This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
H. Paul Carroll (2024)
that he had received actual notice of the ADO ’s investigation.
input from the Respondent, the Committee ensured that the record reflected
on sancti ons, in the hope of hearing from the Respondent. In the absence of any
adopted in its entirety. The Committee had invited the parties to file memoranda
Attorney Discipline Office’s (ADO) request that the Hearing Panel report be
report, the transcript of the sanction hearing, the record in the matter, and the
H. Paul Carroll, be disbarred. The Committee considered the Hearing Panel’s
deliberated the Hearing Panel recommendation that the Respondent, Attorney
On April 16, 2024, the Professional Conduct Committee (Committee)
ORDER
Carroll, H. Paul advs. Attorney Discipline Office - #23 - 007
and
Carroll, H. Paul advs. Attorney Discipline Office - #22 - 016
and
Carroll, H. Paul advs. Attorney Discipline Office - #22 - 014
PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
*non - lawyer member
*Peter J. Kiriakoutsos *Everett S. Grass Trudy Renfors, Admin. Asst. Richard C. Gagliuso, 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 Derek Lick, Esq.
603 - 224 - 5828 Fax 228 - 9511 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 a committee of the attorney discipline system Professional Conduct Committee New Hampshire Supreme Court Page 2 of 35
Bar Association with an updated address, as required by N.H. Supreme Court
After closing his office, Mr. Carroll did not provide the New Hampshire
Carroll – LD - 2012 - 0002.
2012, as reciprocal discipline from Massachusetts. See In the M atter of H. Paul
history in New Hampshire includes a public censure issued on December 17,
of H. P aul Carroll, 28 Mass. Att ’ y. Disc. R. 130 (2012). Mr. Carroll’s disciplinary
Mr. Carroll has a disciplinary history in Massachusetts. See In the Matter
as The Carroll Law Firm, 6 Harris Street, Newburyport, MA 01950.
At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Carroll operated his law office
Massachusetts.
2023 - 0003). Disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Carroll are als o pending in
law in New Hampshire by Supreme Court O rder dated February 10, 2023 (ADM -
January 27, 2023. Mr. Carroll was administratively suspended from practicing
Mr. Carroll was administrativel y suspended from the Massachusetts bar on
Mr. Carroll was admitted to practice law in New Hampshire on May 30, 2000.
Carroll was admitted to practice law in Massachusetts on December 13, 1999.
Mr. Carroll is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Mr.
1. Procedural Background
A. Procedural and Factual Background
conclusions and largely adopts their opinion.
thorough. The Committee concurred in the Panel’s factual findings and legal
The Committee found the Hearing Panel’s report to be well - reasoned and Page 3 of 35 sufficient.” provided to the New Hampshire Bar Association shall be deemed to be provides that “service upon the respondent attorney at the latest address 37(16)(c), addressing petitions for suspensions before the Supreme Court, obligation is reflected in the rules addressing discipline. For example, Rule changes of residence address and address o f principal office”). This continuing notify the New Hampshire Bar Association immediately and in writing of all Information”) (“All persons admitted to the bar have a continuing obligation to “promptly” to the N.H. Bar Association. Sup. Ct. R. 42, XIV (“Duty to Update New Hampshire attorneys are required to report any address change 1
return receipt requested. The AD O also sent the Notice via first class mail
as of that date. P er Rule 37A(III)(b)(1), the Notice was sent via certified mail,
the address Mr. Carroll maintained with the New Hampshire Bar Association 1
Carroll, Esq., at The Carroll Law Firm, 6 Harris Street, Newburyport, MA 01950,
A Notice of Charges was issued in this matter on June 9, 2023, to H. Paul
a client of Mr. Carroll’s, on M arch 8, 2023 (“Currier m atter.”)
m atter”). Docket #23 - 007 originates from a grievance filed by Marijane Currier,
grievance submitted by Jocelyn Ema Dowey, a client of Mr. Carroll’s (“Dowey
Nove mber 17, 2022. Docket #22 - 016 originated on November 7, 2022, from a
Docket #22 - 014 (“Barton m atter”) was initiated by way of court referral on
after that date.
April 19, 2023. Mr. Carroll has not responded to any ADO communications
Carroll provided this email address to Deputy General Counsel Mark Cornell on
Mr. Carroll’s personal email address is carroll.h.paul@gmail.com. Mr.
Hampton, NH 03842 - 4328.
Rule 42. Mr. Carroll’s home address is believed to be 97 Kings Highway, Page 4 of 35 A grievant forwarded Mr. Carroll’s home address to the ADO in July 2023. 2
C onduct:
Mr. Carroll is deemed to have violated the following R ules of P rofessional
appear at the S eptember 28, 2023 case management conf erence.
the Chair of the Hearing Panel issued an Order of Default. Mr. Carroll did not
because of his default. See Sup. Ct. R. 37A(III)(b)(3)(A). On September 6, 2023,
deemed to have admitted the factual and legal allegations set forth in the Notic e
Mr. Carroll did not file an Answer to the Notice of Charges. Mr. Carroll is
to Mr. Carroll’s home address and to his personal email address. 2
PCC’s Order approving the alternative service. The documents were forwarded
Notice of Charges; 2) Motion for Approval of Alternative Service; and 3) the
On July 18, 2023, Disciplinary Counsel forwarded to Mr. Carroll: 1) the
Sender.”
returned to the ADO. The envelope was marked “Unable to Forward - Return to
the same day, the first class mailing to Mr. Carroll’s law firm address was
Professional Conduct Committee granted a Motion for Alternative Service. On
Attempted – Not Known – Unable to Forward.” On July 18, 2023, the
containing the Notice of Charges. The envelope was marked “Return to Send er –
On July 3, 2023, the ADO received a returned certified mail package
Carroll’s personal address was not returned.
The email to Mr. Carroll’s law firm was returned. The email to Mr.
paul@carrolllaw.net and carroll.h.paul@gmail.com as a courtesy.
postage prepaid. E lectronic versions were sent to Mr. Carroll at Page 5 of 35
of Lisa Barton and Michael Barton.
Family Division - Brentwood, Case No. 618 - 202 1 - DM - 00186 entitled In the Matter
Michael Barton (“Mr. Barton”) in a pending divorce case filed in the 10 Circuit th
ADO forwarding an Order After Show Cause Hearing. Mr. Carroll represented
On November 17, 2022, Judge Ellen V. Christo referred Mr. Carroll to the
In Docket # 22 - 014 the Notice of Charges allege:
Docket #22 - 014 - Court Referral - Barton Matter
2. Factual Background
Currier.
presented the testimony of two witnesses: Joyce Emma Dowey and Marijane
and held on November 9, 2023. Mr. Carroll did not appear. Disciplinary counsel
A hearing on the appropriate sanction for misconduct was duly noticed
H. Rule 8.4(a) – General Rul e
G. Rule 8.4 (c) – Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation
F. Rule 8.1 – Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters
E. Rule 3.4 – Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
D. Rule 3.3 – Candor Toward the Tribunal
C. Rule 1.4 – Communication
B. Rule 1.3 – Diligence
A. Rule 1.1 – Competence Page 6 of 35
represent both Mr. and Ms. Barton, they would only communicate with him.
informed that unless Mr. Carroll notified Selene Finance that he did not
attempted to speak with Selene Finance regarding the foreclosure, they were
the loan. When Ms. Barton and her attorney, Amanda Lynn Dowgi ert, Esq.,
could speak to the mortgage servicer regarding the modification and status of
ordered to provide an authorization within 10 days to Ms. Barton so that she
modification. At the June 27, 2022, structuring conference, Mr. Barton was
representing both Mr. Barton and his spouse, Lisa Barton, regarding the loan
At some point, Mr. Carroll notified Selene Fina nce that he was
process.
upon. D espite his representation, Selene Finance continued with the foreclosure
approved. As such, the property was not in imminent danger of being foreclosed
the c ourt that a modification of t he mortgage loan had been submitted and
During a structuring conference on June 27, 2022, Mr. Carroll informed.
holder of the mortgage on the marital residence, began foreclosure proceedings.
During the pendency of the Bartons’ divorce, Selene Finance, LP, the
reside in the home with certain requirements on each party.
January 26, 2022, the c ourt issued an order allowing the parties to continue to
Mr. Carroll appeared on behalf of Mr. Barton on January 19, 2022. On
be foreclosed upon and any equity in th e house depleted, harming both parties.
sought to have the marital home sold immediately, otherwise the house would
The Petition for D ivorce was filed on August 12, 2021. The Petitioner Page 7 of 35
filed an Assented - to Motion to Continue the October 20, 2022 hearing, citing a
October 20, 2022, for Mr. Carroll to appear and explain his actions. Mr. Carroll
The August 30, 2022 o rder also scheduled a Show Cause Hearing for
representation of Ms. Barton, he did not do so.
the marital residence. Although the c ourt ordered Mr. Carroll to withdraw his
On August 30, 2022, the c ourt entered an o rder authorizing the sale of
months.
Barton informed the c ourt that Mr. Carroll had been unresponsive to both for
impression he would be attending the hea ring. Attorney Dowgiert and Mr.
Mr. Carroll to respond to any of her inquiries and she too was under the
Attorney Dowgiert also informed the c ourt that she had “great difficulty” getting
know why his atto rney was not there and that he had expected him to be there.
appear. Mr. Carroll’s client, Mr. Barton, informed the c ourt that he did not
scheduled for a hearing on August 18, 2022, to which M r. Carroll failed to
Ex - Parte Emergency Motion for Sale of Marital Home. The Ex - Parte Motion was
with Selene Finance regarding a loan modification, Attorney Dowgier t filed an
Due to the pending foreclosure and Ms. Barton’s inability to communicate
is hereby authorized to access any and all information related to the mortgage.”
Parte Relief. On July 27, 2022, the c ourt issued an Order stating, “Lisa Barton
issue were unsuccessful. On July 27, 2022, Ms. Barton filed a Motion for Ex -
with Selene Finance. Ms. Barton’s efforts to contact Mr. Carroll regarding this
Ms. Barton had not a uthorized Mr. Carroll to represent her when dealing Page 8 of 35
In Docket 22 - 016 the Notice of Charges alleged:
Docket #22 - 016 – Jocelyn Ema Dowey Matter
The c ourt then referred the matter to the Attorney Discipline O ffice. for his conduct. 6. Failure to appear at a Show Cause Hearing on 11/17/22 to account not. had assented to a Motion to Continue on 10/5/22, when sh e had 5. Making a false representation to the Court that opposing counsel Petitioner as ordered to do so on 8/30/22. withdraw his representation to Selene Mortgage on behalf of the 4. Failing to comply with Court orders, specifically by failing to permission to do so. Plaintiff and Respondent, when the Plaintiff gave him no such 3. Representing to Selene Mortgage that he represented both the not at risk of foreclosure. parties’ mortgage loan modification had been approved and/or was 2. Making false representations to the Court on 6/27/22 that the 11/17/22. without be ing excused by the Court, including 8/18/22 and 1. Failure to appear at several noticed hearings on behalf of his client for investigation: should be referred to the New Hampshire Attorney D iscipline Office by Attorney Carroll, including but not limited to those listed below, In summary, this Judge finds that the following actions or inactions
In the November 17, 2022, order, the c ourt found:
Carroll that she did not assent to a Motion to Continue when he c ontacted her.
Attorney Dowgiert informed the c ourt that she had explicitly informed Mr.
Carroll failed to appear at the rescheduled hearing. At the show cause hearing,
The show cause hearing was r escheduled to November 17, 2022. Mr.
medical records. The c ourt granted the Motion to Continue.
conflict with the hearing date and citing the need for more time to obtain Page 9 of 35
to appear. The c ourt issued an Order of Dismissal, stating:
c ourt that the case had been dismissed because she and her attorney had failed
On October 14, 2022, Ms. Dowey received an electronic notice from the
filing a Motion to Continue. Mr. Carroll did not file the Motion Continue.
October 14, 2022, scheduling conference and another matter and would be
Carroll informed Ms. Dowey that he had a schedul ing conflict with regard the
can chat soon so I can get an update.” On or about September 30, 2022, Mr.
another text message to Mr. Carroll stating: “Good morning, Paul, hoping we
the upcoming scheduling conference. On August 9, 2022, Ms. Dowey sent
message on August 3, 2022, to Mr. Carroll requesting a time to meet to discuss
2022. After receiving notice of the scheduling conference, Ms. Dowey sent a text
A scheduling conference was scheduled in the matter for October 14,
part of the discovery in the case.
did not provide the required automatic disclosures to the opposing party as a
Carroll did not file an amended complaint on Ms. Dowey’s behalf. Mr. Carroll
the Motion to Amend. Despite the c ourt granting the Motion to Amend, Mr.
filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint. On June 16, 2022, the c ourt grant ed
on October 29, 2021. On April 27, 2022, Mr. Carroll, on behalf of Ms. Dowey,
The complaint in the Dowey civil matter was filed in the Superior Court
Rockingham Superior Court as Docket No: 2018 - 2021 - CV - 01102.
a civil litigation matter entitled Jocelyn Ema Dowey v. Liquid PC, filed in
Dowey on November 7, 2022. Mr. Carroll represented Ms. Dowey, a plaintiff, in
This matter originated from a grievance submitted by Jocelyn Ema Page 10 of 35
went to the c ourt to determine the status of her case. Ms. Dowey learned
On October 20, 2022, Ms. Dowey took the day off from work and
today.”
Mr. Carroll responded: “I will help you with this. I had it misdiaried for
appear. I haven’t filed for reconsideration yet but I’m working on it. The hearing was on Friday 10/14 & was dismissed for failure to
Ms. Dowey responded via text message:
the info and time. today. I will meet you there. I can’t talk right now. Please text me I am sorry I missed you. Please review the time and court room for
stating:
On October 20, 2022, Mr. Carroll sent a text message to Ms. Dowey
today’s hearing, and related travel expenses. incurred for defense counsel’s preparation for, and attendance at If this Order is vacated, the plaintiff will be assessed attorney’s fees
rules. Any such request must be filed within 10 days. dismissed, non - appearance in cour t and non - compliance with court demonstrates just cause for why this matter should not remain The defendant may seek reconsideration of this Order if he
failure to prosecute these claims. Accordingly, this matter is dismissed for failure to appear and
disclosures. and the plaintiff has not provided any of the required automatic complaint in April. To date, no amended complaint has been filed, The Court granted leave for the plaintiff to file an amended
through counsel. and plaintiff’s counsel, failed to appear. Defendants appeared A scheduling conference was held [o]n today’s date. The Plaintiff, Page 11 of 35
On November 3, 2022, Ms. Dowey sent a text stating, in relevant part:
w/the arguments in the objection. nothing in this case, the motion is DENIED. The Court concurs posture, and the significant spans of time where the plf has done Given the unique history of the claims in this case, the procedural
2, 2022. The c ourt’s order stated:
her own behalf. The c ourt denied the Motion to Reconsider on November
On October 20, 2022, Ms. Dowey filed a Motion to Reconsider on
with you to file the complaint & the required automatic disclosures. nothing has been filed & the court has been trying to get in contact April the court granted the motion to amend my complaint, but Only have a few more days, 10 days from 10/14. It also says that in
text ed him, stating:
stating: “I will draft and send you an affidavit in support.” Ms. Dowey
am sorry about the mix up.” Mr. Carroll sent a follow - up text message,
a motion to vacate the dismissal and return the case to the trial track. I
forward him the Order of Dismissal to which Mr. Carroll repl ied: “I will file
After going to the c ourt, Ms. Dowey texted Mr. Carroll again to
these documents without any response recorded from him.”
that he had “m ade dozens of attempts to contact Attorney Carroll for
and the automatic disclosures. In addition, opposing counsel indicated
and that the c ourt had been trying to contact him to file the Complaint
learned that Mr. Carroll had failed to file certain automatic disclosures
leave to file an amended complaint on June 15, 2022. Ms. Dowey also
that an amended complaint had not been filed, despite the c ourt granting Page 12 of 35
regarding Mr. Carroll’s representation of her in a probate matter. The grievance
On March 8, 2023, Ms. Marijane Currier filed a grievance with the ADO
In Docket 23 - 007 the Notice of Charges alleged:
Docket #23 - 007 - Marijane Currier Matter
from Mr. Carroll.
his services. Ms. Dowey testified that she did not notice any signs of impair ment
Ms. Dowey testified she paid Mr. Carroll between $1,500 and $2,000 for
dismissal.
Despite promising to do so, Mr. Carroll did not file a motion to vacate the
structuring conference, which ultimately resulted in her ca se being dismissed.
him. Mr. Carroll failed to file a motion to continue and failed to appear at a
Carroll did not communicate with her, despite her repeated attempts to contact
to her complaint. The amendment was nev er filed. Ms. Dowey testifie d that Mr.
the lawsuit. She testified that Mr. Carroll told her he would file an amendment
engaged Mr. Carroll, who had previously represent ed her, to represent her in
who could not handl e the lawsuit, Ms. Dowey filed a complaint pro se. She then
harassment, and retaliation. After consulting another New Hampshire lawyer
Ms. Dowey sought to sue her previous employer for discrimination, sexual
facts alleged in the Notice of Charges.
Ms. Dowey testified at th e sanction hearing. Her testimony supported the
lawsuit has been dismissed due to your inaction. call over the last 8 months since you took over the case & now the You’ve been non - existent except for the occasional text or phone Page 13 of 35
the proof of a will in solemn form. the burden of proof as the proponent would in any matter requiring find in this case to be Marijane Currier. Therefore, she shall carry granted. T he burden of proving the will is on the proponent, which I There being no timely objection to this motion, the motion is
On June 29, 2021, the c ourt granted a Motion for Instruction finding:
Mr. Carroll filed his appearance on Ms. Currier’s behalf on July 16, 2020.
influenc ed in executing those documents.
estate planning documents in November 2019, or that she was unduly
Dunham lacked the legal capacity required for the execution of a will and other
– Brentwood (collectively “Dunham matter”). T he matters alleged that Ms.
Marijane Currier, Case No. 318 - 2021 - EQ - 00702, 10 Circuit – Probate Division th
as Parent and Next Friend of Rebecca Savino v. Estate of Sally Dunham and
matter and a related equity matter captioned: Joseph Savino, individually and
Ms. Currier requested that Mr. Carroll represent her wi th respect to th at
Dunham’s son, Joseph Savino, contested the will in probate court.
Ms. Dunham ’s will le ft her house in Salem, New Hampshire to Ms. Currier. Ms.
On April 29, 2020, Ms. Currier’s landlord, Sally Dunham, passed away.
action, but the lawsuit was not filed.
to represent Ms. Currier’s husband with respect to a medical malpractice
Currier in a workers’ compensation matter in 2017. In 2018, Mr. Carroll agreed
By way of back ground, Mr. Carroll had previously represented Ms.
17, 2023.
was docketed on March 9, 2023 and referred to Disciplinary Counsel on April Page 14 of 35
amount of fees to be awarded. submitted to the court within 10 days for a determinat ion of the Counsel’s fees are awarded, and an affidavit of fees shall be This motion is granted. No response was filed with the court.
2022, stating:
Currier’s dep osition. The c ourt granted the Motion to Compel on August 2,
respect to additional documents that were requested to be produced during Ms.
On July 21, 2022, counsel for Mr. Savino filed a Motion to Compel with
respond to the other discovery requests.
pleadings, by July 15, 2022. Mr. Carroll did not file the pretrial statement or
well as file complete documents and responses to discovery requests and other
Currier’s behalf. T he c ourt ordered Mr. Carroll to file the pretrial statement, as
months earlier, Mr. Carroll still had not filed the pretrial statement on Ms.
scheduled to begin. Despite being ordered to file a pretrial statement eleven
allow him to participate at that late time because another hearing was
called the c o urt as the pretrial hearing was concluding, but the c ourt did not
Carroll and Ms. Currier failed to appear at the pretrial hearing. Mr. Carroll
On July 6, 2022, a pretrial hearing was held in the Dunham matter. Mr.
the pretrial statement on Ms. Currier’s behalf.
Rule 62 required the parties to file pre trial statements. Mr. Carroll failed to file
A Case Structuring Conference Order dated July 26, 2021, and Probate
$34,580.00
Claim and Demand for Payment Pursuant to RSA 556:2 by Marijane Currier for
On July 6, 2021, Mr. C arroll filed on Ms. Currier’s behalf a Notice of Creditor’s Page 15 of 35
Currier appeared without her counsel, Attorney Carroll. present as the independent adm inistrator of the estate. Marijane appeared with his counsel, Attorney Welch. Attorney Merrill was his counsel, Attorneys Daly and Williams. In addition, Paul Savino At the time of the trial, the petitioner Joseph Savino appeared with since prior to the pretrial con ference in this matter. Carroll to appear for the trial and to file any pleadings or appear rulings in writing, as well as to address the failure of Attorney 18, 2022. . . . However, I am issuing this order to provide the I commenced the trial in the above cons olidated actions on August
For Show Cause Hearing. In relevant part the c ourt stated:
On August 19, 2022, the c ourt issued an Order on Pending Motions and
day of the trial to represent Ms. Currier.
The trial began on August 18, 20 22. Mr. Carroll did not attend the first
trial. witnesses and exhibits are hereby excluded from being offered at Currier has failed to provide any witness or exhibit list, her attorney’s fees within 10 days for review by the court. As Marijane Prayers A and B. Counsel for Mr. Savino shall submit an affidavit of this motion and my orders, I find that the motion is granted as to matter, and no response was filed to this motion. Upon a review of No pretrial statement was filed on behalf of Marijane Currier in this
On August 2, 2022, the c ourt granted the Motion in part, finding:
matter. Carroll, Esq. from sub mitting exhibits or witnesses at trial in this B. Issue an Order excluding Marijane Currier and/or Paul filing of this Motion; Joseph Savino for attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the A. Order Marijane Currier and/or Attorney Carroll to reimburse
relief:
Equitable Relief. The Motion to Exclude included the following requests for
from Presenting Witnesses and/or Submitting Exhibits for Trial, and For Other
On July 28, 2022, Mr. Savino filed a Motion to Exclude Marijane Currier Page 16 of 35
something with the court to address his circumstances and answer He has had over a month since the pretrial hearing to file other parties were prejudiced by his actions and lack of response. Carroll. His client was forced to appear in court unrepresented, and This information raises serious ethical issues about Attorney him about the case. in dicated that she had experienced difficulty in communicating with of trial he had not contacted her about being in court. She recently had a short stay in the hospital, but that until the morning Currier said that she was told by Attorney Carroll that he had hos pital. These communications came shortly before 8:30 am. Ms. he either was going to the hospital or was expecting to go to the that they heard from Attorney Carroll on the morning of trial that Ms. Currier and Attorneys Daly, Williams and Welch all confirmed assent to that request. marathon and having some medical i ssues. Attorney Daly did not continuance of the trial as a result of training for an endurance that Attorney Carroll reached out to them last week requesting a time of the pretrial hearing he had COVID. Counsel also reported had COVID, and also asserted nearly 4 months later that at the Carroll cancelled his client’s deposition in March claiming that he the court’s order compelling discovery. I was also told that Attorney conference requiring to file a pretrial statement and to comply with Attorney Carroll was aware of this court’s order after t he pretrial Finally, as to Attorney Carroll. Counsel informed the court that . . . . addressed by the court prior to that time. conclusion of the show cause hearing if the issue has not been sanctions forward for consideration wit hin 10 days of the party may file a motion to bring the issue of attorney’s fees and cause hearing that will be scheduled as required in this order. Any sanctions. I will defer ruling on those requests until after the show I note that the motion also seeks an award of attorne y’s fees and . . . . discovery. It appears he last filed anything in these cases in 2021. also has failed to comply with this court’s order compelling Currier is a legatee under the will of the deceased. Attorney Carroll witnesses or exhibits on behalf of his client, Marijane Currier. Ms. that were filed resulting in orders barring him from presenting any him. Moreover, he has not filed any responsive pleadings to motions motions relating to that failure and the assessment of fees against pretrial statement on behalf of his client, and had failed to file any I note that prior to trial, Attorney Carroll had failed to file any Page 17 of 35
Currier learned of the c ourt’s decision from opposing counsel.
denied. Mr. Carroll did not inform Ms. Currier of the c ourt’s decision. Ms.
influenced Ms. Dunham. Ms. Currier’s creditor ’s claim for $34,580.00 was
2019 will w as invalid and t hat Ms. Currier and Paul Savino had unduly
evidentiary hearing. In the order, the c ourt found that Ms. Dunham’s November
On January 10, 2023, the c ourt issued its order with respect to the
2022.
stopped responding to all parties involved in the Dunham matter in the fall of
A show cause hearing was not scheduled in the matter. Mr. Carroll
witnesses on Ms. Currier’s behalf.
represent Ms. Currier. However, he did not provide exhibits or call any
2022, and October 27, 2022. Mr. Carroll attended these hearing dates to
The trial subsequently went forward on August 25, 2022, October 20,
may attend the hearing. schedule a 1 - hour heari ng on that issue. Any party to this litigation actions and inactions with the Committee. The clerk is requested to as to why he may believe that I should not file a report of his however, Attorney Carroll shall appear for a hearing to show cause Committee on Professional Cond uct. Prior to making that report, circumstances before me appear to require a report to the attorney that may violate the rules of professional conduct. The As a judicial officer, I am required to make reports of conduct by an his client, but ot her parties to the litigation. court. Instead, he has done nothing, thereby prejudicing not only period, he has had ample time to file any required motions with the Although he may have been hospitalized for a short part of this time present witnesses or exhibits at the trial. Yet, he has filed nothing. the motions that have resulted in his client having no ability to Page 18 of 35
B. Sanction Analysis
12,000 miles on her car to assist him.
frequently drove him to court or other appointments and put approximately
had both an addiction to alcohol and to cold pill s. She testified that she
and ordered food for him, when he asked. Ms. Currier opined that Mr. Carroll
$7, 000.00 in attorney fees. In ad dition, she sen t him small amounts of money,
Ms. Currier estimated that she had paid Mr. Carroll approximately
home and she was ordered to pay $87,000.00 in attorney fees to other parties.
judgment was ultimately entered against Ms. Currier. She did not inherit the
influenced the decedent. Despite her pro se motion for reconsideration,
The probate court ruled against Ms. Currier, finding that she had unduly
effectively pursue her claim in the Probate court.
result, Ms. Currier was unable to pres ent any witnesses or exhibits or to
failed to file a pre - trial statement and to respond to discovery requests. As a
Ms. Currier testified that Mr. Carroll did not diligently represent her. He
will and creditor’s claim.
against the estate for services performed. Ms. Dunham’s family contested the
home owned by Ms. Dunham for 13 years. Ms. Currier filed a creditor’s claim
Ms. Currier testified at the sanction hearing. Ms. Currie r h ad lived in the
Motion for Costs and Attorney’s Fees to be Paid by Paul Savino and M s. Currier.
behalf. The c ourt denied the motion. On February 13, 2023, Mr. Savino filed a
On February 6, 2023, Ms. Currier filed a Motion to Reconsider on her own Page 19 of 35
c ommunication owed to his clients in each of the three docketed matters. In the
Mr. Carroll violated the duties of diligence, competence, and
court, and the legal profession.
Mr. Carroll violated important duties owed to his clients, the public, the
a. The Duties Violated
mitigating factors and whether they affect the baseline sanction. I d. at 109.
the fourth and final step in the analysis: the existence of any aggravating or
baseline sanction. I d. Once the baseline sanction is determined, we then look to
steps create the framework for characterizing the misconduct and determining a
actual injury caused." Id. at 108 - 09; s ee also Standards § 3.0. The first three
state at the time of the violations; and (3) the extent of the actual or p otential or
sanctions: "(1) the ethical dut ies violated by the lawyer; (2) the lawyer's mental
The Standards set forth a four - part analysis to consider in imposing
Standards, it looks to them for guidance. Mesmer's Case, 1 73 N.H. at 108.
sanctions for lawyer misconduct. Although the Court has not adopted the
(1992) (Standards) recommend the analysis to employ when considering
The American Bar Association Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
1. Determination of a Baseline Sanction
misconduct. Id.
(quotation omitted). The sanction must take into account th e severity of the
prevent similar conduct in the future." Mesmer's Case, 1 73 N.H. 96, 108 (20 20)
public confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and
The purpose of attorney discipline"is to protect the public, maintain Page 20 of 35
client s, the general public, the court, and the legal profession.
the Hearing Panel’s finding that Mr. Carroll violated duties he owed to his
violate d his duty to maintain the integrity of t h e profession. The record supports
request for information and his failure to cooperate in the disciplinary process
Moreover, Mr. Carroll’s failure to re spond to Disciplinary Counsel’s
violated his duty as an attorney to the public.
honesty and integrity. In failing to maintain these high standards, Mr. Carrol l
An attorney has an obligation to maintain the highest standards of
withdraw those misrepresentation s, he failed to do so.
misrepresented facts to third parties and, when required by the c ourt to
failed to abide b y basic court rules requiring things like pretrial statements. He
system. In each case, he disregarded hearings scheduled by the c ourts. He
In each docket, Mr. Carroll violated duties owed to the court an d the legal
adequate communication with his client s.
cooperate in the discovery process. In each matter he failed to maintain
court), fail ing to appear for the first day of trial, and fail ing to pro vide and
statement (resulting in the inability to call witnesses or present exhibits to the
In the Currier case, he violated his duty to his client by failing to file a pretrial
failing to move for reconsideration despite an invitation fro m t he c ourt to do so.
automatic discovery disclosure, failure to appear at a scheduled hearing and
duties to Ms. Dowey by failing to amend the complaint, failing to provide
his client’s interests were implicated. In the Dowey m atter, he violate d these
B arton m atter, he violated these duties by failing to appear at hearings where Page 21 of 35
Carroll acted knowing ly.
knowing mental state. The record supports the H earing P anel ’s find ing that Mr.
disciplinary process and to provide requested information also demonstrates a
made false representations to the court. His failure to cooperate with the
failed to appear at h earings, and failed to communicate with his clients. He also
that he acted knowingly. In each docket, Mr. Carroll disregarded court rules,
The nature and circumstances of Mr. Carroll's misconduct demonstrate
285, 307 (2009).
could potentially have hindered his judgment.” In Re Wyatt’s Case, 159 N.H.
volitional nature of the respondent ’ s acts, and not the external pressures that
a ssessing whether a lawyer has acted knowingly, “what is relevant is the
purpo se to accomplish a particular result.” S tandards Sec. III (“D efinitions”). In
attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective or
S tandards define “knowledge” as “conscious awareness of the nature or
question. A person ’ s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.” T he
Conduct 1.0(f) defines knowingly as “denoting actu al knowledge of the fact [s] in
less culpable mental state than intentional misconduct. Rule of Professional
intentional state of mind and a knowing state of mind. Knowing misconduct is a
Professional Conduct as well as the S tandards differentiate between an
assess ment of Mr. Car roll’ s mental state. The New Hampshire R ules of
The second prong of the analysis set forth in the S tandards requires
b. Mental State Page 22 of 35
failure to appear for that hearing, and failure to communicate with his client
move to continue the October 14, 2022 hearing as he told Ms. Dowey he would,
and failed to provide the required automatic disclosures. Mr. Carroll's failure to
injury to Ms. Dow ey when he failed to file an amended complaint on her behalf
With respect to the Dowey m atter, Mr. Carroll caused actual and potential
assented to, thereby further delaying the proceedings.
represented that the Motion to Continue the October 20, 2022, hearing was
caused actual injury to the parties and opposing counsel when he falsely
martial home and delay to the loan modification process. Mr. Carroll also
caused actual and potential injury to the parties, risking foreclosure of the
approved and that the property wa s not in imminent danger of foreclosure
Carroll's false representation that the parties' loan modification had been
delayed the loan modification process and the sale of the marital home. Mr.
co mmunicate with Selene Finance regarding a loan modification and likely
Barton to Selene Mortgage. This representation impeded Ms. Barton's ability to
opposing party when he falsely stated that he represented both Mr. and Ms.
behalf of his client. Mr. Carroll also caused injury to both his client and the
his client without representation when he failed to attend noticed hearings on
With respect to the c ourt's referral in the Barton m atter, Mr. Carroll left
public.
and potential injury to his clients, the courts, the legal profession, and the
The record shows that M r. Carroll's misconduct cause d significant actual
c. Actual and Potential Injury Page 23 of 35
legal profession.
cooperate with and respond to the AD O, which undermines confidence in the
system. Finally, Mr. Carroll caused injury to the profession by fail ing to
orders cause d injury to the reputation of the legal profession and to the legal
and the c ourt. Mr. Carroll's false representations and failure to abide by c ourt
process, stress and anxiety, and inconvenience to opposing parties, counsel,
In each matter, Mr. Carroll's misconduct caused delay in the judicial
attorneys' fees. This is a devastating injury to his client.
misconduct also resulted in Ms. Currier b e ing held responsible for $87,000 in
unsurprisingly foun d against Ms. Currier and denied her creditor claim. His
from presenting evidence of calling witnesses to sustain that burden. T he c ourt
resulted in his client bearing the burden of proof at trial yet being prohibited
trial, and failing to communicate with his client. Mr. Carroll's misconduct
documents and responses to discovery requests, failing to attend the first day of
the c ourt's July 6, 2022 order to file a pretrial statement and to file complete
behalf, failing to attend the July 6, 2022 pretrial hearing, failing to comply with
potential injury to Ms. Currier by failing to file a pretrial statement on her
With respect to the Currier matter, Mr. Carroll caused actual and
Dowey lost the right to have her claims litigated in c ourt, a significant injury.
Motion to Reconsider, necessary because of his mis conduct, on her behalf. Ms.
matter. Mr. Carroll further caused actual injury to Ms. Dowey by failing to file a
about her need to attend the hearing, resulted in the dismissal of Ms. Dowey's Page 24 of 35
a public censure in New Hampshire. Ne w Hampshire. The term “reprimand,” as used in the ABA Standards, is analogous to The term “admonition,” as used in the ABA Standards, is analogous to a reprimand in 3
to a client. in representing a client, and causes injury or potential injury lawyer is negligent and doe s not act with reasonable diligence 4.43 Reprimand [Public censure] is generally appropriate when a 3 injury or potential injury to a client. (b) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes and causes injury or potential injury to a client, or (a) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client
4.42 Suspension is generally appropriate when:
serious injury to a client. to client matters and causes serious or potentially (c) a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to a client; or client and causes serious or potentially serious injury (b) a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a potentially serious injury to a client; or (a) a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or
4.41 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:
reasonable diligence and promptness in representin g a client: generally appropriate in cases involving a failure to act with of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application
(Communication). Standard 4.4 provides:
Mr. Carroll knowingly violated Rule s 1.3 (Diligence) and Rule 1.4
Rule 1.3 (Diligence) and 1.4 (Communication)
violation of the Rules of P rofessional Conduct.
In determining the baseline sanction the Committee a ddresse d each
d. Baseline Sanction Page 25 of 35
injury to a client; or doctrines or procedures and causes injury or potential (a) demonstrates failure to understand relevant legal
4.53 [Public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer:
competent, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. an area of practice in which the lawyer knows he or she is not 4.52 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in
potential injury to a client. procedures, and the lawyer’s conduct causes injury or understand the most fundam ental legal doctrines or course of conduct demonstrates that the lawyer does not 4.51 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer’s
representation to a client: generally appropriate in cases involving failure to provide competent of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application
provides:
Mr. Carroll knowingly violated Rule 1.1 (Competence). Standard 4. 5
Rule 1.1 (Competence)
appropriate because of the seriousness of the injuries.
caused serious injury and potential serious injury. Suspension is not
establishes a pattern of abandonment and neglect of client matters that has
serious injury. The fact that similar conduct occurred in three separate matters
services to his client s, essentially aba ndon ed his practice, caus ing actual
violations of Rules 1.3 and 1.4. In each matter, Mr. Carroll failed to provide lega l
D isbarment is the appropriate baseline sanction for Mr. Carroll’s
potential injury to a client. in representing a client, and causes little or no actual or lawyer is negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence 4.44 Admonition [reprimand] is generally appropriate when a Page 26 of 35
potential injury to the client. knowingly deceives a client, and causes injury or 4.62 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer
to a client. another, and causes serious injury or potential serious injury deceives a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or 4.61 Disbarme nt is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly
deceit, or misrepresentation directed toward a client: generally appropriate in cases where the lawyer engages in fraud, of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application
Misrepresentation). Standard 4.6 provide s:
Mr. Carroll knowingly violated Rule 8.4 (c) (Dishonesty, Deceit, Fraud,
Rule 8.4 (c) (Dishonesty, Deceit, Fraud, Misrepresentation)
he arings. Thes e failures caused injury to his clients.
legal interest. Mr. Carroll repeatedly failed to appear for important court
complaint, a motion to reconsider – basic measures to protect his client’s
basic legal documents, such as a pretrial statement, an amended
fundamental legal doctrines and procedures. Mr. Carroll failed to file
conduct demonstrating that he either does not understand or disregards
sanction of disbarment. In each matter, Mr. Carroll engaged in a course of
Mr. Carroll’s knowing violations of Rule 1.1 call for a baseline
little or no actual or potential injury to a client. he or she is competent to han dle a legal matter, and causes in an isolated instance of negligence in determining whether 4.54 [Reprimand] is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages
potential injury to a client. competent to handle a legal matter and causes injury or (b) is negligent in determining w hether he or she is Page 27 of 35
another to commit any of these offenses; or another; or an attempt or conspiracy or solicitation of control led substances; or the intentional killing of theft; or the sale, distribution or importation of misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, misappropriation, or the administration of justice, false swearing, element of which includes intentional interference with (a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct a necessary
5.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when:
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation: or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, or in cases with conduct act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, generally appropriate in cases involving commission of a criminal of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application
Standards, which provides:
Mr. Carroll violated Rule 8.4(c). His conduct implicate s Se ction 5.1 of the
Rule 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Deceit, Fraud, Misrepresentation)
Under these circumstances, s uspension is the appropriate baseline sanction.
clients, but it do es not appear to have been intended to benefit Mr. Carroll.
resulting in injury to each client. Mr. Carroll’ s dishonesty caused injury to his
and Currier m atters, he did not file pleadings that he said he would file,
Mr. Carroll was deceit ful in his interactions with his clients. In the Dowey
or no actual or potential injury to the client. client with accurate or complete information, and causes little in an isolated instance of negligence in failing to provide a 4.64 [Reprimand] is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages
client. information, and causes injury or potential injury to the negligently fails to provide a client with accurate or complete 4.63 [Public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer Page 28 of 35
submits a false document, or improperly withholds the intent to deceive the court, makes a false statement, 6.11 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer, with
deceit, or misrepr esentation to a court: to the administration of justice or that involves dishonesty, fraud, generally appropriate in cases involving conduct that is prejudicial of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application
which provides:
Mr. Carroll’s Rule 3.3 violation implicates Section 6.1 of the Standards,
Rule 3.3 (Candor to the Tribunal)
Panel’s finding that he acted knowingly.
appropriate baseline under this Stand ard i s public censure given the
Hearing Panel’s finding in this regard, the Committee agrees that the
regard is more aptly addressed by other Standards. However, given the
this Standard, though the Committee finds that his conduct in that
Mr. Carroll ’s dishonesty to the court and to his clients implicates
fitness to practice law. in any other conduct that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s 5.14 [Reprimand] is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages
adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to prac tice law. dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and that knowingly engages in any other conduct that involves 5.13 [Public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer
reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice. elements listed in Standard 5.11 and that seriously adversely engages in criminal conduct which does not contain the 5.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly
practice. th at seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct Page 29 of 35
proceeding.
injury to the opposing party and a potentially ser i ous impact on t he legal
court were made with the intent to deceive and caused potentially serious
assented to a m otion to c ontinue. Mr. Carroll’s false statements to the
not at risk of foreclosure and when he represent ed that opposing counsel
the parties’ mortgage loan modification had been approved and/or was
m atter, Mr. Carroll deceived the c ourt when he made representations that
Sta ndard 6.11, call s for a baseline sanction of disbarment. In the Barton
Mr. Carroll’s conduct in this matter, when considered under
legal proceeding. causes little or no adverse or potentially adverse effect on the causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or disclose material information upon learning of its falsity, and submitted statements or documents are false or in failing to in an isolated instance of neglect in determining whether 6.14 [Reprimand] is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages
proceeding. an adve rse or potentially adverse effect on the legal potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes material information is being withheld, and causes injury or documents are false or in taking remedial action when negligent either in determining whether statements or 6.13 [Public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer is
proceeding. an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes withheld, and takes no remedial action, and causes injury or the court or that material informati on is improperly being that false statements or documents are being submitted to 6.12 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows
proceeding. potentially significant adverse effect on the legal serious injur y to a party, or causes a significant or material information, and causes serious or potentially Page 30 of 35
a court to file required pleadings or documents and to take action to
In each docketed case, Mr. C a rroll failed to follow direct orders f ro m
proceeding. little or no actual or potential interference with a legal or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes complying with a court order or rule, and causes litt le engages in an isolated instance of negligence in 6.24 [Reprimand] is generally appropriate when a lawyer
with a legal proceeding. party, or causes interference or potential interference and causes injury or potential injury to a client or other negligently fails to comply with a court order or rule, 6.23 [Public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer
interference with a legal proceeding. client or a party, or causes interference or potential rule, and causes injury or potential injury to a knows that he or she is violating a court order or 6.22 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer
interference with a legal proceeding. party or causes serious or potentially serious causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to a to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and knowingly violates a court order or rule with the intent 6.21 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer
assertion that no valid obligation exists: the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an or bring a meritorious claim, or failure to obey any obligation under generally appropriate in cases involving failure to expedite litigation of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application
which provides:
comply with the ADO investigation implicate Section 6.2 of the Standards,
Mr. Carroll’s failure s to follow c ourt order in each matter and to
Admission and Disciplinary Mat t ers) Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel) and Rule 8.1 (Bar Page 31 of 35
health or substance use - related issues, Mr. Carroll declined the Committee’s
that is devoid of mitigating factors. While the record reflects the possibility of
failures to respond to complaint s and to appear for hearing s, lead s to a record
Mr. Carroll’s failure to cooperate in the discipline process, including his
a. Mitigation
mitigating factors. Id.
The baseline sanction must be considered in the light of aggravating and
2. Consideration of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
sanction here is disbarment.
misconduct.” See also Mesmer’s Case, 173 N.H. at 111. Thus, the ba seline
least be consistent with the sanction for the most serious instance of
cases with multiple rule violations, the “ultimate sanction imposed should at
As indicated in the Standards, Section II (“Theoretical Framework”), in
s uspension is the appropriate baseline sanction.
injury to his clients and interfered with the ADO investigation; therefore,
warranted a baseline sanction of dis barment. However, his actions did cause
matter. For those reasons, The Committee did not find that this Standard
comply with the ADO investigation caused a serious interference with that
with t he intent to benefit himself; nor was there evidence that his failure to
However, there was no evidence that Mr. Carroll violated the court orders
investigation, interfering with the attorney discipline proceeding.
rectify a false statement. Mr. Carroll failed to respond to the ADO Page 32 of 35
failures are present i n his conduct in each of the outstanding matters. They are
a nd failure to properly communicate with his clients and the courts. These
failure to diligently pursue his client’s objective, failure to follow court orders,
These matters reveal a pattern of misconduct. That pattern includes the
Pattern of Misconduct
Professional Conduct Committee.
from the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers and a Public Censure from the
1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.5(c), and 8.4(d) and (h). He received a Public Reprimand
statute of limitations. Mr. Carroll was found to have violated Rules 1.1, 1.2(a),
Carroll’s lack of diligence led his client’s clai ms to become time - barred by the
reasonable communications with his client about the status of the case. Mr.
failing to vacate a dismissal in a timely manner, and failing to maintain
similar conduct, i.e., failing to make service of process in a timely manner,
Mr. Carroll was previously disciplined with a public censure in 2012 for
Previous Discipline
ADO’s requests and to cooperate with the disciplinary proces s.
Carroll’s obstruction of disciplinary proceedings by his failure to respond to the
3) multiple offenses; 4) substantial experience in the practice of law; and 5) Mr.
factor s. They include 1) a prior disciplinary history; 2) a pattern of misconduct;
On the other hand, the record reveals the presence of several aggravating
b. Aggravating Fact ors
Committee has no evidence of mitigating factor s in this case.
invitation to submit an argument on his behalf. I n the absence of evidence, the Page 33 of 35
address es. T he requirement of cooperation with the attorney discipline process
disciplinary proc ess for nearly a year. He failed to maintain mailing or email
requests, attend hearings, or respond to this Committee. Mr. Carroll ignored the
is also an aggravating factor. Mr. Carroll failed to respond to the ADO’s formal
Mr. Carroll’s failure to cooperate and participate in the discipline process
Obstruction of the Disciplinary Process
those obligations. This is a n aggravating factor.
met his professional obligations in the past and should reasonably understand
described the difference in his conduct to be “like night and day.” Mr. Carroll
in criminal proceedings ten years prior to her complaint in this case. She
Ms. Dowey testified that Mr. Carroll represented her competent ly and diligently
demonstrates that Mr. Carroll has substantial experience in the practice of law.
Massachusetts in 1999. Ms. Dowey ’s testimony at the sanction hearing
Mr. Carroll was barred in New Hampshire in 2000. He was barred in
Substantial Experience in the Practice of Law
Professional Conduct in multiple ways.
multiple offenses on multiple occasions. Mr. Carroll violate d multiple Rules of
A separate aggravating circumstance is that Mr. Carroll has committed
Multiple Offenses
sanction.
of misconduct is an aggravating factor in the consideration of an appropriate
consistent with the conduct underlying his prior discipline record. This pattern Page 34 of 35
omitted).
justifies disbarment.” Salomon’s Case, 171 N.H. 694, 707 (2019) (quotation
on the legal profession tha n a lie, attorney misconduct involving dishonesty
8.4(a)). The Court has held that “no single transgression reflects more negatively
2021)(d isbarment for violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.4(c), 8.1 and
the Matter of Michael J. Reed, Esquire, LD - 2020 - 0009 (January 13,
for violations of Rule 8.1(b) in addition to numerous other Rule violations); In
Matter of Jeremey A. Miller, Esquire, LD - 2017 - 0007 (Aug ust 9, 2017)(d isbarment
(attorney disbarred for violating Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.16(d), 3.3, and 8.4(c)); In the
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 3.3, 8.4(a) and (c)); Morse’s Case, 160 N.H. 538 (2010)
client. See also Mesmer’s Case, 173 N.H. 96 (disbarment for violations of Rules
selfish financial motive and the conduct did not create significant harm to a
resulting in attorney fee award payable by clients, even though there was no
the status of their case, initiating frivolous claims, and neglecting claims
Case, 158 N.H. 299 (2009), the attorney was disbarred for lying to clients about
other cases where disbarment was determined to be appropriate. In Connor’s
Disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case when compared with
3. Disbarment is Appropriate in the Light of Other Cases
The appropriate discipline is disbarment.
In this case the aggravating factors far outweigh any mitigating factors.
appropriately viewed as an aggravating factor.
maintains public confidence in the legal profession; failure to cooperate is Page 35 of 35
Marijane Currier (via email only) Jocelyn Ema Dowey (via email only) H. Paul Carroll (via mail and email) cc: Elizabeth M. Murphy, Esq.
Chair Stephanie Hausman __________________________ /s/ Stephanie Hausman
Dated: May 8, 2024 Respectfully submit ted,
investigation and prosecution of this matter.
reimburse the Attorney Discipline System for all costs associated with the
The Committee also recommends that H. Paul Carroll be ordered to
(Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit or Misrepresentation), and 8.4(a) (General Rule)
Party and Counsel), 8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 8.4
(Communication), 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing
Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4
Supreme Court disbar Attorney H. Paul Carroll for violation of the New
37 A(III)(d)(2) (D)(iv), the Committee recommends that the New Hampshire
In accordance with New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule
C. Conclusion and Recommended Sanction