Shawn P. Sweeney (2025)

Russell F. Hilliard, Esq., Counsel for the Respondent (by email) cc: Sara S. Greene, Disciplinary Counsel (by email)

October 27, 2025 /s/ Caroline K. Leonard

Further, the PCC voted to approve the Agreement to Pay Costs.

that the ultimate sanction proposed in the Stipulation, a Reprimand, is appropriately warranted. injury to the legal system through the jury’s empanelment and the mistrial. As such, the PCC felt in the Prong 3 analysis (Stipulation, Paragraph 73), Respondent’s conduct still caus ed actual legal profession. Even if, however, the nol pross is removed from the injurious conduct described did not consider the nol prossed matter as an example of an actual injury to the public and /or the analysis described in the Stipulation in Paragraphs 65 through 80, with one exception: the PCC PCC voted to conditionally approve the Stipulation. The PCC agreed with the four - part sanction After deliberation, pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37A(III)(aa)(3), the

was recused. Discipline Office (the “Stipulation”); and (ii) an Agreement to Pay Costs. Stephanie Hausman August 12, 2025, proposed by the Respondent, Shawn P. Sweeney, Esq., and the Attorney following: (i) a jointly filed Stipulation as to Facts, Violations, and Sanction: Reprimand, dated On September 16, 2025, the Professional Conduct Committee (“PCC”) rev iewed the

Sweeney, Shawn P. advs. Attorney Discipline Office

*non - lawyer member

*Everett S. Grass Richard C. Gagliuso, Esq. Trudy Renfors, Admin. Asst. Oliver Bloom, Esq. Eric R. Wilson, Esq. *Ronald K. Ace Mitchell M. Simon, Esq. Caroline K. Leonard, Esq., Vice Chair. Robin D. Melone, Esq. *Kathleen M. Ames, Vice Chair Karyl R. Martin, Esq. Stephanie C. Hausman, Esq., Chair *Peter J. Kiriakoutsos

Shawn P. Sweeney, Esq. (via Electronic Mail only) cc: Sara S. Greene, Esq. (via Electronic Mail only) RFH/sem (603) 436 - 7046 rhilliard@uptonhatfield.com Russell F. Hilliard

Thank you for your assistance.

matter. terms of the Order dated October 27, 2025 conditionally approving the parties’ Stipulation in this Pursuant to Rule 37A(III)(aa)(3)(E)(i), the Respondent hereby consents to the conditional

Dear Ms. Renfors:

Re: Sweeney, Shawn P. advs. Attorney Discipline Office; #24 - 026

Concord, NH 03301 4 Chenell Drive; Suite 102 Professional Conduct Committee New Hampshire Supreme Court Trudy Renfors, Administrative Assistant

Via Electronic Mail Only

Anna R. Hagg* ***Also admitted in VT ** Also admitted in MA & NY Christina H. Kranias * Also admitted in MA Madeline K. Matulis Timothy K. O'Brien Kathryn Cox Pelletier* Laura M. Dudziak Timothy J. Sullivan Serving New Hampshire since 1908 Stephanie J. Thomson*** Todd C. Fahey Brooke Lovett Shilo Nathan C. Midolo Michael P. Courtney* Susan Aileen Lowry Jeanne S. Saffan** Michael S. McGrath* Lauren Simon Irwin Heather M. Burns James F. Raymond Thomas W. Morse - Retired Russell F. Hilliard Of Counsel p. 4 Mr. Sweeney is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Mr. Mr. Sweeney has not been admitted to practice law in any other jurisdiction. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Sweeney was an Assistant County Mr. Sweeney does not have a previous disciplinary history. This disciplinary matter was initiated by a referral from Kyle Robidas, Esq., a In the course of its investigation, Disciplinary Counsel met with Mr. Sweeney and

his counsel, as well as two county attorneys that Mr. Sweeney supervised and who 6. 2020-CR-524 (“the Case”). was pending in Hillsborough County Superior Court, Northern District, #216criminal matter in which Mr. Sweeney served as the county attorney. The matter New Hampshire public defender who represented Nadeshda Rios Rodriguez in a 5. 4. District, in New Hampshire. Attorney for the Hillsborough County Attorney’s Office (“HCAO”), Northern 3. 2. Sweeney was admitted to practice on October 29, 2001. 1.

stipulate as follows: Respondent Shawn P. Sweeney, Esq., and the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO)

12. differences. alleged victim in discovery, the Court noted on the record a number of material statement with a transcript of the only previously provided statement by the moved for a mistrial. Comparing the audio recording of the State’s opening information never disclosed to defense counsel prior to trial, defense counsel involvement. Upon hearing the State's opening statement, including new 11. Mr. Sweeney was “first chair.” Mr. Robidas represented the defendant at trial. 10. Attorneys Zachary Charland and Benjamin Bernatz, filed appearances in the Case. the State of New Hampshire. In February 2023, two newly admitted attorneys, 9. the Court (J. Delker) declared a mistrial on November 13, 2023. 8. asserted the claim of self-defense. threatened Mr. Schultz, her ex-boyfriend, with a knife. Ms. Rios Rodriguez Criminal Threatening, alleging that Ms. Rios Rodriguez had stabbed and Rodriguez with two counts of First-Degree Assault and one felony count of resulted in injury to Hugh Schultz, the alleged victim. The State charged Ms. Rios 7. Overview: The Underlying Criminal Case/Failure to Disclose voluminous internal HCAO emails from the relevant time period. Lead Attorney of Major Crimes at HCAO. Finally, Mr. Sweeney produced with Mr. Sweeney’s legal assistant, Eva Reardon, as well at Patrick Ives, Esq. ADO met with the referring attorney, Kyle Robidas, and conducted interviews assisted him in the case, Zachary Charland and Benjamin Bernatz. In addition, the p. 6 Zwicker letter detailing the statements [the alleged victim] These notes, which were taken during three meetings that Mr. Sweeney attended Mr. Sweeney admits that he negligently failed to disclose the notes of these Mr. Sweeney would testify that he never intentionally or knowingly withheld the The Zwicker obligation is part of a prosecutor’s ongoing obligation to provide timely Zwicker obligation flows from the Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, State v. Laurie, 139 N.H. 325 (1995), that the State disclose exculpatory Brady material includes impeachment evidence. See States v. 473 U.S. 667, 676-77 (1985). Impeachment information typically refers to

witness. information that tends negatively to impact the credibility or reliability of a government Bagley, Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” favorable to an accused . . .violates due process where the evidence is material either to information to the defense. Specifically, “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence including requirement set forth in State v. Zwicker, 151 N.H. 179 (2004). The disclosures to the defense of new, material information concerning a witness’ statements. 1

produce them. Schultz, the attorneys at HCAO worked promptly and in good faith to locate and demonstrate that once ordered to produce statements regarding meetings with Mr. the lawyers under his supervision to withhold the notes. These emails also review of internal HCAO emails, demonstrate that Mr. Sweeney did not instruct notes. The ADO’s interviews with Mr. Bernatz and Mr. Charland, as well as its 15. taken the time to ensure that a proper summary was prepared and disclosed.” squarely with me. Following that meeting [with the alleged victim], I should have office, the responsibility for ensuring that discovery rules are followed lies response to the ADO stated “[a]s lead counsel and a supervising attorney in the meetings to the defense in violation of his duty pursuant to Rule 3.8(d). His initial 14. that should have been disclosed before trial. attendance, and one meeting without them present), constituted “Zwicker” material with Mr. Schultz (two meetings with Attorneys Bernatz and Charland in 13. based on the State’s failure to provide this discovery to defense counsel. provided to the State.” After review of those notes, the Court declared a mistrial victim and a coherent 1 p. 7 The relevant chronology, and background context, is set forth in more detail The Case was pending for about 20 months at the time Mr. Sweeney filed his The only statements from the alleged victim that the defense had in its possession The meetings with Mr. Schultz during which Zwicker material arose occurred on On April 19, 2022, Mr. Sweeney met with Mr. Schultz to prepare for a settlement Mr. Sweeney took handwritten notes during this meeting. He recalls that another The trial was continued a few times, but when meetings occurred with Mr. Schultz, it

was always in preparation for a then-scheduled, upcoming trial date. 2

meeting. and Mr. Bernatz were not yet involved in the Case and were not present at this this meeting with him, nor could his legal assistant. In any event, Mr. Charland staff member of the HCAO was present. However, he cannot recall who attended 21. 2022, was July 25, 2022. 2 conference that was then scheduled for May 20, 2022. The trial date as of April 19, 20. April 2022: Mr. Sweeney’s Meeting with the Alleged Victim meetings is discussed below with relevant intervening events and context. three dates: April 19, 2022, March 7, 2023, and November 6, 2023. Each of the 19. Court ordered the State to produce all notes of meetings with Mr. Schultz. other statements were disclosed to the defense until it requested a mistrial, and the approximately 3 minutes at the scene prior to being loaded into an ambulance. No alleged victim spoke to the police for approximately 10 minutes at the hospital and before trial came from the night of the incident. On the night of the incident, the 18. private practice as a criminal defense attorney. Assistant. For about 14 years prior to joining the HCAO, Mr. Sweeney was in months by this time, having been hired by County Attorney John Coughlin as First appearance in December 2021. Mr. Sweeney had been at the HCAO about 11 17.

below. 16. p. 8 The handwritten notes from this April 2022 meeting include the full name and This note was not disclosed to the defense before trial, and, as set forth further In the course of the ADO’s investigation, it requested internal HCAO emails and, by the time of the April 19, 2022 email, was the In that email, Mr. Sweeney informed Officer Esposito that Mr. Sweeney had Zwicker disclosures. Having placed these questions in Officer Esposito’s “court,” Mr. Sweeney, in the He never received, however, a Mr. Sweeney sent the email to jesposito@manchesternh.gov. The correct email for jesposit@manchester.gov.

Officer Esposito is 3

an incorrect email address for Officer Esposito. 3 only discovered in the course of producing emails to the ADO, Mr. Sweeney used moment, had them somewhat out of his mind. However, as it turned out, and as he 26. could review that response for possible the email, he assumed he would soon receive a response from Officer Esposito and and to “find out what he remembers about the phone conversation.” After sending whom Mr. Schultz claimed to be speaking on the phone at the time of the incident, “look into” it. Mr. Sweeney asked Officer Esposito to speak with the witness with received “new information” from Mr. Schulz and asked if Officer Esposito would 25. Lead Investigator on the case. on the night of the incident, Police Officer Joseph Esposito. Officer Esposito was one of the arresting officers same date as his April 19, 2022 meeting with Mr. Schultz, directed to Manchester complied with this request, and in the process located an email that he sent, on the between and among all HCAO staff during the relevant time period. Mr. Sweeney 24. the State to produce all handwritten notes on the first day of trial. below, was not located by HCAO staff until over a month after the Court ordered 23. notes have a star next to this information. incident and not something that Mr. Sweeney had heard before. His handwritten was not something that Mr. Schultz had shared with police on the night of the claimed he was “on phone with friend when assault happened.” This information phone number of an individual, with the notation that Mr. Schultz evidently 22. p. 9 Had Mr. Sweeney received an undeliverable email, the issue of the new By way of further context, during this period Mr. Sweeney was handling over 30 These facts provide context for why Mr. Sweeney did not disclose the April 2022 Zwicker material, but he acknowledges that On July 14, 2022, the parties conducted a settlement conference which the alleged Zwicker material resulted from the State’s meeting with Mr. Shultz material resulted from my interactions with the victim during our Mr. Sweeney would testify that he answered the question from defense counsel i.e. whether new or material information was On February 14, 2023, Mr. Bernatz and Mr. Charland filed their appearances in

the Case. Trial was eventually scheduled for March 21, 2023. 32.

March 2023: Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Bernatz, and Mr. Charland concerning his April 2022 meeting with Mr. Schultz. July 15, 2022 from defense counsel simply did not trigger Mr. Sweeney’s memory received from Mr. Schultz on the day of the settlement conference. The inquiry on truthfully, and as it was asked,

31. settlement conference.” “[n]o Zwicker during the settlement conference. Mr. Sweeney responded the same day via email: whether any victim attended. On July 15, 2022, Mr. Robidas asked Mr. Sweeney via email 30. the duty to disclose it rested with him and that he failed to do so. notes (or the content of the notes) as 29. the day-to-day operations of the HCAO. cases, supervising approximately 22 attorneys and staff, and was responsible for 28. Officer Esposito and received no undeliverable message). likewise sent an email to the incorrect email address that Mr. Sweeney used for immediate attention again and prompted further action on his part. (The ADO information provided by Mr. Schultz during the meeting would have entered his 27. “bounce back” or “undeliverable” message in this regard. p. 10 Mr. Sweeney was assigned to do the direct examination of Mr. Schultz. To Mr. Charland was assigned to take notes of the meeting. He took about two and a When back at the office, Mr. Charland typed up the notes of the meeting and The email does not contain any further message, nor any “flagging” for Mr. Zwicker disclosures. However, within the Word document, Zwicker material. This included information about (1) the last time that Mr. Schultz saw the Mr. Sweeney would testify that he has no independent recollection of reviewing The “type up” was a Word document wherein Mr. Charland recreated his handwritten

Sweeney. notes in Word format. Mr. Charland attached the Word document to his email to Mr. 4

Mr. Charland’s “type up” of the notes. Mr. Charland confirmed to the ADO he 38. stated, “first I’ve heard of this”). defendant had thrown a stool across the room (Mr. Charland’s typed up notes previously told police the defendant had not threatened to kill him); and (3) that Mr. Schultz that the defendant yelled “I’m going to kill you!” (Mr. Schultz had previous statement by Mr. Schultz that it had been five months); (2) a statement by defendant prior to the incident (one a half weeks before the incident, versus a 37. believed might be represented to the ADO that the highlighted portions contained information that he Mr. Charland had highlighted certain portions in yellow. Mr. Charland Sweeney of potential 36. up of my notes from yesterday.” 4 emailed them to Mr. Sweeney on March 8, 2023, stating simply “[h]ere is my type 35. notation reads “Zwicker?” handwritten notes have a few asterisks or stars by certain information, and one certain respects to previous statements by Mr. Schultz. Mr. Charland’s incident that Mr. Charland represented to the ADO was “new and different” in half pages of handwritten notes. These notes contained information about the 34. with him on March 7, 2023. prepare Mr. Schultz for trial, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Bernatz, and Mr. Charland met 33. p. 11 By way of further context, Mr. Charland and Mr. Bernatz both represented to the not to disclose certain material to the defense. Rather, in the aftermath of the Though Mr. Charland’s email to Mr. Sweeney dated March 8, 2023 included no Zwicker Mr. Bernatz and Mr. Charland therefore believed Mr. Sweeney was in the best Zwicker disclosures were in order. In this respect, In March of 2023, the trial was continued to November 6, 2023. Mr. Sweeney

and Mr. Charland present. attended the final pre-trial conference on October 26, 2023 without Mr. Bernatz 42.

November 2023: Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Bernatz, and Mr. Charland accountable to the ADO in his capacity as the senior attorney handling the Case. and importantly, Mr. Sweeney has never contended otherwise, and has been position to determine whether

41. this determination. the meeting on March 7, 2023, so he was certainly not in the best position to make only a few weeks. In addition, Mr. Bernatz had to leave about halfway through the case since December 2021, whereas the younger lawyers had been on the case responsible for Mr. Schultz’s direct examination, and Mr. Sweeney had been on document for a few reasons. Mr. Sweeney was first chair, Mr. Sweeney was Sweeney would understand the nature of the highlighted portions in the Word ADO that he assumed Mr. Sweeney would review the “type up,” and believed Mr. substantive comment or question about, Mr. Charland represented to the 40. was simply no further discussion of any disclosure obligation at all. two meetings with Mr. Schultz at which the younger lawyers were present, there them ADO that at no point during the pendency of the Case did Mr. Sweeney instruct 39. attached Word document reflecting his notes. never heard anything further from Mr. Sweeney regarding this email and the p. 12 By this date, Mr. Sweeney had registered for a continuing legal education course Mr. Bernatz and Mr. Charland represented to the ADO that they could not recall after the final meeting with Mr. Schultz on In any event, on November 6, 2023, all three attorneys met again with Mr. Schulz Mr. Charland again took handwritten notes. The notes reflect statements by Mr. Mr. Sweeney registered for the course in July of 2023 with the approval of the County

and Bernatz that they could handle the trial without his participation. not think there would be a conflict. Mr. Sweeney confirmed with Attorneys Charland Attorney. By this time, trial was scheduled for November 6, 2023, but Mr. Sweeney did 5

and the children’s version, as there were flowers thrown in the apartment. The According to the defense, the evidence at the scene supported Ms. Rios Rodriguez flowers in her apartment and was accusing Ms. Rios Rodriguez of cheating. children told the police, which was that Mr. Schultz had gotten upset over seeing what other witnesses, including Ms. Rios-Rodriguez and the Mr. Schultz’s defendant was evidently claiming her brother died of covid. This conflicted with Schultz told the defendant “You don’t seem upset” in response to the fact that the Shultz concerning the stool being thrown, and that an argument began because Mr. 46. to prepare him for trial. 45. for significant trial experience. appreciate that the HCAO is a work environment that provides early opportunities agreed they could handle it. Both attorneys represented to the ADO that they were a bit “surprised” to hear Mr. Sweeney would not be present for the trial, both addition, Mr. Bernatz and Mr. Charland represented to the ADO that while they November 6, 2023 to prepare him for trial, which all three attorneys attended. In both believed it was sometime exactly when they heard that Mr. Sweeney would be out of town for the trial, but 44. moving forward with the trial without him. Charland after the final pre-trial conference to ensure they would be comfortable His best recollection is that he would have mentioned this to Mr. Bernatz and Mr. in Dallas that, by October 2023, appeared to possibly conflict with the trial date. 43. 5 p. 13 Mr. Charland did not type up his notes from the November 6, 2023 meeting, in part At the time, Mr. Sweeney operated based on what he heard from Mr. Schultz He acknowledges in retrospect that comparing the early statements from Mr. Zwicker letters. He acknowledges that he negligently failed to On November 13, 2023, the trial commenced with Mr. Bernatz and Mr. Charland Mr. Charland and Attorney Bernatz returned to their office to find any and all notes of Mr. Ives called Mr. Sweeney and was able to reach him. In interviews with the ADO,

52. Reardon also assisted in the search for notes. HCAO’s Major Crimes Unit, in Mr. Sweeney’s absence. A legal assistant named Eva meetings with Mr. Schultz. They consulted with Patrick Ives, Esq., the head of the 51. The Court then called a recess. meetings that the State had with the alleged victim be provided to defense counsel. information to defense counsel. The Court then ordered that all “raw notes” from any statement, Judge Delker questioned the State about their failure to disclose suspicions that the State had failed to disclose material discovery. After the opening representing the State. The State’s opening statement raised defense counsel’s 50.

November 13, 2023: First Day of Trial Results in a Mistrial do this. should have written he should have noted “new and different” information which was material, and he Schultz, with the April 2022, March 2023, and November 2023 handwritten notes,

49. had previously been disclosed to the defense. did not result in materially different information from Mr. Schultz than that which (again, without reviewing the notes of Mr. Charland), and he felt that the meetings 48. March or November 2023 meetings. no recollection of having reviewed the notes from Mr. Charland from either the the end of the meeting. Mr. Sweeney represented to the ADO that he simply has because he left the meeting early, with Mr. Bernatz and Mr. Sweeney staying until 47. used to impeach him. information shared by Mr. Schultz went to his credibility and could have been p. 14 However, no one located Mr. Sweeney’s handwritten notes from the April 2022 Attorney Charland and Attorney Bernatz returned to the courthouse and provided The Court set an evidentiary hearing for November 22, 2023 to determine sua sponte Nole Prosequi on March 4, 2024 The November 22, 2023 evidentiary hearing was converted to a scheduling 6 In any event, the handwritten notes Evidently the HCAO’s goal is to ensure a file is 100% electronic, using case Rios matter had been pending since April 2020, had two

Mr. Sweeney’s legal assistant changed a few times since his start date in December 2021. file was therefore mostly in electronic form, but not entirely in that form. In addition, attorneys handling it before Mr. Sweeney, and had lingered due to COVID delays. The prosecutors. However, the management software called “PBK” (Prosecutor by Karpel”), specifically designed for 6

Ms. Reardon located the April 2022 notes. to the best of Mr. Sweeney’s recollection. Mr. Bernatz likewise recollects that located in a manila folder, which was with the “physical file” in her workstation, handwritten notes from his April 2022 meeting with Mr. Schultz. These were conference. In early December 2023, Eva Reardon located Mr. Sweeney’s 56. Events After the Mistrial and and any other material witness. granted,, the right of the defense to take the deposition of Mr. Schultz “whether the case should be dismissed with or without prejudice.” The Court 55. Court granted it. the Court, the defense moved for a mistrial. The State did not object, and the March and November 2023. Upon resuming proceedings, and further colloquy with defense counsel and the Court with notes from meetings with the alleged victim in 54. ensure it was part of the search. trial, did not recall that meeting and would not have flagged it for his subordinates to meeting, and Mr. Sweeney, assisting as able from the Dallas CLE on the first day of 53. of the March 2023 notes). Mr. Charland was able to fairly quickly find his handwritten notes (and one “type up” to both note their priority was to comply with Judge Delker’s order from the bench. neither Mr. Sweeney nor Mr. Ives could recall details of the conversation, other than p. 15 The State nol prossed the matter in March 2024 because Mr. Schultz had failed to Rios Mistrial After the mistrial, Mr. Sweeney instituted a procedure for all county attorney in Zwicker disclosures. Eva In addition, Mr. Ives had already been performing annual training on Zwicker The parties agree that Mr. Sweeney’s conduct in this case involves The facts set forth at ¶¶ 1-60 above are incorporated by reference. Rule 3.8 states, in pertinent part:

defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or (d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

62. 61.

Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows: 60. violations of

have since participated in it. they had not attended this presentation at the time of the trial in this matter, they time frame of these events. Mr. Charland and Mr. Bernatz confirmed that though disclosures with all county attorneys in Hillsborough County North during the 59. Reardon and Mr. Charland and Mr. Bernatz confirmed this procedure is in place. the county attorney to review their notes for possible the scheduled interview (in the form of a “pop up” reminder on the computer) for interview into PBK as an event, including a reminder that appears one day after requires that when scheduling witness interviews, legal assistants enter the Hillsborough County North to avoid similar disclosure failures in the future. This 58.

completely, and the State determined it could not carry its burden of proof. the defense. Mr. Schultz thereafter stopped cooperating with the prosecution appear at a scheduled deposition, then failed to appear after being subpoenaed by 57. were promptly disclosed to the defense. p. 16 Mr. Sweeney’s failure to disclose material resulting from his meetings Having found the foregoing violation, there is clear and convincing evidence that The Attorney Discipline Office and Mr. Sweeney jointly agree that a reprimand is Both case law and the American Bar Association’s (2005) (“The purpose of the Court’s disciplinary power is “protecting the public, Although the Court has not adopted the Standards Standards set forth a four part analysis for (quoting Douglas’ Standards § 3.0. The first three parts of the analysis create the framework for characterizing the See Conner’s Case

misconduct and determining a baseline sanction., 158 N.H. at 69. Case, 156 N.H. 613, 621 (2007)); and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.” Id. mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; courts to consider in imposing sanctions: “(a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer’s Conner’s Case, 158 N.H. at 303. The 68., it looks to them for guidance. misconduct.” Coffey’s Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005). N.H. 299, 303 (2009). “The sanction…must take into account the severity of the profession, and preventing similar conduct in the future.” Conner’s Case, 158 maintaining public confidence in the bar, preserving the integrity of the legal 67. Lawyer Sanctions Standards”) support this sanction. 66. Standards for Imposing attorney discipline. the appropriate sanction in this matter. This sanction would serve the purposes of 65.

8.4(a). Mr. Sweeney’s conduct, as described herein, violated N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 64.

violates Rule 3.8(d). with the alleged victim on April 19, 2022, March 7, 2023, and November 6, 2023 63. Zwicker responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this p. 17 See id. (Stating that “[a]fter determining the Under the first prong of the analysis, Mr. Sweeney violated his duty to the legal § II With respect to Mr. Sweeney’s mental state under the second prong of the sanction The third prong of the sanction analysis requires an assessment of the actual or Mr. Sweeney’s conduct caused injury to the legal system in that a jury had been nol prossed as Mr. Sweeney’s 3.8 rule violation implicates Section 5.2 of the See Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or

intent to obtain a significant benefit or advantage for himself or governmental position knowingly misuses the position with the 5.21 ability to influence improperly a government agency or official: is prejudicial to the administration of justice or who state or imply an appropriate in cases involving public officials who engage in conduct that factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the and Standards for Imposing Sanction.” Section 5.2 provides: Appendix 1, “Cross-Reference Table: ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

74. Standards. Mr. Schultz’s cooperation waned and then ceased. impaneled, a mistrial was declared, and thereafter the matter was 73. potential injury caused by Mr. Sweeney’s misconduct. 72. reasons set forth above. analysis, the parties agree that Mr. Sweeney’s mental state was negligent for the 71. (“Theoretical Framework”) (setting forth duties owed to “legal system”). procedure which shape the administration of justice.” See Standards under Rule 3.8, Mr. Sweeney was bound to “abide by the rules of substance and system. As an officer of the court, and a prosecutor imbued with special duties 70. on the ultimate sanction”). sanction, [the Court] consider[s] the effect of any aggravating or mitigating factors they affect the baseline sanction. the analysis: the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors, and whether baseline sanction is determined, the Court then looks to the fourth and final part of respondent’s misconduct and identify the appropriate sanction”). Once the 303 (stating that “[i]n applying these factors, the first step is to categorize the p. 18 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer in an official or Given Mr. Sweeney’s negligent state of mind, and the injury caused, the baseline Standard 5.23. The baseline sanction must be considered in light of any aggravating and E.g. Conner’s Case In this case mitigators include absence of a disciplinary record, absence of a efforts made to locate all relevant notes and disclose them promptly), full and See Standards § 9.32. These mitigators outweigh the single aggravator in this matter: Mr. Sweeney’s See Standards § 9.22. The parties agree that given the baseline sanction, and consideration of The term “admonition,” as used in the

public censure in New Hampshire. New Hampshire. The term “reprimand,” as used in the ABA Standards, is analogous to a

aggravating and mitigating circumstances, a downward departure to a reprimand 79. substantial experience in the practice of law. 78. remorse. free disclosure to the ADO and cooperative attitude towards proceedings, and (i.e. dishonest motive, timely good faith effort to rectify consequences of misconduct 77. mitigating factors.,, 158 N.H. at 303. 76. sanction is a public censure pursuant to 75.

(emphasis added). process. actual or potential injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal in not following proper procedures or rules, and causes little or no governmental position engages in an isolated instance of negligence 5.24 7 party or to the integrity of the legal process. procedures or rules and causes injury or potential injury to a or governmental position negligently fails to follow proper 5.23 integrity of the legal process. or rules, and causes injury or potential injury to a party or to the governmental position knowingly fails to follow proper procedures 5.22 injury to a party or to the integrity of the legal process. another, or with the intent to cause serious or potentially serious p. 19 The parties could not locate a New Hampshire disciplinary matter involving a See In re Feland Subject to the PCC’s approval of Mr. Sweeney’s Stipulation, Mr. Sweeney agrees See Supreme Court Rule 37(19). His agreement to pay the Mr. Sweeney understands that this Stipulation represents a recommended Mr. Sweeney acknowledges that the admissions of misconduct and the proposed Mr. Sweeney has been represented by counsel in reaching this Stipulation.

84. Stipulation. coercion, or duress, or of any promises or inducements not set forth in the submitted; that he is not entering this Stipulation as a result of any threats, disposition contained in this Stipulation are freely, knowingly, and voluntarily 83. Stipulation pursuant to Rule 37A(III)(aa)(1). disposition, and that the PCC may accept, reject, or conditionally accept the 82.

Sweeney. costs incurred by the ADO is the subject of a separate agreement signed by Mr. disciplinary matter. to pay the costs incurred by the ADO in the investigation and enforcement of this 81.

New Hampshire, without analyzing aggravating and mitigating circumstances). 820 N.W.2d 672, 684-685 (N.D. 2012) (imposing equivalent of public censure in Hampshire) or reprimand (public censure in New Hampshire)., negligent Rule 3.8(d) violation generally merits an admonition (reprimand in New Rule 3.8(d) violation. However, other jurisdictions have recognized that a 80. serves the purposes of discipline and is an appropriate sanction in this case.