Patrick B. Shanley (2012)

On August 19,2010, the OfficeofBar Counsel filed apetitionfordisciplineallegingthatMr.

Mr. Shanley was admittedtopracticelaw inMassachusettsand New Hampshire in 1999.

conduct thatadverselyreflectson his or herfitnessto practicelaw. It isprofessionalmisconduct for alawyer toengage in anyother

8.4(h) does not have a precisecounterpartin the NewHampshire Rules, but states:

8.4(c) is identical to NewHampshire Rule 8.4(c)ofthe RulesofProfessionalConduct and Rule

have violatedRules 8.4(c)and 8.4(h)oftheMassachusettsRules ofProfessionalConduct. Rule

Mr. Shanley was found by theMassachusettsBoard ofBar Overseers ("theBoard") to

on hisown behalf.

representedby Julie A.Introcaso,DisciplinaryCounsel. PatrickB. Shanley,Esquire,appeared

D. Sager. Jaye L.Rancourtwas absent. The AttorneyDisciplineOffice("ADO") was

N. Cole; Alan J.Cronheim; Gerald A. Daley;RichardH. Darling;James R. Martin,and Richard

Pizzimenti,Vice Chair;Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair;Thomas P.Connair;Susan R. Chollet;David

Massachusetts.The followingmembers were present:MargaretH. Nelson,Chair;Benette

above matterwhich comes to us on the issueofreciprocaldisciplinefrom theCommonwealth of

On April 17,2012, theProfessionalConduct Committee heard oralargument on the

In the MatterofPatrick B.Shanley -LD-2011-0011

Alan J. Cronheim Holly B. Fazzino,Administrator Thomas P. Connair * non attorney member David N. Cole Richard D. Sager Susan R. Chollet* Jaye L. Rancourt Toni M. Gray,* ViceChair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 James R.Martin Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Richard H. Darling* MargaretH. Nelson,Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Gerald A. Daley*

personalinjurymatters. who work for him.Among othertypesofcases,hisofficehandles He has had anofficeinLowell forseven yearsand hasfourassociates bar on June 15,1999.Sincehisadmission,he hasbeen inprivatepractice. 1. The respondent,Patrick B. Shanley, wasadmittedto theMassachusetts

mattercame to theCommittee followingthathearing.

Thereafter,theCourt remanded thematterfor ahearingon theissueofsanction.The

New Hampshire. thismatterwould warrantsubstantiallymore seriousdisciplinein based on thepriordecisionsofthe Court and theCommittee ... factualfindingsand ruleviolationsfound by the[Board],and thatimposed by [the Board] would beunwarranted.In lightofthe [T]he impositionofdisciplineidenticalor substantiallysimilarto

the issueofreciprocaldisciplineand notified the Courtofitsbeliefthat:

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule37(12)(a).On December 13,2011,thisCommittee deliberated

ADO filed acertifiedcopy ofthe Board'sOrder with theNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Reprimand,equivalentto a Public Censure in New Hampshire. OnNovember 18,2011,the

and (h)oftheMassachusettsRulesofProfessional Conduct. The Board issued a Public

December 3,2010,and ahearingcommittee found that Mr.Shanley had violatedRules 8.4(c)

A fullevidentiaryhearingon theShanley petitionwas heldon December 1,and

King disciplinarymatter.

the letter to nine others, making itappearthat they were being asked to givetestimonyin the

Mr. Shanleyalteredtheletterby redactinghis name and address. He thendistributedcopiesof

Counsel'soriginalletterinquiredabout Mr. Shanley'savailabilityto testifyin theKing matter.

pendingagainstMr. King,anotherMassachusetts'lawyer, and acompetitorofMr. Shanley.Bar

Shanley altereda lettersignedand sentto him by BarCounsel regardinga disciplinarymatter p. 3 Page 3of13

respondentappeared,but King did not. $2,000.In the fall 2007, the courtscheduleda payment reviewand the claimsactionand therespondentgot adefaultjudgment in June 2007 for this matter, he did not have anattorney'slien. Kingdefaultedin the small claims action against King. Because therespondenthad not filed suit in respondent.Consequently,in May 2007, therespondentfiled asmall had settledthe case,collectedtheproceeds,and failed to pay a fee to the 8. At some point after his discharge, therespondentformed abeliefthat King

2005, wassubsequentlydischarged, and the case wastakenover by King. respondenton acontingentfee basis. Therespondentwas retained in Said Labibi.This was also apersonalinjurycasehandled by the 7. Another casewhich led to a dispute with Kinginvolveda clientnamed

due to him inthe Chann matter. 6. By August 2008, therespondenthad been paid by thebank theamount

2007. 5. The respondentreported this conduct to bar counsel in or aboutOctober

knowledge or authorization. check had beennegotiatedwithout his signature andwithouthis King and the client.Furthermore,therespondentwas informed that the check had been issuedto Kinglistingtherespondentas payee along with settled by King for$7,500.The respondentalsolearnedthat asettlement 4. At some pointthereafter,therespondentlearnedthatthecase had been

filed anattorney'slienafterhisdischarge. respondentwas dischargedand King took over the matter. Therespondent filedsuiton Chann's behalf.Sometime priorto the fallof2006, the Chann in apersonalinjurycase on acontingentfeebasis.The respondent Sambath Chann. The respondentwas retainedin May 2005 torepresent 3. One ofthe cases in which a dispute aroseinvolveda client named

King and King would not turnover the file. case.They alsohad disputeswhere therespondenttook over a case from injurycaseswhere therespondentwas dischargedand King took over the cases,which have includedsome disputesover dividingfees inpersonal in 2005, therespondentand King have hadprofessionaldisputes about other cases, in Lowell. The respondent first heardofhim in 2001. Starting on February19,2008.King haspracticedpersonal injury law,among was suspendedfrom the practice onNovember 6, 2007 and wasreinstated 2. John J. King was admittedto theMassachusettsbaron June 18,1998.He p. 4 Page 4of13

availableon threeofthehearingdates. day, hecalledGilmore and left her avoicemail indicatinghe was 16. The respondentreceivedGilmore'sletter on orabout August 6,2009.That

with anyquestionsor concerns. were not thenconcluded,and encouraged therespondenttocontacther next week ofhisavailabilityon thosedatesand laterdatesifthehearings scheduledhearingdates, asked the respondent to inform herwithinthe a witness in theproceedingsagainst King. In the letter,Gilmore listed the several days in October 2009, and that she wanted to call therespondentas discipline against King, that hearings on thepetitionwere scheduledfor she informedhim, among otheritems, that she had filed apetitionfor 15. On or about August5,2009,Gilmore sent therespondenta letter in which

those counts. handing the King matter,plannedto call therespondentas awitnesson and King. Based on that petition, Assistant BarCounsel Gilmore,who was stemming from the twodisputesas set forth abovebetween therespondent offivecounts,ofwhich countsthree and fourinvolvedallegations 14. In 2009, bar counselfiled apetitionfordisciplineagainstKing, consisting

small claimscase. motions and a trial by a magistrate,judgment [was] entered for King in the claims court and that motion was denied. In August2009,aftervarious 13. In early 2009, therespondentmoved to enforce thejudgment in small

defended and got thesuperiorcourtactiondismissed. way ofcollaterallyattackingthesmallclaimsjudgment. The respondent 12. In themeantime, King sued therespondentinsuperiorcourtfor fraud as a

judgment. respondent.Nonetheless,therespondentpursued hiseffortstocollectthat payment review,King did not in fact owe anunderlyingdebtto the a defaultjudgment againstKing, who had failed toshow up for the 11. At thedisciplinaryhearing,therespondentadmittedthat,althoughhe had

by a thirdlawyerwho had settledthe case anddistributedtheproceeds. had never actuallysettledtheLabibicaseand that Kinghad been replaced and dismissthe case. Atabout thattime, therespondentlearnedthatKing 10. In the fallof2008, Kingmoved toremove the capias, vacatethedefault,

claimsactionbroughtby therespondent. intentionallyand withoutgood cause had failed toappearin thesmall 9. In November 2007, therespondentallegedtobar counselthatKing p. 5 Page 5of13

his status the datesofhis suspension and reinstatement, and the fact thatdisciplinaryproceedingswere pending. 1The printoutwas takenfrom theBoard'swebsiteand statedKing'sofficeaddress,his dateofadmissionto thebar,

signatureon thewitnesslettersshe hadsentout in theKing matterand 22. Gilmore thencompared thesignatureon thealtered letterwith her

concerningKing. them a copy ofExhibit2, thealteredletter,with thewebsiteprintout asked them to fax herexactlywhat they hadreceived,and receivedfrom RobertaJaegeratHelping Hands Chiropractic.Ineach case,Gilmore Lowell, and anattorneynamed EricSchutzbank callingon behalfofDr. themselvesas Dr. Raul Velez,Rhonda from ChiropracticCare Centersof 21. That same day,Gilmore receivedtelephonecallsfrom people identifying

Board'swebsitepage concerningKing. respondentadmits he alteredand deliveredand attachedto it wasthe personpurportingto be Dr.Broderick.It wasidenticalto theletterthe faxed toGilmore.That same day,Gilmore receiveda two-page fax from a message also stated that the documents this person received were being lettersignedby Gilmore concerningthe Kingdisciplinaryhearing.The individualpurportingto be Dr.John Broderickstatinghe hadreceiveda 20. On August 10,2009,Gilmore received a voice mailmessage from an

the source ofthe deliveries. deliveredthem. Indeed, therespondentintentionallyconcealedthathe was any oftherecipientsofthe altered letter andprintouttoexplainthat he had delivery. The respondent did not have anysubsequentconversationswith he was thesourceofthedeliveryor thatGilmore was not thesourceofthe 19. The respondentdid notincludea cover note orprovideany indicationthat

Family Chiropractic,and Dr. Lawrence GrayofMill CityChiropractic. Velez,theChiropracticCare Center, Dr. RobertaJaegerofHelpingHands followingchiropractorsin the Lowell area: Dr. JohnBroderick,Dr. Raul letter, but admitted that, at the time he was doingbusinesswith the not recallhow many he deliveredor towhom he deliveredthealtered mail slot. At thedisciplinaryhearing,therespondenttestifiedthathe could halfand put them on adoor handleor slid themunder a door or through a mail would not be delivered. He either folded the letters andprintoutin the letters at a time when thechiropractorswere not intheirofficesand chiropractorsin theLowell areathathe didbusinesswith. Hedelivered ofthe altered letter and BBO website printoutofAttorneyKing1 to 18. On or before August10,2009,therespondentpersonallydeliveredcopies

the salutationwith hisname. thathe altereda copy oftheletterby deletinghisname, hisaddress,and 17. Within a few days afterreceivingGilmore'sletter, therespondentadmits p. 6 Page 6 of13

convincingevidencestandard.

Hampshire disciplinarymatters,New Hampshire Court Rules requirea higherclearand

becauseMassachusettsuses apreponderanceoftheevidencestandard.In contrast,inNew

allreferenceto the Massachusetts'decisionand factsshould be strickenand thematterdismissed

Mr. Shanley filed a Motion to Strike and a Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Shanleyarguedthat

Board Memo, at 6(October 17,2011). (Citations omitted.) The Boardadoptedthe HearingPanel'sFindingsand ConclusionsofLaw.

least call Gilmore and ask about the letters and the King matter. was asking them toappearand testify in the Kingdisciplinarycase or at appear to therecipientsthat Gilmore had sent ordeliveredit to them and intentionallyfalse,deceptive,and misleading.The alteredlettermade it 26. We find thatthealteredletter, asdeliveredby therespondent,was

respondent. namely issuesofbias, bad faith, and wrongful motive on the partofthe disputesbetween therespondentand King - due toproofproblems, petition fordisciplineagainst King - these were thecountsinvolvingthe however, barcounselsubsequentlydismissedcountsthree and fourofthe alteredletterand a depositionofthatperson.That motion was denied; filed amotion requestingtheidentityoftheperson who distributedthe that King wasaware ofthedistributionofthealteredletter,and King then 25. The nextday King'scounselin hisdisciplinarycase informed barcounsel

he had. asked therespondentifhe haddeliveredthelettersand heconfirmed that theOfficeofBar Counsel,notifyingthem oftheKing hearingdates.She areaand they hadreceiveda letter thatappeared to be fromGilmore and faxes fromindividualswho said they werechiropractorsin the Lowell 24. Gilmore calledtherespondentand told him she hadreceivedcallsand

letter and website printout he had received. himselfas achiropractornamed Lawrence Gray, who faxed to her the 23. The nextday,Gilmore receiveda call from aperson who identified

addressedto therespondent. determinedthat her signature on the altered lettermatched that on the copy p. 7 Page 7of13

Transcript(4/17/12)pp. 16-18.

Ishould get. That'snot why I'm here.I'm here about thesanctionofhow much law in New Hampshire.I'm not here to fightaboutthese facts. move on from this. I like the practiceoflaw. I like the practiceof going. I hired an attorney to file the appeal, and I withdrew it to That'snotwhy I'm here. Iacceptedresponsibility.Ihad an appeal Mr. Shanley: I'm not here to quibble about the factual findings.

seemed asifyou likely agreed with all 26ofthose findingsoffact. Massachusetts report which you dispute, because as I read them, it I'mjustwonderingifthere are any factual findings in the

circumstancesofwhat occurred.... ones? Because they seem to bejusta recountingofthe any ofthose 26 findingsoffact which you dispute, andifso, which and convincingstandardwhich are legalconclusions,but are there laying (sic[raising]) a question about preponderance versus a clear The Massachusettsreport included 26 findingsoffact. You were

At the hearing on this matter, Mr. Shanley was asked by amember oftheCommittee:

clear andconvincingstandard. See, In re Donal B.Barrett, 966 A. 2d 862 (D.C. 2009).

factsestablishedare used in asubsequentreciprocaldisciplinarymatterin ajurisdictionusing the

preponderanceoftheevidencestandarddoes not constitute adeprivationofdue processifthe

DisciplinaryCounsel citedseveralcasesfor thepropositionthatstatesuse ofthe

(c) appliedshallbe asfollows: thisjurisdiction,the rulesofprofessionalconduct to be (b)ChoiceofLaw. In any exerciseofthedisciplinaryauthorityof

Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 8.5(b)(2)states:

Disciplinarycounsel filed an Objection to the Motions arguing, inter alia, thatNew p. 8 Page 8of13

and integrity, andengaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, orinterferencewith the

violated his duty to the general public when he failed to exhibit the higheststandardofhonesty

the profession when he failed to maintain the integrityoftheprofession.Mr. Shanleyalso

Under the firstprong oftheanalysis,the Mr.Shanley'smisconduct violatedhisduty to

or mitigating factors andwhetherthey affect the baseline sanction. Id. (citing Wolterbeek'sCase,

the Court then looks to the fourth and final step in the analysis: theexistenceofany aggravating

determining a baseline sanction. Conner'sCase at 303. Once the baseline sanction is determined,

The first three steps create the framework for characterizing themisconductand

or mitigating factors."(quoting Douglas'Case, 155 N.H. 613,621 (2007)); Standards § 3.0.

potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existenceofaggravating

for any actofattorneymisconduct:"(a)theduty violated;(b) thelawyer'smental state;(c) the

The Standards set forth a four part analysis for courts toconsiderinimposingsanctions

(1992) ("Standards") forguidanceindeterminingtheappropriatesanction.

We look to theAmerican Bar Association's Standardsfor Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

Board Memo, Attachment A p. 8.

found that the altered letter wasintentionallyfalse, deceptive, andmisleading.

from Bar Counsel and then passing themoffasifthey had beendirectedto others. The Board

Mr. Shanley engaged inintentionalactsofdeceitinalteringtheletterhe had received

Shanley'sMotion to Strikeand Motion toDismiss.

the factual findings made by the Massachusetts Board, the Committee voted to deny Mr.

Based on the law, the authorities cited, and Mr.Shanley'schoice not to challenge anyof p. 9 Page 9 of13

2. have resultedfrom therespondent'slegitimatepublicationofinformationabout the King hearing."Attachment A p. it was adiscretionaryactionon barcounsel'spart and because it wasconceivablethat the samedecisionmight well 2The hearingcommitteedeterminedthat"dismissalofthetwo countsagainstKing didnotconstituteharm because

5.11 Disbarment isgenerallyappropriatewhen:

deceit,or misrepresentation: inotherrespects,or incaseswith conduct involvingdishonesty,fraud, adverselyon thelawyer'shonesty,trustworthiness,or fitnessas alawyer appropriatein casesinvolvingcommission ofa criminalact that reflects ofthe factors set out inStandard3.0, thefollowingsanctionsaregenerally Absent aggravatingor mitigatingcircumstances,upon application

5.1 Failure To MaintainPersonalIntegrity

sanctioninthe instantcase:

The followingsectionofthe Standards is relevant todeterminingtheappropriatebaseline

relied upon to give credible testimony. Contra Board Memo, Attachment A. at p.2.2

against Mr. King because they arose from disputes with the Mr. Shanley who could no longer be

In addition,Bar Counsel feltcompelled toseek dismissaloftwo ofthecountspending

integrityofthe legalprofessionwhen he engaged inconduct involvingdeceit.

judicialsystem as awhole. Here,the Mr.Shanley clearlycaused injuryto thereputationand

dishonesty,fraud, ordeceitby attorneyscause the public to loseconfidenceinlawyersand the

attorney'smisconduct. See Kersey's Case, 150 N.H. 585 (2004),(citing Standards §3.0).Acts of

The third prong requiresconsiderationofthe actual orpotentialinjury caused by the

Board Memo, Attachment A p. 8.

distributing it under false pretenses.

that the Mr. Shanley actedintentionallywith respect to altering BarCounsel'sletter and

acts..." Grew's Case at 366. The factsofthis case, as found by the Board, support the conclusion

"What is relevant to the second [prong] is the volitional natureofthe respondent's

administrationofjustice. See Standards II - TheoreticalFramework. p. 10 Page 10 of13

Section5.14 uses the term"Admonition." The most analogoussanctioninNew Hampshire is aReprimand. Section5.13uses the term"Reprimand." The most analogous sanction in NewHampshire is Public Censure.

but onewhich caused harm to the legalprofession,as does any actofdeceitby anattorney.In

matterand protectingthecitizensofNew Hampshire. This appearsto be anisolatedactofdeceit,

Hampshire.Transcript,4/17/12p.20,1.4.Thus New Hampshire has asignificantinterest in this

Shanley'sdeceit. Mr. Shanley stated thatapproximately30 percentofhis practice is inNew

(2005), theCommittee balancesthe duty toprotectthe public with the harmcaused by Mr.

361 (2007), Gosling,Tamblyn F., 07-035 (2009), and Desmarais-Gordon, Christine, 00-N-125

MaryNotaris, LD-2010-008 (2010), Bosse's Case, 155 N.H. 128 (2007), Grew's Case, 156N.H.

sanctionofdisbarment. However, in analyzing New Hampshire cases such as: In the Matterof

Section5.11(b)appears to be the most applicablestandardand calls for abaseline

practicelaw. any otherconduct that reflectsadverselyon thelawyer'sfitness to 5.14 Admonition4 is generally appropriate when alawyerengagesin

lawyer'sfitnesstopracticelaw. deceit,or misrepresentationand thatadverselyreflectson the engages in anyotherconductthatinvolvesdishonesty,fraud, 5.13 Reprimand3 is generally appropriate when alawyerknowingly

lawyer'sfitness topractice. listed inStandard5.11and thatseriouslyadverselyreflectson the engages incriminalconduct which does not containtheelements 5.12 Suspensionisgenerallyappropriatewhen a lawyer knowingly

adverselyreflectson thelawyer'sfitnesstopractice. dishonesty,fraud, deceit, ormisrepresentationthatseriously (b) alawyer engages in anyotherintentionalconduct involving commit any oftheseoffenses;or another; or an attempt or conspiracy orsolicitationofanother to importationofcontrolled substances; or theintentionalkillingof extortion,misappropriation,or theft; or the sale,distributionor administrationofjustice,falseswearing,misrepresentation,fraud, element ofwhich includesintentionalinterferencewith the (a) a lawyer engages in serious criminalconducta necessary p. 11 Page 11 of13

(citing MatterofClooney, 403 Mass. 654 at 657 (1988); see also DisciplinaryCounsel's

wrongfulnessofhisconduct"was consideredin aggravation. Board Memo,AttachmentA, at 4

distributionofBar Counsel'sletter,his"unwillingnessor inabilitytocome togripswith the

his wrongdoing as noted by the hearing committee below. With respect to the alteration and

Mr. Shanleydemonstrateda lackofawareness andunderstandingofthesignificanceof

9.22(0-

prosecutionofthe King matter should be considered an aggravating factor. See generally §

clients and occurredwithina quasi-judicialproceeding. Theinterferencewith theorderly

law. His conductinvolveda rivalry with another lawyer, mademisrepresentationstopotential

Mr. Shanley'smisconductcannot becharacterizedas wholly unrelated to thepracticeof

could haveaccomplishedthat goal by honest, legitimate means.

only attempting to educate possible clients about the alleged misdeedsofanother attorney, he

clients.His selfishand dishonestmotive must be considered. Standards § 9.22(b).Ifhe were

and ultimatelyharm thereputationofanother attorney, one with whom was oftencompeted for

intentionalactsofdeceitwere intendedtocreateconcern in theminds ofthe letters'recipients,

There areseveralfactorstoconsiderinaggravation. Standards § 9.2. Mr.Shanley's

baselinesanction. Wolterbeek's Case, at 714.

in theanalysis:theexistenceofany aggravatingor mitigatingfactorsand whether theyaffectthe

After the baselinesanctionis determined, the Court then looks to the fourth and final step

sanction.

circumstances, we therefore, recommend a downward deviation to suspension as the appropriate

not be reliedupon to givecredibletestimony.Inview ofall the facts, the law and the

addition, Bar Counsel dismissed twoofthe counts against Mr. King because Mr. Shanley could p. 12 Page 12of13

admissionshould be affordedonly minimal considerationand weight,as anattorneyhas a

Although worthyofrecognition, his lackofa priordisciplinaryrecord and his truthful

neverdeniedthat he hadaltered,copied,and deliveredthe letters. Standards § 9.32(e).

Mr. Shanley, he was forthcoming.Additionally,the hearingcommittee found that Mr. Shanley

AfterBar Counsel'sinquiryin the Kingmattershiftedfocus to thepossiblemisdeeds of

case).

(2003) (demonstrating that the lackofa disciplinary record can be a mitigating factor in a deceit

Hampshire or Massachusetts. Standards § 9.32(a); see alsoO 'Meara's Case, 150 N.H. 157

Mr. Shanley haspracticedlaw since1999 and has no priordisciplinaryrecord in New

Standards § 9.3.

mitigating circumstances disclosed by the record." Basbanes'Case, 141 N.H. at 6. See also

To fairlydeterminetheappropriatesanctionin this case, theCommittee considered"the

that Mr.Shanley acts as asupervisingattorneyin his own firm. Standards § 9.22(g).

Memo, AttachmentA, at 4 (citing MatterofLuongo, 416 Mass. 308 (1993). It is alsonoteworthy

considered. As stated in theBoard'sOrder, "an experienced lawyer shouldknow better."Board

Mr. Shanley's"longstandingas anattorney"is the finalaggravatingfactorto be

(1998); MatterofFriedman, 7 Mass.Att'yDisc. R.100,103(1991)). See generally § 9.22(f).

aggravation."Board Memo, AttachmentA, at 5 (citing MatterofEisenhauer, 426 Mass. 448

hearing lacked candor, Board Memo,AttachmentB, at 9,"which 'must'be weighed in

The Massachusettshearing committee also found that the Mr.Shanley'stestimonyat the

to theattentionofthe Court.); Standards § 9.22(g).

ethical compass with regard to her misconduct, even after her actsofdeceit...had been brought

Memorandum on Sanction, Desmarais-Gordon at 10. (...[Respondent]lacked any internal p. 13 Page 13 of13

File Patrick B. Shanley, Esquire Julie A. Introcaso,DisciplinaryCounsel Distribution:

Conduct.

ofone year as reciprocal discipline for violatingtheMassachusettsRulesofProfessional

suspendedfromthepracticeoflaw for sixmonthswiththreemonthsstayed for a period

For theabove reasons,theCommittee recommends that Mr.Shanleybe

Mr. Shanley's Motion to Strike and Motionto Dismiss areDENTED. VIL CONCLUSION

The Respondent shall pay all costsofthe investigationand prosecutionofthis matter.

stayed for aperiodofone year.

Mr. Shanley be suspended from the practiceoflaw for a periodofsix months, with three months

In viewofthe seriousnessofMr. Shanley'sconduct, theCommittee recommends that

See Feld'sCase, at29.

professional obligation to be truthful and an obligation to cooperate with disciplinary authorities.