This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Michael J. Reed (2021)
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
ORDER LD-2020-0009, In the Matter of Michael J. Reed, Esquire On September 19, 2019, in case no. LD-2019-0011, the court suspended the respondent, Attorney Michael J. Reed, on an interim basis in response to an assented-to petition filed by the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO). The assented-to petition for interim suspension asserted that Attorney Reed had “abandoned client matters by failing to attend scheduled court hearings, failing to respond to clients and opposing counsel, and causing harm to clients.” While that interim suspension was in effect, the Professional Conduct Commission (PCC) filed a petition with this court, in case no. LD-2020-0004, recommending a one-year suspension based on Attorney Reed’s failure to respond to requests by the ADO for information during its investigation of him and his failure to attend a scheduled hearing before the PCC hearing panel. In accordance with Rule 37(16), the court provided notice to Attorney Reed of that recommendation and ordered him to file a response on or before April 24, 2020, identifying any legal or factual issues relating to the PCC’s recommendation that he wished the court to review. Attorney Reed did not file a response. On August 25, 2020, the court suspended Attorney Reed from the practice of law in New Hampshire for one year. On November 5, 2020, the PCC filed this case as a petition recommending Attorney Reed’s disbarment. In accordance with Rule 37(16), the court provided notice to Attorney Reed of that recommendation and ordered him to file a response on or before December 10, 2020, identifying any legal or factual issues relating to the PCC’s recommendation that he wished the court to review. Attorney Reed did not file a response. The court has reviewed the PCC’s recommendation for disbarment, which relates to three docketed matters, from three separate referrals to the ADO by different trial court judges, each based upon Attorney Reed’s abandonment of his cases and clients in litigated matters. Attorney Reed did not respond to or otherwise participate in those three attorney discipline proceedings. The PCC adopted the hearing panel’s report, which determined that Attorney Reed had violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.1 (requiring competence); Rule 1.3 (requiring diligence); Rule 1.4 (requiring adequate communications with clients); Rule 1.16(d) (requiring a lawyer to protect the client’s interests when withdrawing or terminating representation); Rule 3.4(c)
(prohibiting disobedience to a tribunal); Rule 8.1 (prohibiting non-compliance with ADO demands for information and with ADO hearing notices); and Rule 8.4(a) (making it misconduct to violate any of the rules). The PCC further adopted the hearing panel’s conclusion that a lesser sanction (such as an additional suspension) was unwarranted, given Attorney Reed’s obstruction of disciplinary proceedings, his pattern of misconduct, and the existence of multiple offenses. In light of the seriousness of Attorney Reed’s misconduct, which includes violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.4(c), 8.1, and 8.4(a), the court concludes that disbarment is the appropriate sanction. THEREFORE, the court orders that Michael J. Reed be disbarred from the practice of law in New Hampshire. He is hereby assessed all costs and expenses incurred by the attorney discipline system in the investigation and prosecution of the matters. Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred. DATE: January 13, 2021 Nth ATTEST: ~ 0. / Medes Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk
Distribution: Professional Conduct Committee, 19-021 Michael J. Reed, Esq. Elizabeth M. Murphy, Esq. File