Lisa U. Bollinger (2021)

a committee of the attorney discipline system David M. Rothstein, Chair Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair Elaine Holden, * Vice Chair * non attorney member Barbara J. Guay, Legal Assistant Bollinger, Lisa U. advs. Attorney Discipline Office - #20-018

On December 14, 2021, the Professional Conduct Committee (“the Committee”) deliberated the Stipulation as to Facts, Violations and Sanction (“the Stipulation”), a redacted copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. It also considered the Agreement to Pay Costs of Disciplinary Matter (attached as Exhibit B), and it granted the Assented to Motion for a Protective Order. The Committee approved the facts as stipulated. It further found that Ms. Bollinger’s conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, and 8.4(a), as stipulated. The Committee also concluded that a Public Censure With Conditions is appropriate. Its sanction is in accord with the purposes of attorney discipline. See, e.g., Conner’s Case 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009); Richmond’s Case, 152 N.H. 155, 159-60 (2005). The sanction is also in accord with the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) (“Standards”). Having approved the stipulated sanction, the Committee approved the agreement that Ms. Bollinger shall reimburse the Committee for all costs of investigation and prosecution. December 14, 2021 David M. Rothstein David M. Rothstein Chair cc: Sara S. Greene, Disciplinary Counsel Mitchell M. Simon, Esquire File 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 www.nhattyreg.org (603) 224-5828 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Fax (603) 228-9511

Bollinger, Lisa U. advs. Attorney Discipline Office #20-018

Respondent Lisa U. Bollinger, Esq., and the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) stipulate as follows:

A. Facts

1. Ms. Bollinger is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Ms. Bollinger was admitted to practice on October 28, 2002.

2. Ms. Bollinger has not been admitted to practice law in any other jurisdiction.

3. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Bollinger practiced law at The Black Law Group, 61 Spit Brook Road, Suite 407, Nashua, NH.

4. This disciplinary matter was initiated by a referral from Nashua Probate Court submitted by Judge Patricia B. Quigley. Ss. This case involves Respondent’s representation of a mother in a step- parent adoption, whereby her new husband wished to legally adopt her son. For reasons described herein, Respondent did not provide notice of the adoption to the biological father of the child. The adoption was

p. 3 granted without notice to the biological father and ultimately vacated. The order vacating the adoption was affirmed in a published opinion of the Supreme Court. This disciplinary referral followed!. oI i

7. | oI | I | ee] | | | | | | 1 The proceeding is described in the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s opinion | in this matter. See In re J.P., 173 N.H. 453, 456-59 (2020) An unredacted Stipulation was provided to the Professional Conduct Committee to allow it to | conduct its review in a document sealed because the underlying matter is an | adoption proceeding. See RSA 170-B: 23. | |

p. 4 EEE a Ra VR ER CR

p. 5 BE ee EE a TN LT © CER | © CER | cE a a

p. 6 rigs rr RT i AE ET re i a Ee 0 | Ee ET Se ae Ee RL ES A is = ge TET CR Ta a a rere 2) ve ra EE | EE I RE ER a eT ER BT A ze

p. 7 cE i TR A CR | RR Fs ae)

p. 8 TR ER RT i a Se] CRT IE |

p. 9 EE Ta cv ER RR © RRR ER RE

p. 10 ET Te RE ER RI: Re re ee cE BR A AE TT re TN ee Ee | RR A

p. 11 TIRE SRR i Sa ETE Se Sr A a | B 52 Ra CR NR eR Ee RR VR eT EEE so. RRR ty Rn a PR [B 20 RRR Re PRE SRR A | EER ode vaso es SRE | EER A LR Ha EE ST ED ee EE EE =

0. RG Se Ba Jo eR I Se | EF EE PE RR CR Ea ET UE RR Re EE | Ee ee ee ee Emer + Rr a RR ee ee ol BE EB Cs PT TE CS PEL | CEES Ts Re ee FE ee ie Ra | [se a ee |

p. 12 RE BE EE AR EE | RR | ERR RT es | | ET TR RR

p. 13 wo EE EE TR Bl sr cee memento | ER a

p. 14 CR CA © EET RR A i)

p. 15 ERR e 270) RE ST cE A = RR AT EE RT a Ta EE vo RE AT] EE ER A ae EE RR UT RT Te Ee Ser RT

p. 16 vr EE LR Aa ERR I I RT A TR LR RR TE] | EEE

p. 17 vo oo. Ee he RM ei 1 ib ER SN |

B. Disciplinary Rules Violated |

70. The parties agree that Ms. Bollinger’s conduct in this case involves | violations of the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows: | | Rule 1.1 (Competence) and Rule 1.3 (Diligence) |

71. The facts set forth at J] 1-69 above are incorporated by reference. 16 |

p. 18 72. Rule 1.1 states as follows:

(a) A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.

(b) Legal competence requires at a minimum: (1) specific knowledge about the fields of law in which the lawyer practices; (2) performance of the techniques of practice with skill; (3) identification of areas beyond the lawyer's competence and bringing those areas to the client's attention; (4) proper preparation; and | (5) attention to details and schedules necessary to assure that | the matter under taken is completed with no avoidable harm i to the client's interest. i

(c) In the performance of client service, a lawyer shall at a minimum: | (1) gather sufficient facts regarding the client's problem from the | client, and from other relevant sources; | (2) formulate the material issues raised, determine applicable ! law and identify alternative legal responses; i (3) develop a strategy, in consultation with the client, for solving | the legal problems of the client; and | (4) undertake actions on the client's behalf in a timely and : effective manner including, where appropriate, associating with another lawyer who possesses the skill and knowledge : : required to assure competent representation. |

73. Rule 1.3 states as follows: | A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. |

74. Ms. Bollinger failed to act with competence and diligence, failed to | perform the techniques of practice with skill, failed to gather sufficient facts regarding the client’s problem from the client, and from other relevant sources, and failed to formulate the material issues raised and determine applicable law when she failed to probe adequately the nature 17 | i

p. 19 and extent of the contact and relationship between the birth father and his son, and between the birth father and the mother, despite having knowledge from the intake form and conversations with the mother that there had been ongoing contact as recently as two months prior to the | adoption petition, as well as (attempted) payments the same month as i the adoption petition. |

75. Ms. Bollinger failed to act with competence and diligence when she failed to properly analyze the governing law on notice and termination of parental rights in a step-parent adoption. Rule 3.1: Meritorious Claims and Contentions

76. The facts set forth at 1] 1-69 above are incorporated by reference.

77. Rule 3.1 states as follows: A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or | reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a ! criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that | could result in incarceration or institutionalization, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

78. By failing to probe adequately the nature and extent of the contact and relationship between the birth father and his son and between the birth ! father and mother, despite having knowledge from the intake form and | conversations with the mother that there had been ongoing contact as | recently as two months prior to the adoption petition, as well as : (attempted) payments the same month as the adoption petition, i 18 | |

p. 20 Respondent failed to properly analyze the governing law on notice and | termination in a step-parent adoption.

79. Although she believed that the governing law did not require notice to the birth father, the lack of sufficient inquiry into the nature and extent of the contact and relationship caused her not to analyze the statue as a | whole and to proceed negligently without a basis in law by failing to i provide notice to the birth father.

80. Under these facts, there is clear and convincing evidence of a violation or NHRPC 3.1. | Rule 8.4{a): General Rule |

81. Having found the foregoing violation, there is clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Bollinger’s conduct, as described herein, violated N.H.

R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). |

C. Recommended Sanction

82. The Attorney Discipline Office and Ms. Bollinger jointly agree that a | Public Censure with Conditions is the appropriate sanction in this i matter. This sanction would serve the purposes of attorney discipline.

83. Both case law and the American Bar Association’s Standards for | Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) (“Standards”) support this sanction. i

84. The purpose of the Court’s disciplinary power is “protecting the public, i maintaining public confidence in the bar, preserving the integrity of the legal profession, and preventing similar conduct in the future.” Conner’s ! Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). “The sanction...must take into account | 19 |

p. 21 the severity of the misconduct.” Coffey’s Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005).

85. Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, it looks to them for guidance. Conner’s Case, 158 N.H. at 303. The Standards set forth a four part analysis for courts to consider in imposing sanctions: “(a) the | duty violated; (b) the lawyer’s mental state; (c) the potential or actual | injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and (d) the existence of | aggravating or mitigating factors.” Id. (quoting Douglas’ Case, 156 N.H. | 613, 621 (2007)); Standards § 3.0.

86. The first three parts of the analysis create the framework for | characterizing the misconduct and determining a base line sanction. See | Conner’s Case, 158 N.H. at 303 (stating that “[ijn applying these factors, i the first step is to categorize the respondent’s misconduct and identify | the appropriate sanction”). Once the base line sanction is determined, the Court then looks to the fourth and final part of the analysis: the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors, and whether they affect the base line sanction. See id. (stating that “[a]fter determining the sanction, [the Court] consider][s] the effect of any aggravating or | mitigating factors on the ultimate sanction”). |

87. Under the first prong of the analysis, Ms. Bollinger violated duties owed | to her client and to the legal system. See Standards Sec. II (Theoretical | Framework). | |

p. 22 | | |

88. With respect to Ms. Bollinger’s mental state under the second prong of | the sanction analysis, the parties agree that Ms. Bollinger’s mental state was negligent. The parties agree that there was no intent to violate the professional conduct rules or governing law. :

89. In this matter, Attorney Bollinger had actual knowledge of certain facts ; from the outset of her representation of the mother, including the fact that birth father had been seeing son (then 4) since age 2 “weekly, and | still does, ” as well as the fact that birth father had been providing money to mother as recently as the month of the adoption Petition.

90. Thus, Attorney Bollinger knew of facts that should have caused her to probe with specificity the nature and extent of father’s contact with son, | and the financial payments birth father had been making to mother. | This would have allowed her to analyze more carefully the notice and | termination requirements of RSA 170-B and RSA 170-B: 6. In this respect, her legal analysis was negligent, ? and Attorney Bollinger’s failure | to conduct a sufficient inquiry led her to negligently focus on the ! language of RSA 170-B: 6(1)(d), including language that she read to limit | the “holding out “ provision to cases involving the terminating the mother’s rights. | | | | 2 Negligence under the Standards occurs “when a lawyer fails to be aware of a | substantial risk that circumstances exist or that a result will follow, which failure is a deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable lawyer would | exercise in the situation.” | 21 |

p. 23 i

91. Although the intake notes and her interview indicate that Attorney Bollinger did not have a full picture of the nature of the relationship between birth father and son/mother (as a great deal more facts were revealed during the Motion to Vacate proceeding, of which Attorney | Bollinger was unaware at the time of filing the Petition), she had | knowledge of facts that should have caused further legal analysis.

92. The third prong of the sanction analysis requires an assessment of the i actual or potential injury caused by Ms. Bollinger’s misconduct. Ms. Bollinger’s conduct caused actual injury to the birth father, in that he | lost valuable time with his son, and to the legal system. Her failure to properly investigate and analyze the factual and legal issues with her client caused a needless judicial proceeding (the hearing on a motion to vacate) that would not have been necessary had she properly analyzed i the facts and law. |

93. The parties agree that the base line sanction in this matter is a public | censure. |

94. Ms. Bollinger’s 1.1 and 1.3 rule violation implicates Section 4.4 of the Standards. That Section provides: | Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are : generally appropriate in cases involving a failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client: |

4.41 Disbarment is generally appropriate when: i |

(a) a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or | potentially serious injury to a client; or | | 22 | |

p. 24 | | |

(b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client i and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a | client; or

(c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to i client matters and causes serious or potentially serious | injury to a client. |

4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when: i

(a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client i and causes injury or potential injury to a client, or |

(b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.43 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer is | negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in | representing a client, and causes injury or potential injury to a client.

4.44 Admonition 3 is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client. (emphasis added).

95. Ms. Bollinger’s conduct in this matter, when considered under Standard | 4.43, would call for a base line sanction of Public Censure } |

96. Ms. Bollinger’s 3.1 rule violation implicates Section 6.2 of the Standards. ! That Section provides: Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application i of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are i generally appropriate in cases involving failure to expedite litigation or bring a meritorious claim, or failure to obey any obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists:

6.21 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule with the intent to ! obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes ! 3 The term “admonition, ” as used in the ABA Standards, is analogous to a | reprimand in New Hampshire. The term “reprimand, ” as used in the ABA | Standards, is analogous to a public censure in New Hampshire. 1 . 23 | |

p. 25 serious injury or potentially serious injury to a party or ; causes serious or potentially serious interference with a legal 1 proceeding. |

6.22 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows ) that he or she is violating a court order or rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or causes interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding. i

6.23 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently fails to comply with a court order or rule, | and causes injury or potential injury to a client or other party, or causes interference or potential interference | with a legal proceeding. |

6.24 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages | in an isolated instance of negligence in complying with a | court order or rule, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes little or no actual or potential interference with a legal proceeding. (emphasis added). !

97. Ms. Bollinger’s conduct in this matter, when considered under Standard i 6.23, would call for a base line sanction of Public Censure.

98. The base line sanction must be considered in light of any aggravating and | i mitigating factors. E.g., Conner’s Case, 158 N.H. at 303. |

99. In this case there are two aggravating factors present. They include | i multiple offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law. See | Standards § 9.22.

100. Mitigating factors include the absence of a disciplinary record, the i absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, and full and free disclosure to i and cooper at i on with the ADO. See Standards § 9.32. :

101. The parties agree that a downward departure from the base line sanction would not be appropriate, particularly given the injury in this matter. ' The aggravating and mitigating circumstances likewise do not merit a | 24 |

p. 26 | departure from the base line sanction. A public censure with conditions serves the purposes of discipline and is an appropriate sanction in this case.

102. This sanction is proportional to discipline imposed in other cases involving breaches of Rule 3.1. Sanctions for such violations have varied from reprimand to censure. See White, Stephen A.S. advs. ADO - #15- | 044 (December 12, 2019) (public censure); Steiner, R. James advs. ADO - | #17-012 (January 15, 2019) (public censure); Nizetic, Gabriel advs. ADO f —- #16-026 (March 21, 2017) (public censure). |

D. Conditions of Imposed Discipline and Procedures For Alleged Violation of Conditions |

103. Ms. Bollinger agrees to comply with the following conditions for one year, | which shall begin on the date the Professional Conduct Committee accepts this Stipulation: | a. Respondent shall complete six hours of CLE, in addition to the | minimum yearly CLE requirements, regarding adoption under N.H. ’ Law, or other CLE acceptable to the ADO; | b. Respondent shall pay the expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee in connection with this investigation and prosecution, and if unable to pay in lump sum, shall agree to some form of payment plan with the PCC within 60 days of receiving an invoice from the PCC. 25 |

p. 27 c. Respondent will engage in no professional misconduct during the one year period. |

104. If it is alleged that Ms. Bollinger violated any of the conditions enumerated at Paragraphs 103(a), (b) above, the following shall apply: a. Upon motion by Disciplinary Counsel, the Professional Conduct Committee may determine whether any of the conditions enumerated at Paragraph 103(a), (b) have been violated. If it determines that a condition has been violated, the Committee shall impose a six month suspension. If the Committee determines that no condition of this Stipulation has been violated, the Stipulation | shall continue in force and effect pursuant to its terms. b. Respondent may request that the Professional Conduct Committee | remand the matter to the Hearings Committee so that a Hearing | Panel may be appointed to decide the sole issue of whether a condition under Paragraphs 103(a), (b) of this Stipulation has been violated. During such hearing, it shall be the burden of Disciplinary Counsel to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that a condition listed in Paragraphs 103(a), (b) has been violated. . c. If a Hearing Panel determines that a condition has been violated, the Panel shall recommend a six month suspension. If the Hearing Panel determines that no condition of the Stipulation has been | violated, the Stipulation shall continue in force and effect pursuant | | 26 | |

p. 28 | to its terms. The PCC shall review the decision of the Hearing Panel.

105. If a new grievance or referral is filed against Ms. Bollinger during the ) one-year period, thus implicating the condition at Paragraph 103(c), the | following shall apply: a. So long as a grievance or referral is filed within the one-year period (“the subsequent proceeding”), and the alleged misconduct | occurred, at least in part, during the one-year period, this matter | will be considered an aggravating circumstance in the subsequent | proceeding. b. Pending the final resolution of the subsequent proceeding, the matter underlying this Stipulation shall not be closed. c. If the conditions of Paragraphs 103(a), (b) have been met, Ms. Bollinger will not have to continue to comply with those provisions while the subsequent proceeding is pending. d. The Respondent shall bear all costs associated with compliance ! and enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation. | e. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit prosecution of any new 1 grievance or referral involving conduct of Respondent occur ring during the one year period. f. If a grievance or referral is filed within the one-year period, Ms. Bollinger shall provide written notice to Disciplinary Counsel within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of the grievance or

p. 29 | referral, time being of the essence, along with supporting I information or documentation. |

E. Costs |

106. Subject to the PCC’s approval of Ms. Bollinger’s Stipulation, Ms. | Bollinger agrees to pay the costs incurred by the ADO in the investigation | and enforcement of this disciplinary matter. See Supreme Court Rule | 37(19). Her agreement to pay the costs incurred by the ADO is the subject of a separate agreement signed by Ms. Bollinger.

F. Effect of Stipulation

107. Ms. Bollinger understands that this Stipulation represents a recommended disposition, and that the PCC may accept, reject, or conditionally accept the Stipulation pursuant to Rule 37 A(III)(aa)(1).

108. Ms. Bollinger acknowledges that the admissions of misconduct and the proposed disposition contained in this Stipulation are freely, knowingly, and voluntarily submitted; that she is not entering this Stipulation as a result of any threats, coercion, or duress, or of any promises or inducements not set forth in the Stipulation

109. Ms. Bollinger has been represented by counsel in reaching this Stipulation. | |

p. 30 110. Ms. Bollinger knowingly and intelligently waives her right to a hearing. Respectfully submitted, Dated: November 4, 2021 /s/Lisa U. Bollinger, Esquire i Lisa U. Bollinger, Esquire | Respondent Dated: November 4, 2021 /s/Mitchell M. Simon, Esquire Mitchell M. Simon, Esquire Counsel for Respondent Dated: November 4, 2021 /s/Sara S. Greene, Esquire ! Sara S. Greene, Esquire Disciplinary Counsel | i | i | 29 | |

Bollinger, Lisa U. | advs. Attorney Discipline Office | #20-018

1. Subject to the Professional Conduct Committee’s approval of the | Stipulation of Facts, Rule Violations, and Sanction in the above matter, I | agree to pay the expenses incurred by the Committee in the investigation | and enforcement of this disciplinary matter. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(b). Costs can include, but are not limited to: mileage, stenographers, transcripts, copying, inventory, audit expenses and publication. [

2. As of November 2, 2021, I have been informed that the costs are approximately $171.70. I understand that if the matter results in a sanction, there could be publication costs added to the above amount.

3. I am aware that the Professional Conduct Committee will not issue an invoice until the final disposition in this matter.

4. Should further costs accrue in this disposition of this matter, I understand that the Committee will bill me for these costs. If I dispute the |

p. 32 | | bill, I will notify the Committee of the specific nature of the dispute in writing within thirty days of my receipt of the bill. I understand that the Committee will consider the disputed item and issue a written decision. If I do not notify the Committee that I dispute the bill, payment will be due upon its receipt.

5. 1 waive the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 37(19)(b) regarding any further detail of the nature and amount of each expense, and I also waive | formal demand for payment. |

6. I understand and agree that the assessment of costs is deemed final and 1 shall have the full force and effect of a civil judgment. As a result, it may be enforced in any Superior Court in New Hampshire.

7. The Committee may file a copy of the final assessment with the superior court in any county in the state, where it shall be docketed as a final judgment and shall be subject to all legally-available post-judgment enforcement remedies and procedures. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(c}). "8. 1 also agree to be responsible for all costs incurred as a result of the | Attorney Discipline Office’s collection efforts. Respectfully submitted, | Dated: November 4, 2021 /s/Lisa U. Bollinger, Esquire Lisa U. Bollinger, Esquire | Respondent i | : | : |

p. 33 NEw HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

a committee of the attorney discipline system Stephanie C. Hausman, Chair Caroline K. Leonard, Vice Chair *Kathleen M. Ames, Vice Chair *non-lawyer member Barbara J. Guay, Legal Assistant Bollinger Lisa U. advs. ADO - #20-018 ORDER On December 14, 2021, the Committee issued a Public Censure With Conditions in the above-captioned matter. On December 15, 2022, Disciplinary Counsel confirmed that Attorney Bollinger has satisfied the terms and conditions set forth in the Public Censure. Based on the above, this matter is now closed. January 3, 2023 /s/ Stephanie C. Hausman Stephanie C. Hausman Chair cc: Sara S. Greene, Esquire Mitchell M. Simon, Esquire 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 www.nhattyreg.org (603) 224-5828 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Fax (603) 228-9511