rulesof atribunalexceptforan open refusal litigation or bring a meritorious claim, or failure to obey any generallyappropriatein casesinvolvingfailuretoexpedite ofthefactorssetout inStandard 3.0,thefollowingsanctionsare Absent aggravating or mitigatingcircumstances,upon application

That Section provides:

50. Mr. Hoppock's 4.4 rule violationimplicatesSection6.2 ofthe Standards.

theparties'confidencein thelegalsystem.

harmedtheintegrityoftheprofessionaswell,by potentiallydiminishing

between the parties, potentially damaging his clients'interest.It also

49. Mr. Hoppock's conductcaused injury inthatitincreasedthefriction p. 16 11907715.114

4.4 violation,unlike Kalil'sCase, which includedotherseriousethical

57. The partiesnote thatMr. Hoppock's case presentsa "standalone" Rule

allegedcommission offeloniesby opposing counsel).

4.4 where attorneycalledopposing counsel "psychotic"and repeatedly

N.H. 113 (1993) (imposing publiccensure under previousversionof Rule

thethreatinviolationofRules 3.3,4.4 and 8.4(c)); Robertson's Case, 137

"riphisfaceoff" ifhe violateda courtorder,then liedto thejudge about

(three-monthsuspensionwhere respondenttoldopposing partyhe would

56. Sanctionsfor Rule 4.4 vary. See Kalil'sCase, 146 N.H. 466 (2001)

purposes ofdisciplineand isan appropriatesanctioninthiscase.

aggravatingand mitigatingcircumstances,a reprimand servesthe

55. The partiesagree that,given the baselinesanctionand considerationof

9.32.

ADO, and hiscooperativeattitudetoward proceedings. See Standards §

absence ofa dishonestor selfishmotive, fulland freedisclosureto the

54. Mitigatingfactorsincludetheabsence ofany priordiscipline,the

experiencein the practiceof law. See Standards § 9.22.

53. In thiscase one aggravatingfactorispresent:Mr. Hoppock's substantial

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

52. The baseline sanctionmust be considered in light of any aggravating and

6.23,would call for abaselinesanctionofpubliccensure.

51. Mr. Hoppock's conduct in thismatter,when consideredunder Standard p. 17 11907715.11 c

resultofany threats,coercion,or duress,or ofany promises or

and voluntarilysubmitted;thathe isnot enteringthisStipulationas a

proposed dispositioncontainedinthisStipulationarefreely,knowingly,

62. Mr. Hoppock acknowledges thatthe admissions ofmisconduct and the

conditionallyacceptthe Stipulationpursuantto Rule 37A(III)(aa)(l).

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

61. Mr. Hoppock understandsthatthisStipulationrepresentsa

separateagreement signed by Mr. Hoppock.

His agreement to pay thecostsincurredby theADO isthe subjectofa

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

agreesto pay the costsincurredby theADO intheinvestigationand

60. Subjectto the PCC's approval ofMr. Hoppock's Stipulation,Mr. Hoppock

Committee approve a reprimand in thismatter.

59. For allofthe reasonsnoted herein,the partiesrequestthatthe

Ganz} AlanH. advs. Jennifer A.Lubeski- #05-072 (2007).

58. The PCC has previouslyapproved a reprimand for a Rule4.4violation,in

authorityofthe SuperiorCourt."

multiple court orders, and with "usurping the power anddefyingthe

accused the otherlawyerswith serious crimes(25felonies),violations of

Robertson'sCase was significantlygreater- inthatcase,the respondent

violations. Thepartiesalso notethatthemagnitude of the violations in p. 18 16 11907715.

subjectto the PCC's approval ofthisStipulationas presented.

64. Mr. Hoppock knowinglyand intelligently waiveshisright to a hearing,

Stipulation.

63. Mr. Hoppock has been representedby counselin reachingthis

approval ofthisStipulationas presented.

bound to the facts and ruleviolationsas stipulated, subject to thePCC's

inducements not setforth inthe Stipulation.He understands thathe is upon itsreceipt.

p. 19 I donot notifythe committee thatIdisputethe bill,payment will bedue

Committee willconsiderthedisputeditem and issuea writtendecision. If

writingwithinthirtydays of my receiptofthe bill. Iunderstand thatthe

bill, I willnotifythe Committee ofthe specificnatureofthedisputein

understand thatthe Committee willbillme for thesecosts. If Idisputethe

$130.25. Should furthercostsaccrue in thisdispositionofthismatter,I

As ofJune 5, 2017, Ihave been informed thatthecostsare approximately

transcripts,copying,inventory,auditexpenses and publication.

Costs can include,but are not limitedto:mileage, stenographers,

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

agree to pay the expenses incurredby the Committee inthe investigation

Stipulationof Facts,Rule Violations,and Sanction in theabove matter,I

Subjectto the ProfessionalConduct Committee's approval of the

NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT p. 20 Respondent Joseph S.Hoppock,Esquire Dated : 7 AukC 2017 //^

AttorneyDisciplineOffice'scollectionefforts.

6. I also agree to be responsiblefor allcostsincurredas a resultofthe

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

judgment and shallbe subjectto alllegally-availablepost-judgment

courtinany county inthe state,where itshallbe docketed as a final

5. The Committee may file acopy ofthe finalassessmentwiththe superior

be enforcedinany Superior Court in New Hampshire.

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

4. Iunderstand and agree thattheassessment ofcostsisdeemed finaland

formal demand forpayment.

furtherdetailofthenature and amount ofeach expense,and Ialso waive

3. I waive the provisionsofSupreme Court Rule 37(19)(b)regarding any