Lisa A. Wellman-Ally (2023)

Lisa A. Wellman-Ally cc: Sara S. Greene, Disciplinary Counsel

Date: April 20, 2023 Stephanie C. Hausman

Disciplinary Matter. The Committee voted to approve the Agreement to Pay Costs of

recommends to the Court that the Respondent be disbarred. the stipulated facts and rule violations as set forth in the Stipulation, and The Committee voted to approve the Stipulation to Disbarment, based on

Stipulation to Disbarment and the Agreement to Pay Costs in the above matter. On April 18, 2023, the Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the

Recommendation: Disbarment and Order on Costs

Wellman-Ally, Lisa A. advs. Attorney Discipline Office - #22-008

Barbara J. Guay, Administrative Assistant Katheen M. Ames, Vice Chair Caroline K. Leonard, Esq., Vice Chair Stephanie C. Hausman, Esq., Chair

p. 2 4. Ms. Wellman-Ally has a prior disciplinary history. She was issued a

at Wellman-Ally Law, PLLC, 98 Charlestown Road, Suite 1, Claremont,

3. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Wellman-Ally practiced.law

currently on active status in both states.

(admitted on. June 16, 2003) and in New York (admitted in 1990). She is

2. Ms. Wellman-Ally has also been admitted to practice law in Vermont

New Hampshire Bar on October 28, 2002.

practice law in New Hampshire. Ms. Wellman-Ally was admitted to the

1. Lisa A. Wellman-Ally ("Ms. Wellman-Ally") is an attorney licensed to

Wellman-Ally, Esquire, and stipulates as follows:

Hampshire Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) along with Lisa A.

NOW COMES Sara S. Greene, Disciplinary Counsel of the New

ADO filed the Assented-to Petition for Summary Suspension Pursuant to

9. Ms. Wellman-Ally ultimately assented to the summary suspension. The

the ADO.

matters, engaging in commingling, and dishonesty to third parties and

legal profession," including being significantly out of trust in two client

substantial threat of serious harm to the public or the integrity of the

engaged in "serious misconduct which pose[d] an immediate and

suspension pursuant to Rule 37(9-B) because Ms. Wellman-Ally had

8. Following its investigation into the referral, the ADO pursued a summary

insufficient funds.

the Keene District Court for filing fees which were returned for

p. 3 2022, which reported that Ms. Wellman-Ally had issued two checks to

7. This disciplinary matter was initiated by a court referral dated August 8,

her interim suspension took effect.

6. Ms. Wellman-Ally remains suspended and has not practiced law since

Wellman Ally, Esquire, LD- p. 3 2023-0004.

Ally was suspended on an interim basis. In the Matter of Lisa A.

5. By order of the Supreme Court dated February p. 3 21, 2023, Ms. Wellman-

# p. 3 20-013.

February 19, p. 3 2021 in Wellman Ally, Lisa A. advs. ADO - #20-003/

conditions, for violations of Rules 1. p. 3 2, 1.4, 3.4 and 8.4(a) was issued on

#18-0 p. 3 27. in addition, a six-month suspension, stayed for one year with

December 11, p. 3 2018 in the matter Wellman-Ally, Lisa A. advs. ADO - p. 4 3

Claremont Savings Bank.

$64,000 into the Trust's bank account ending in XXXX-222 p. 4 3 at

16. In June and August of 2015, Ms. Wellman-Ally deposited a total of

from the practice of law.

May 29, 2015. She was the Trustee from that date until her suspension

15. Ms. Wellman-Ally drafted the Trust documents, which were executed on

a family friend.

. Mr. was a long-time client of Ms. Wellman-Ally's and

14. The Trust was created by funds from , father of N

which Ms. Wellman-Ally is Trustee.

bank records for the Revocable Trust ("the Trust"), of

investigation. In the course of that investigation, the ADO requested

1 p. 4 3. After the summary suspension order issued, the ADO continued its

12. Ms. Wellman-Ally remains suspended on an interim basis.

and appointed inventory counsel.

11. On February 21, 202 p. 4 3, the Supreme Court suspended Ms. WellrnAn-Ally

the facts and rule violations justifying the sanction of disbarment.

reference for the Committee's review so that the Committee may review

suspension.' That conduct is not set forth herein but is incorporated by

10. The petition sets forth in detail the conduct that led to the summary

Ezhlbit A.

Rule p. 4 37(9-B). on February 17, 2023. The petition is attached hereto as p. 5 4

$11,000, presumably roughly calculating $500 as interest on the loan.

on August 29, 2017. She thus paid a total of $11,500 on the loan for

Trust. The only other payment she made before that time was for $1,500

21. On January 23, 2023, Ms. Wellman-Ally deposited $10,000 into the

investigation.

loan, and did not pay back the bulk of loan until well into the ADO's

2017 as per the Promissory Note. She made only two payments on the

under the Promissory Note. She did not begin payments on June 1,

20. In addition, Ms. Wellman-Ally did not pay the Trust back as agreed

herein.

clients except under very specific circumstances as set forth further

requirements of Rule 1.8(a), which prohibits business transactions with

Ally did not comply with any of the written, informed consent

19. In engaging in this business transaction with her client, Ms. Wellman-

2017. [Exhibit B]

36 monthly payments of $351.38, and the first payment due on June 1,

which noted that the $11,000 loan would be payable at p. 5 4% interest, with

18. Ms. Wellman-Ally drafted a Promissory Note dated February 10, 2017

number 1012 on February 10, 2017.

$6,000, which Ms. Wellman-Ally withdrew from the Trust via check .

1007 on June 16, 2016. Mr. later agreed to a second loan for

$5,000 from the Trust. She withdrew this amount via check number

17_ Sometime in 2016, Mr. agreed that Ms. Wellman-Ally could borrow p. 6 5

2 p. 6 5. Rule 1.8 states, in pertinent part, as folloWs:

Rule 1.8: Conflict of Interest; Current Clients; Specific Rules

violated Rule 1.8(a).

24. As to the Trust Matter, Ms. Wellman-Ally also

g. Rule 8.4(a) (Violating the Rules of Professional Conduct)

f. Rule 8.4(c) (Deceit)

e. Rule 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters)

d. Rule 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others)

c. Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal)

b. Rule 1.1 p. 6 5 and Sup. Ct. Rules 50 (Safekeeping Property)

a. Rule 1.4 (Client Communications)

violation the following Rules:

23. In the Assented-To Petition, Ms. Wellman-Ally agreed that her conduct

of her final payment) would have owed the Trust $2,191.96 in interest.

loan. At 4% interest, Ms. Wellman-Ally, as of January 23, 2023 (the date

however, because Ms. Wellman-Ally took over six years to pay back the

22. This amount does not reflect the total amount she owes the Trust, p. 7 6

(2005).

the severity of the misconduct?' Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513

Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). "The sanction...must take into account

legal profession, and preventing similar conduct in the future." Conner's

maintaining public confidence in the bar, preserving the integrity of the

29. The purpose of the Court's disciplinary power is "protecting the public,

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) (" Standards") support this sanction.

28. Both case law arid the American Bar Association's Standards for

transaction.

terms of the transaction and to Ms. Wellman-Ally's role in the

informed consent, in a writing signed by him, to the essential

27. Ms. Wellman-Ally violated Rule 1.8(a) because she did not obtain Mr.

give legal advice about the loans to Ms. Wellman-Ally.

writing to Mr. the desirability of seeking independent counsel to

2 p. 7 6. Ms. Wellman-Ally violated Rule 1.8(a) because she did not disclose in

mental state was intentional.

of the sanction analysis, the parties agree that Ms. Wellman-Ally's

33. With respect to Ms. Wellman-Ally's mental state under the second prong

owed to her clients, to the public and to the system.

32. Under the first prong of the analysis, Ms. Wellman-Ally violated duties

mitigating factors on the ultimate sanction").

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

affect the baseline sanction. See id. (stating that "[a]fter determining the

existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors, and whether they

the Court then looks to the fourth and final part of the analysis: the

the appropriate sanction"). Once the baseline sanction is determined,

the first step is to categorize the respondent's misconduct and identify

Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303 (stating that "[i]n applying these factors,

characterizing the misconduct and determining a baseline sanction. See

31. The first three parts of the analysis create the framework for

(200 p. 8 7)); Standards § 3.0.

or mitigating factors." Id. (quoting Douglas' Case, 156 N.H. 613, 621

caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating

violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury

four part analysis to consider in imposing sanctions: "(a) the duty

guidance. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303. The Standards set forth a

30. Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, it looks to them for p. 9 8

despite the ADO's document requests.

knowingly failing to produce the and client ledgers,

3 p. 9 8. Ms. Wellman-Ally caused injury to the legal system and the profession by

him.

total amount returned to the Trust, this does not diminish the injury to

who confirmed that he authorized the loans, and is "fine with" the

nor did he receive all interest due to him. While the ADO spoke with Mr.

bargain pursuant to the Promissory Note via timely monthly payments,

37. Mr. was likewise injured in that he did not receive the benefit of his

funds, thereby engaging in commingling in violation of Rule 1.15.

able to do so by replenishing her client trust account with her own

matters, she risked being unable to pay those clients back, and was only

36. Because Ms. Wellman-Ally was out of trust in the and

before Ms. Wellman-Ally returned Mr. funds. (See Exhibit A)

the help of her sons, and ultimately the Claremont Police Department;

and pay other counsel to-get her money back: Ms. had to enlist

months after they began requesting their funds. Ms. had to hire

her clients and who went without funds due to them for

35. Ms. Wellman-Ally's conduct caused actual, serious injury. She injured

actual or potential injury caused by Ms. Wellman-Ally's misconduct,

34. The third prong of the sanction analysis requires an assessment of the • • p. 10 '9

analogous disbarment cases involving financial misconduct.

that it serves the purposes of discipline, and that is proportional to

42. Ms. Wellman-Ally agrees that disbarment is the appropriate sanction,

factors.

This mitigating factor, however, does not outweigh the aggravating

experience in the practice of law. The sole mitigating factor is remorse.

selfish and dishonest motive, pattern of misconduct, and substantial

Aggravating factors include a prior disciplinary history, multiple offenses,

41. No downward departure from this baseline sanction is appropriate.

d. Standard 7.1 (false submission to ADO).

lawyer's fitness to practice); and

deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the

c. Standard 5.11(b) (intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,

b. Standard 4.61 (dishonesty to clients);

a. Standard 4.11 (client property);

apply, all of which set forth a baseline sanction of disbarment:

serious injury she caused, the parties agree that the following Standards

40. Given Ms. Wellman-Ally's intentional state of•mind and the actual,

confidence in the Bar.

matters caused injury to the integrity of the profession and public

39. Ms. Wellman-Ally's dishonesty.to third parties in the and p. 11 10

pay costs is the subject of a separate agreement with the ADO.

investigation and pursuit of this disciplinary matter. Her agreement to

48. Ms. Wellman-Ally agrees to pay the costs incurred by the ADO in the

promises or inducements not set forth in the Stipulation.

Stipulation as a result of any threats, coercion, or duress, or of any

knowingly, and voluntarily submitted; that she is not entering this

the proposed disposition contained in this Stipulation are freely,

47. Ms. Wellman-Ally acknowledges that the admissions of misconduct and

under N.H. Sup. Ct: R. 37 and 37A.

46. Ms. Wellman-Ally further waives any and all of her procedural rights

pending against her, in this proceeding.

rights under both the state and federal constitutions on the matters

45. In so doing, Ms. Wellman-Ally waives any and all of her due process

as contained in this Stipulation and related attachments.

proceeding that she will be bound by her representations and admissions

limitations. Ms. Wellman-Ally understands that for purposes of this

to assert that such prosecution would be barred by the statute of

44. In this proceeding, Ms. Wellman-Ally waives her defenses and her right

conditionally accept the Stipulation pursuant to Rule 37A(III)(aa)(1).

recommended disposition, and that the PCC may accept, reject, or

43. Ms. Wellman-Ally understands that this Stipulation represents a p. 12 11

Disbarment in this attorney discipline matter.

recommend to the New Hampshire Supreme Court to impose an Order of

the appropriate sanction for his misconduct, and asks the Committee to

51. Ms. Wellman-Ally consents to disbarment, concedes that disbarment is

hearing.

50. Ms. Wellman-Ally knowingly and intelligently waives her right to a

consequences of the Stipulation.

regarding this Stipulation and, that she is fully aware of the

49. Ms. Wellman-Ally understands that she has a right to obtain counsel p. 13 1

she held in trust for these clients with third parties who sought to

$5,790. p. 13 19 for another client. She was dishonest regarding the amounts

she was out of trust in the amount of $ p. 13 13,831.36 for one client and

3. Here, Ms. Wellman-Ally mishandled client funds in two client matters, as

suspension or disbarment." Rule 37(9-B)(b).

funds" or "any other misconduct which by itself could result in

"mishandling or misappropriation of client or third-party property or

2. Serious misconduct is defined as any misconduct involving the

integrity of the legal profession.")

immediate and substantial threat of serious harm to the public or the

B)(a)( p. 13 1) (She has "engaged in serious misconduct which poses an

p. 13 1. Respondent's conduct merits a summary suspension under Rule 37(9-

Supreme Court Rule 37(9-B). Ms. Wellman-Ally assents to this Petition.

Wellman-Ally, Esq. from the practice of law pursuant to New Hampshire

respectfully petitions this Court to order the summary suspension of Lisa

The New Hampshire Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office (ADO)

In the Matter of Lisa A. Wellman-Ally, Esquire

year with conditions for violations of Rules 1. p. 14 2, 1.4, 3.4 and 8.4(a) on

9. Ms. Wellman-Ally was issued a six-month suspension, stayed for one

0 p. 14 27_

December 11, p. 14 2018 in the matter, Wellman Ally, Lisa A. advs. ADO - #18-

public censure for violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 8.4(a) on

8. Ms. Wellman-Ally has a prior disciplinary history. She was issued a

at Wellman-Ally Law, PLLC, 98 Charlestown Road, Suite 1, Claremont,

7. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Wellman-Ally practiced law

currently on active status in both states.

(admitted on June 16, p. 14 2003) and in New York (admitted in 1990). She is

6. Ms. Wellman-Ally has also been admitted to practice law in Vermont

p. 14 2002.

Hampshire. She was admitted to the New Hampshire Bar on October p. 14 28,

5. Ms. Wellman-Ally is an attorney licensed to practice law in New

the status quo can be maintained while client interests are determined.

account should be frozen, and an inventory attorney appointed, so that

bank records, Ms. Wellman-Ally's IOLTA balance was $ p. 14 2,698.68. That

4. As of December 31, p. 14 2022, the last date for which the ADO has IOLTA

personal funds (i.e. commingling).

clients for funds due to them without first "replenishing" her IOLTA with

intercede on these clients' behalf, and could not write checks to these p. 15 3

monthly reconciliations.

50(2)(B), including individual client ledgers, the general ledger, and

internal law firm records for the IOLTA required by Supreme Court Rule

client files. The ADO also requested, for all of 2022, Ms. Wellman-Ally's

15. In addition, the ADO requested, and Ms. Wellman-Ally produced, various

2022.

14_ The subpoenas covered the period of January 1, 2021 to December p. 15 31,

client trust account ending XXXX-696 p. 15 3 (IOLTA).

Ms. Wellman.-Ally's operating account ending XXXX-6954 as well as her

1 p. 15 3. The ADO issued a subpoena (and later, a second and third subpoena) for

ADO Investigation: Summary of Findings

$250 filing fee in family case.

12. The checks were for a $125 filing fee in a landlord/tenant writ and a

uncollectable due to insufficient funds.

operating account, ending in XXXX-6954, had been returned as

11. The referral stated that two checks written by Ms. Wellman-Ally from her

Court, 8th Circuit-District Division, Keene.

2022 from Larry S. Kane, Esq., the Clerk of New Hampshire Circuit

10. This matter was initiated by way of a judicial referral dated August 8,

Facts: Docket No. 22-008 (Court Referral Matter,

2022, following Ms. Wellman-Ally's completion of conditions.

#20-00 p. 15 3 / #20-013. That matter was closed by the PCC on March 15,

February 19, 2021 in. Wellman Ally, Lisa A. advs. ADO - p. 16 4

Ms. to hire counsel to demand the return of funds.

return $9,000 of Ms. $10,000 retainer for months, requiring

Wellman-Ally was out of trust in the amount of $5,790.19 and failed to

matter in the amount of $13,831.36. In the matter, Ms.

misconduct as to these two clients. She was out of trust in the

20. As set forth further below, Ms. Wellman-Ally engaged in significant

ledgers were absent: for clients J and .

19. Of the various individual client ledgers produced for the year 2022, two

Wellman-Ally did not perform monthly three-way reconciliations.

amount of disbursement, or by individual client designation. Ms.

images or online transfers that corresponded to the ledger by date,

illegible. Most could not be corroborated by bank records, such as check

18. Many of Ms. Wellman-Ally's individual client ledgers were incomplete or

as further set forth below.

of those records complies with Rule 1.15 or Supreme Court Rule 50(2)(B),

17. Ms. Wellman-Ally's internal law firm records were in disarray. No aspect

her operating account.

Ally began using her former payroll account, ending in )00CX-5516 as

overdrafts on September 1, 2022. After this time period, Ms. Wellman.-

XXXX-695 p. 16 4 was closed by Claremont Saving Bank due to multiple

April 1, 2022 to August 30, 2022. The operating account ending in

demonstrate that Ms. Wellman-Ally overdrew that account 33 times from

16. The bank records for the operating account ending in XXXX-69 p. 17 5 p. 16 4 5

totaling $ p. 17 50,500.00 to Ms. Wellman-Ally for safe-keeping in her client

therefore familiar with Ms. Wellman-Ally, and she delivered the checks

husband in April of 2021 for a flat fee of $ p. 17 5,000. Ms. was

2 p. 17 5. Ms. Wellman-Ally had handled a criminal matter for Ms.

residence in , Charlestown, New Hampshire 03603.

for $ p. 17 500.00 and 512178 for $50,000.00, mailing them to Ms.

$ p. 17 50,500.00, consisting of two checks, to Ms. check nos. 512177

24. On or around August 2 p. 17 5, 2021, Nutter made a partial distribution of

McClennen & Fish law firm in Boston, Massachusetts ("Nutter").

died on February. 24, 2021. Her estate was handled by Nutter,

23. was the beneficiary of her mother's estate.

Matter: Out of Trust $13,831.36

client designation.

IOLTA, as well as numerous disbursements out of the IOLTA without

with client funds in the IOLTA, impermissible cash withdrawals from the

Wellman-Ally engaged in impermissible commingling of personal funds

22. On a more general level, the bank records demonstrate that Ms.

the return of funds.

department ( or hired an attorney ( to force the issue of

return funds belonging to these clients until they contacted the police

balance in trust was for these clients. Ms. Wellman-Ally refused to

trust for both of these clients, misrepresenting to two parties what the

21. Ms. Wellman-Ally engaged in dishonesty as to the amount she held in p. 18 6

asked her son to help her get the money transferred to CFS.

30. Having heard nothing from Ms. Wellman-Ally for several months, Ms.

$13,831.3 p. 18 6.

$50,500.00, and was thus out of trust in that matter in the amount of

was $3 p. 18 6,668.64. She should have held, for the matter alone,

29. As of April 5, 2022, the balance in Ms. Wellman-Ally's IOLTA account

the new account at CFS in early 2022 but received no reply.

28. Ms. recalls asking Ms. Wellman-Ally to transfer the $50,500.00 to

Ally to the new account at CFS.

additional $50,500.00 that would soon be transferred by Ms. Wellman-

informed Ms. McFarland that Ms. Wellman-Ally was holding an

in setting up this account as a Revocable Trust. In January of 2022, the

estate of They worked with Ashleigh McFarland, CFP

into the account, which represented the second distribution from the

with Claremont Financial Services ("CFS"). They deposited $100,000.00

27. In January of 2022, Ms. and her husband opened an account

was executed on August 15, 2022.

attorney for to hold power of attorney over which

handling her affairs. Ultimately, Ms. Wellman-Ally drafted a power of

2021 and frequently required the help of her son, , in

2 p. 18 6. Ms. was experiencing memory/early dementia symptoms as of

account on October 28, 2021.

trust account. Ms. Wellman-Ally deposited the funds into her client trust p. 19 7

35. emailed Ms. Wellman-Ally again on June 9, 2022 asking,

June 9, 2022.

of trust in her IOLTA a total of $19,994.55 in these two matters as of

matters alone, should have been $59,500.00. She was thus out

IOLTA balance as of June 9, 2022, at a minimum, for the and

named , as set forth further below. Ms. Wellman-Ally's

Wellman-Ally should have also held $9,000.00 on behalf of a client

34. In addition to this minimum amount for , by this date Ms.

times, a minimum for the matter of $50,500.00.

this day was $39,505.45. Ms. Wellman-Ally should have held, at all

33. This was a misrepresentation, as Ms. Wellman-Ally's IOLTA balance on

I will do so."

just been extremely busy and haven't gotten a chance to send it out yet.

32. Ms. Wellman-Ally responded on June 9, 2022: "I do have the funds. I've

his mother or otherwise had deposited into the account with CFS.

behalf of his mother, whether Ms. Wellman-Ally had mailed the check to

Wellman-Ally. On June 8, 2022, inquired via email, on

brother, , a Deputy Sheriff in Virginia, also reach out to Ms.

31. When Ms. Wellman-Ally did not respond, s asked that his

Wellman-Ally's IOLTA balance was $41, p. 19 785.45.

account?" Ms. Wellman-Ally did not respond. As of May 23, 2022, Ms.

2022 and asked, "when will the $50,500 be transferred to my mother's

39. On or around April 4, 2022, hired Ms. Wellman-Ally to

Matter: Out of Trust $5,790.19

on August 2, 2022, which brought her IOLTA balance up to $52,594.46.

transfer of $2,000.00 from her operating account ending in XXXX-6954

August 1, 2022. She was only able to do this after making an online

3 p. 20 8. Ms. Wellman-Ally finally wrote a check to for $50,500 on

Parker that the funds "had been placed into a trust account."

the balance in the IOLTA was $44,645.45. Ms. Wellman-Ally told Officer

Wellman-Ally on July 11, 2022 asking about the funds. On this date,

department on July 1, 2022. Officer Haydan M. Parker spoke with Ms.

their mother's funds, contacted the Claremont police

37. Given the lack of communication and unreasonable delay in producing

present.

rang repeatedly, but no one picked up and no voicemail option was

was present. Phone calls to Ms. Wellman-Ally's law firm phone number

respond. He stopped by her office during business hours, but no one

he could "stop by and grab the check." Ms. Wellman-Ally did not

36. emailed Ms. Wellman-Ally again on June 14, 2022, asking if

client funds.

the IOLTA, thereby engaging in commingling of her personal funds with

transferred $5,000 from her operating account ending XXXX-6954 into

Ms. Wellman-Ally did not respond. On this date, however, she

"have you been able to get the check over to my mother's account yet?" p. 21 9

email and phone on that date, but Ms. Wellman-Ally's phone number

44. Mr. Gottesman immediately attempted to reach Ms. Wellman-Ally via

the sole purpose of obtaining her retainer from Ms. Wellman-Ally.

hired David Gottesman, Esq. on or around October 3, 2022, for

43. After contacting the New Hampshire Bar Association referral service, Ms.

matter.

had never received an invoice or bill for work performed on her

August and September. Ms. Wellman-Ally never responded. Ms.

42. Ms. continued her efforts to reach Ms. Wellman-Ally throughout

IOLTA was $50,844.46.

the law office phone number. As of July 30, 2022, the balance in the

41. Ms. repeatedly called Ms. Wellman-Ally, but no one answered at

funds.

through and , were requesting the return of

return of her retainer. This is the same time frame during which the

called Ms. Wellman-Ally terminating her services and requesting the

the status of the matter and work performed. In late July, Ms.

she found Ms. Wellman-Ally did not respond to her inquiries regarding

40. Thereafter, Ms. terminated Ms. Wellman-Ally's services because

day, April 5, 2022.

which Ms. Wellman-Ally deposited into her client trust account the next

of her daughter. Ms. paid Ms. Wellman-Ally a $10,000 retainer,

represent her in a possible wrongful death action arising out of the death p. 22 10

to "backfill" her IOLTA prior to writing the check to Ms. Ms.

the $9,000 that belonged to Ms. Therefore, she began an effort

However, Ms. Wellman-Ally lacked the funds in her IOLTA to disburse

unearned retainer and had hired counsel to ensure that this occurred.

48. Ms. Wellman-Ally knew that her former client was demanding the

in Ms. ' matter $5,790.19.

Ms. Wellman-Ally's IOLTA was $3,209.83. She was therefore out of trust

47. This was a misrepresentation. The starting balance in October 2022 for

[sic] breakdown for you."

email and stated, "balance is $9,000 and I will be sending the check an

46. On October 4, 2022, Ms. Wellman-Ally responded to Mr. Gottesman via

"[w]hat is the balance in your trust account held for her at this time?"

should be sent to him, as Ms. attorney. He further stated

balance of her retainer." Mr. Gottesman responded that the check

received your message. I will get info together and send her back the

45. Ms. Wellman-Ally responded via email on October 4, 2022, stating, "I

any unearned retainer.

Wellman-Ally provide an accounting of services provided and a check for

services were terminated. The letter demanded that within 48 hours Ms.

in reaching Ms. Wellman-Ally by phone or email and stated that her

Wellman-Ally and sent it via Federal Express. It described his difficulty

Therefore, on October 3, 2022, Mr. Gottesman wrote a letter to Ms.

was not functional and did not ring to an answering machine or office. p. 23 11

by Ms. Wellman-Ally.

$9,000, as well as an invoice describing $1,000 in legal services provided

52. On or around October 13, 2022, Mr. Gottesman received the check for

from her operating account ending in XXXX-5516.

transferred $1,000 into the IOLTA, via online transfer, of personal funds

to Ms. On October p. 23 11, 2022, Ms. Wellman-Ally again

She needed more of her personal funds in order to write a $9,000 check

51. As of October p. 23 11, 2022, however, her IOLTA balance was only $8,609.83.

mail.

status of the matter. Ms. Wellman-Ally stated that the check was in the

emailed Ms. Wellman-Ally again on October p. 23 11, 2022 asking about the

50. A week passed and Mr. Gottesman had not received the check. He

IOLTA, without any individual client designation.

October 7, 2022, Ms. Wellman-Ally deposited $1,000 in cash into the

ending XXX5516, i.e. impermissible commingling. In addition, on

internet transfer of $3,000 from Ms. Wellman-Ally's operating account

false. Moreover, one of the deposits made on October 4, 2022 was an

Gottesman that she was holding $9,000 in trust for Ms. was

$3,250.00, the IOLTA balance was $6,959.83. Her statement to Mr.

49. By October 4, 2022, following two deposits made that day totaling

unauthorized cash deposits.

Wellman-Ally accomplished this by engaging in commingling and p. 24 12

operating accounts ending in XXXX-6953 and XXXX-5516, demonstrate

59. The bank records for the IOLTA account ending XXXX-6963, and the

and Multiple Deposits and Disbursements Without Client Designation Other IOLTA Violations: Commingling, Unauthorized Cash Withdrawals,

maintained client funds in compliance with Rule 1.15 and Rule 50.

that time period, she performed monthly reconciliations, and she

period June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022 that: she was never out of trust in

on her Trust Account Compliance Certifications ("TACCS") for the time

monthly reconciliations, Ms. Wellman-Ally knowingly and falsely attested

any of the IOLTA record-keeping required by Rule 50, and not performing

58. Despite being out of trust in at least two clients matters, not maintaining

"reconciliation" did not comply with Rule 50.

ADO, but it demonstrated that without the underlying client ledgers, her

sheets to her bookkeeper. The bookkeeper produced work product to the

Wellman-Ally did not produce underlying client ledgers or invoices/times

statements for the IOLTA to the bookkeeper for months at a time. Ms.

57. Ms. Wellman-Ally engaged a bookkeeper, but often did not send bank

56. Ms. Wellman-Ally did not perform monthly reconciliations of her IOLTA.

55. Ms. Wellman-Ally did not maintain an accurate general client ledger.

54. Ms. Wellman-Ally did not maintain accurate individual client ledgers.

return of her own retainer.

53. Ms. paid Mr. Gottesman $1,000 in legal fees solely to obtain the p. 25 13

designation to operating ending in 6954 in the amount of

D. Online transfers from the IOLTA without individual client

5516 (commingling), in the amount of $4,900.00, as follows:

C. Online transfers into the IOLTA from the payroll account ending in

(commingling) in the amount of $10,500.00, as follows:

B. Online transfers into the IOLTA from the Operating ending in 6954

$4,850.00, as follows:

A. Unauthorized cash withdrawals from the IOLTA in the amount of

and disbursements without client designation.

the following instances of commingling, unauthorized cash withdrawals, p. 26 14

to payroll ending in 5516 in the amount of $4,960.00, as follows:

E. Online transfer from the IOLTA without individual client designation

$34,532.00, without individual client designation, as follows: p. 27 15

in the course of representing Ms. and Ms. by stating to

64. Rule 4.1, for knowingly making a false statement of fact to a third person

recording-keeping.

in compliance with Rule 1. p. 27 15 and Supreme Court Rule 50 as to IOLTA

never out of trust, performed monthly reconciliations, and was otherwise

63. Rule 3.3, for filing knowingly false TACCs stating Ms. Wellman-Ally was

over their funds to them upon request.

trust in the and matters, and failing to promptly turn

IOLTA records, failing to perform monthly reconciliations, being out of

62. Rule 1. p. 27 15 and Supreme Court Rule 50, for failing to maintain accurate

informed of the status of their funds held in trust.

61. Rule 1.4, for failing to keep clients and reasonably

Rules:

60. The parties agree that the conduct described above violates the following

WHEREFORE, the ADO respectfully prays that this Court:

71. Ms. Wellman-Ally assents to this Petition.

serious misconduct.

70. This Court should suspend Ms. Wellman-Ally summarily due to her

37(9-B)(b).

could result in a suspension or disbarment." Supreme Ct. Rule

69. Ms. Wellman-Ally's misconduct constitutes "misconduct which by itself

merits summary suspension under Rule 37(9-B)(a)(1).

4.1, 8.1, 8.4(c), 8.4(a) and Supreme Court Rule 50. This misconduct

68. Ms. Wellman-Ally's conduct violates, at a minimum, Rules 1.4, 1.15, 3.3,

serious harm to the public or the integrity of the legal profession."

serious misconduct which poses an immediate and substantial threat of

67. This conduct demonstrates that Ms. Wellman-Ally has "engaged in

all of 2022.

to the ADO despite the ADO's demand for all client ledgers for

66. Rule 8.1 by knowingly failing to produce client ledgers for and

in those matters as set forth above.

misappropriated the funds of and by being out of trust

65. Rule 8.4(c) by engaging in dishonesty and misrepresentation when she

that she was holding "$9,000" in her trust account for Ms.

Dated: February p. 29 17, 2023 By: isjSara S. Greene

protect the public.

F. Enter such further orders as it may deem just and necessary to

the ADO in the investigation and prosecution of this matter; and

E. Assess Ms. Wellman-Ally for all expenses that may be incurred by

such action as is necessary to protect the interests of her clients;

possession of Ms. Wellman-Ally's files and accounts, and to take

D. Appoint, in accordance with Rule 37( p. 29 17), an attorney to take

assets of clients, whether real, personal, beneficial or mixed;

hypothecating, or in any manner disposing of or conveying any

that Ms. Wellman-Ally be enjoined from transferring, assigning,

C. Freeze Ms. Wellman-Ally's IOLTA and operating accounts and order

February 23, 2023, as set forth in Supreme Court Rule 37(13)(b),(d);

submit an affidavit to the ADO attesting to same, no later than

B. Order Ms. Wellman-Ally to inform all clients of her suspension, and

consistent with Rule 37(9-B);

A. Suspend Ms. Wellman-Ally and initiate further proceedings p. 30 18

email to wellmanallyAgmail.com . 0550 0000 7121 1102, and a copy by regular mail postage prepaid and by 98 Charlestown Road, Suite 1, Claremont, NH 03743, by certified mail #7017 February 2023, to Lisa A. Wellman-A1Iy, Esquire, at Wellman-Ally Law, PLLC, to Petition for Summary Suspension" was delivered on this 17th day of Court Attorney Discipline Office, certify that a copy of the aforesaid "Assented- I, Sara S. Greene, Disciplinary Counsel of the New Hampshire Supreme

Dated February 14 2017

Mortgage shall preclude other or future exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right. on any future occasion. No single or partial exercise of any power hereunder or under said real estate waiver on any one occasion shall not be construed as a bar to or waiver of any such right and/or remedy shall operate as a4vaiver of such right or remedy or of any other right or remedy under this Note. A No delay or omission on the part of the holders in exercising any right or remedy hereunder and expenses of such action and reasonable attorney's fees to the extent permitted by law. monies due on this Note, each and every maker, endorser and guarantor hereof agrees to pay all costs In the event the holders shall institute any action for the enforcement of the collection of the due and payable. If the maker remains in default after fifteen days from the due date, the entire balance shall be

2017 until paid in full.; a. 3g monthly payments of $351.38 on the 6th day of each month, commencing June 1,

dollars ($11000.00), payable at 4% interest as follows: The undersigned promises to pay to Trust the sum of eleven thousand