Matthew J. Plache (2023)

Ms. Sarah Geschwindner Matthew J. Plache cc: Elizabeth M. Murphy, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel

November 2 7, 2023 /s/ Stepha nie C. Hausman

P rotective O rder, under Rule 37(20)(g). also voted to approve the A greement to P ay C osts and granted the A ssented - to approve the S tipulation and to recommend a one - year suspension. The Committee S tipulation as to F acts, R ule V iolations, and S anctions. The Committee voted to On November 14, 2023, the Professional Conduct Committee considered the

*non - lawyer member

Court of Claims. based upon his admission to practice law in Maryland, and his admission to the 5. Geschwindner in the underlying matter in Vaccine Court. Brackett Road, Wolfeboro, NH. Mr. Plache continued representation of Ms. Thereafter, Mr. Plache’s address was Law Office of Matthew J. Plache at 65 in Maryland. Subsequently, by 2019, Mr. Plache closed his office in Maryland. 4. (“Vaccine Court” or “Court of Claims”). (“Ms. Geschwindner”), before the United States Court of Claims Vaccine Court 3. 24, 2023. Plache was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Maryland on March 2. 1.

stipulate as follows: Respondent Matthew J. Plache, Esq., and the Attorney Discipline Office (“ADO”)

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program with the Court of 14.

the underlying matter. Hampshire Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office (“ADO”) for his work on 13.

jurisdiction for the same conduct. (Emphasis added). disciplinary authority of both this jurisdiction and another services in this jurisdiction. jurisdiction if the lawyer provides or offers to provide any legal jurisdiction is also subject to the disciplinary authority of this lawyer admitted in another jurisdiction but not admitted in this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs. A jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this (a) Disciplinary Authority. A lawyer admitted to practice in this states:

12. Geschwindner’s petition before the Court of Claims Vaccine Court. services and performed legal work in New Hampshire relating to Ms. 11. 10. 9. approvals, corporate transactions, and communications law matters. matters), toxic tort litigation, representation of pharmaceutical companies in drug environmental matters under the Clean Air Act and CERCLA (Superfund 8. history in any jurisdiction. 7. suspended by the Court of Claims. 6. p. 4 Generally, vaccine injury petitions are addressed in two stages: First on a There are very few attorneys in New Hampshire admitted to practice before the Mr. Plache prepared and filed a petition dated October 19, 2017 in Vaccine Court On January 4, 2019, the Court of Claims found that Ms. Geschwindner was Thereafter, the parties submitted several status reports to the Court of Claims On July 31, 2019, Mr. Plache filed on behalf of Ms. Geschwindner updated During 2019, Mr. Plache began suffering from depression, which began By early 2020, with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and concurrent On October 23, 2020, the Court held a status conference with the parties. The

23. did not withdraw from that matter. Ms. Geschwindner was the only ongoing matter that Mr. Plache had, although he he had largely stopped functioning professionally. By early 2021, the matter for shutdowns and stay-at-home orders, Mr. Plache’s depression became severe and 22. stopped taking new clients. experiencing depression and did not seek medical care for his depression, he attorney. Although Mr. Plache did not recognize at that time that he was detrimentally affecting his functioning, including in his professional capacity as an 21. medical records and other documentation to the Court pertaining to damages. 20. updating the Court as to their progress in resolving the damages issue. 19. then ordered the parties to address the issue of damages. entitled to compensation for her injury. On the same date, the Court of Claims 18. Barré syndrome as a result of an influenza vaccine she received in October 2014. on behalf of Ms. Geschwindner demonstrating that she suffered from Guillain- 17. Vaccine Court. 16. and including medical records. providing discussion of facts and circumstances surrounding causation and injury, determination of damages for the petitioner. Such petitions are detailed pleadings, determination of liability, and then, if liability is found, the proceeding moves to a 15. Claims Vaccine Court. p. 5 Mr. Plache informed the Court that he was in the process of “identifying The Court gave the parties until November 23, 2020 to file a joint status report Thereafter, Mr. Plache ceased communicating with opposing counsel and the On November 23, 2020, the opposing party, counsel for Secretary of Health and On December 22, 2020, SHHS indicated that he had been unable to communicate On December 23, 2020 and February 8, 2021, the Court ordered the Petitioner to In February 2021, the Court made attempts to communicate with Mr. Plache, On February 18, 2021, the Court issued an order directing Mr. Plache to consult The Court ordered the parties to submit briefs on damages by June 15, 2021. The parties filed a joint status report on June 14, 2021. This was Mr. Plache’s first

contact or communication with the Court in seven months. Mr. Plache indicated 33. 32. not file a status report. to file a status report confirming he had complied with the order. Mr. Plache did with co-counsel familiar with the Vaccine Program to assist him with the case and 31. including a call from the judge’s law clerk. 30. produce status reports. Mr. Plache did not file a status report. 29. with Mr. Plache. 28. status report in 30 days. ordered to file her outstanding EMGs. The parties were ordered to file another not hear back regarding the filing of a joint status report. The Petitioner was as he had been out of the office with personal extenuating circumstances” and did communicated that he had “been unable to complete reviewing the Medicaid lien Human Services (“SHHS”) filed a status report stating that Mr. Plache 27. Court of Claims until June 2021. 26. updating the Court on their progress in resolving damages. 25. specific updates regarding the issue of the Medicaid lien and outstanding EMGs. documents pertaining to the Medicaid lien” and indicated that he would provide 24. filed in the case since July 2019. Court expressed concern to Mr. Plache that no substantive documents had been p. 6 The Court canceled the deadline for briefs and gave the parties until July 14, 2021 Mr. Plache never filed updated medical records or the status report and ceased all On July 14, 2021 and August 13, 2021, SHHS filed status reports indicating he Mr. Plache never filed updated medical records or a revised Medicaid lien. On August 13, 2021, the Court issued an order directing the parties to contact On August 24, 2021, the Court re-issued an order directing the parties to file briefs After SHHS filed various documents, the Petitioner was directed to file a brief On December 21, 2021, the Court issued a show cause order as to why the amount The Court gave Mr. Plache until January 20, 2022 to respond by filing a brief as to Mr. Plache failed to file a response to the December 21, 2021 order or otherwise On January 28, 2022, the Court of Claims awarded Ms. Geschwindner $92,500 in During the time Mr. Plache was not communicating with the Court, Mr. Plache On March 8, 2022, Ms. Geschwindner contacted the Court regarding receipt of her

46. also was not communicating with his client. 45. evidence relating to those claims. future pain and suffering or lost wages because Mr. Plache did not submit damages for past pain and suffering. The award did not include an award for 44. communicate with the Court. 43. damages. 42. of compensation proposed by SHHS should not be awarded. 41. brief. addressing those documents by December 20, 2021. Mr. Plache did not file a 40. on the issue of damages. Mr. Plache did not file a brief. 39. conference. Mr. Plache did not contact chambers as directed. chambers within seven calendar days to provide their availability for a status 38. 37. had not heard back from Mr. Plache. 36. communication with the Court and opposing counsel. 35. to file another status report instead of briefs. 34. that he would file updated medical records and other documentation. p. 7 On June 13, 2022, Ms. Geschwindner again contacted the Court advising that she Ms. Geschwindner filed a grievance against Mr. Plache on June 22, 2022. Ms. Geschwindner retained new counsel to attempt to reopen the case at the Court On October 11, 2022, the Court vacated its decision awarding damages. In its Mr. Plache was suspended from practice before the Court of Claims for failing to As stated above, Ms. Geschwindner filed a grievance with the ADO on June 22, After receiving the grievance, the ADO attempted to reach Mr. Plache by On August 2, 2022, the ADO wrote to Mr. Plache giving him an opportunity to On August 30, 2022, the grievance was docketed as a complaint and Mr. Plache Mr. Plache signed the certified mail receipt for the docketing letter on September The letter sent via first-class mail was not returned to the ADO.

57. 1, 2022, but he did not submit a mandatory response. 56. The docketing letter was sent to Mr. Plache via certified mail and first-class mail. was required to submit a mandatory response on or before September 13, 2022. 55. did not respond. provide a voluntary response to General Counsel by August 23, 2022. Mr. Plache 54. county commissioner. office, and left at the Carroll County Commissioner’s office, where he serves as a telephone. Mr. Plache did not return messages left at his home, which is also his 53. 2022. 52.

Failure to Respond To Requests for Information from the ADO

respond to its request for information. 51. deprived of that right due to the complete inaction of her lawyer.” opportunity to present her case. Vaccine Rule 3(b)(2). Petitioner has been order, the Court stated: “Ultimately, Petitioner has a right to a full and fair 50. of Claims. 49. 48. could not contact Mr. Plache. 47. check. p. 8 The matter was thereafter referred to Disciplinary Counsel for formal proceedings On October 12, 2022, undersigned counsel sent a letter to Mr. Plache asking him Mr. Plache did not contact the ADO to schedule a time to meet with disciplinary Mr. Plache did not respond to disciplinary counsel’s requests for documents and On November 18, 2022, undersigned counsel sent another letter to Mr. Plache On December 6, 2022, undersigned counsel called Mr. Plache at his cell phone On December 8, 2022, undersigned counsel sent Mr. Plache an email to forwarding the previously mailed letters. The On March 21, 2022, the ADO issued a Notice of Charges against Mr. Plache. The Mr. Plache contacted undersigned counsel on April 20, 2023, prior to the deadline

for the Answer to the Notice of Charges to be filed. 66. Email. Notice of Charges was sent to Mr. Plache via Certified Mail, First Class Mail and 65.

Notice of Charges Issued and Subsequent Cooperation

that the Notice of Charges was being prepared. email also advised Mr. Plache of the attempt to leave a voice message and advised matthew.plache@plachelaw.com 64. not be left. number of (603) 630-9422. The voicemail box was full so a voice message could 63. December 2, 2022. schedule a meeting. It was requested that Mr. Plache respond to these requests by again requesting a complete copy of the Geschwindner file and requesting to 62. information by the deadline of October 31, 2022. 61. counsel. 60. Geschwindner no later than October 31, 2022. letter further requested that Mr. Plache produce his complete file regarding Ms. to call the office no later than October 26, 2022 to schedule a time to meet. The 59. on October 11, 2022. 58. p. 9 Mr. Plache admitted that he was aware of the ADO’s various communications On April 28, 2023, undersigned counsel and Mr. Cornell met with Mr. Plache at Mr. Plache has since entered into a Monitoring Agreement on May 10, 2023 with Mr. Plache provided an “Affidavit” dated May 5, 2023 to the ADO stating that he On May 5, 2023, Mr. Plache also provided to the ADO a copy of a September 7, Mr. Plache completed all work under his consulting agreement with the Planning Mr. Plache has no current clients.

73. with the Planning Committee and the Planning Committee was dissolved. Communications District, Mr. Plache was released from his consulting agreement first Communications District in New Hampshire. With the establishment of the deployment of high-speed broadband to all citizens in Carroll County. It is the County Communications District, which is a municipal entity existing to facilitate Committee by March 2023. The work resulted in the creation of the Carroll 72. concluded in March 2023. Hampshire. All services Mr. Plache provided to the Planning Committee admitted to practice in the State of Maryland but was not admitted in New Committee”). The Services Agreement disclosed that Mr. Plache was an attorney Carroll County Communications District Planning Committee (“Planning 2023 Consulting Services Agreement which Mr. Plache had entered into with the 71. is not “currently engaged in the practice of law in New Hampshire or elsewhere.” 70. Plache has begun treatment for his arthritis, with a hip replacement scheduled. Plache has recognized the failures in the underlying matter. Additionally Mr. NH LAP and has begun treatment for his depression. With the treatment, Mr. 69. Hampshire Lawyers Assistance Program (“NH LAP”). pain and prevented regular sleep. Mr. Plache agreed to a referral to the New ailments, including severe arthritis in his hip joint and neck which caused constant suffering for several years from undiagnosed depression as well as some physical the ADO. Mr. Plache acknowledged during the meeting that he had been 68. over several months and stated that he was embarrassed about his conduct. 67. p. 10 The parties agree that Mr. Plache’s conduct in this case involves violations of the Allegations set forth above are incorporated by reference. Rule 1.1 states as follows: A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Legal competence requires at a minimum: Mr. Plache owed a duty to Ms. Geschwindner to provide competent Mr. Plache failed to pay attention to details and schedules necessary to assure that

interests. Ms. Geschwindner’s matter was undertaken with no avoidable harm to her 78. representation. 77.

competent representation. lawyer who possesses the skill and knowledge required to assure manner including, where appropriate, associating with another (4) undertake actions on the client's behalf in a timely and effective legal problems of the client; and (3) develop a strategy, in consultation with the client, for solving the identify alternative legal responses; (2) formulate the material issues raised, determine applicable law and and from other relevant sources; (1) gather sufficient facts regarding the client’s problem from the client, (c) In the performance of client service, a lawyer shall at a minimum: interest. undertaken is completed with no avoidable harm to the client’s (5) attention to details and schedules necessary to assure that the matter (4) proper preparation; and those areas to the client’s attention; (3) identification of areas beyond the lawyer’s competence and bringing (2) performance of the techniques of practice with skill; practices; (1) specific knowledge about the fields of law in which the lawyer (b) (a)

76. 75.

New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows: 74.

represent Ms. Geschwindner in violation of Rule 1.3. 85. cause order. d) c) updates and other information to the Court. b) documentation in a timely manner. a) 84. representing Ms. Geschwindner in her matter. 83.

representing a client. A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in

82. 81.

competently represent Ms. Geschwindner in violation of Rule 1.1. 80. cause order. d) c) updates and other information to the Court. b) documentation in a timely manner. a) effective manner when he: 79. p. 12 Allegations set forth above are incorporated by reference. Rule 1.4 states as follows: Mr. Plache had a duty to keep Ms. Geschwindner reasonably informed as to the Mr. Plache breached his duty to Ms. Geschwindner by failing to communicate As such, there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Plache failed to Allegations set forth above are incorporated by reference. Rule 3.4 states as follows:

unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material (a) unlawfully obstruct another party' s access to evidence or A lawyer shall not:

92. 91.

Rule 3.4: Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

communicate with Ms. Geschwindner in violation of Rule 1.4. 90. with her regarding the status of the matter before the Court of Claims. 89. status of her matter. 88.

regarding the representation. reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions alternative courses of action to the extent that such explanation is (b) A lawyer shall explain the legal and practical aspects of a matter and other law. assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or lawyer’s conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects (5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the (4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and matter. (3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the client's objectives are to be accomplished; (2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the these Rules; respect to which the client's informed consent is required by (1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with (a) A lawyer shall:

87. 86.

e) chambers to schedule a status conference. d) c) for status reports. b) EMG. a) including but not limited to:

94. 93.

105.

to cooperate with the ADO’s investigation in violation of Rule 8.1. 104. a complete copy of his file. 103. file in this matter. 102. docketing letter. 101. as requested in the docketing letter. 100. 99.

authority. (c) fail to attend a hearing when ordered to do so by a disciplinary disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6; or disciplinary authority, except that this Rule does not require respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to (b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known (a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not: An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar

98. 97.

Rule 8.1: Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters

3.4(c). 96. December 21, 2021 show cause order. 95. p. 15 The Attorney Discipline Office and Mr. Plache jointly agree that a one-year Both case law and the American Bar Association’s (2005) (“The purpose of the Court’s disciplinary power is “protecting the public, Although the Court has not adopted the Standards Standards set forth a four part analysis for (quoting Douglas’ Standards § 3.0. The first three parts of the analysis create the framework for characterizing the See Conner’s Case See id. (stating that “[a]fter determining the

on the ultimate sanction”). sanction, [the Court] consider[s] the effect of any aggravating or mitigating factors they affect the baseline sanction. the analysis: the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors, and whether baseline sanction is determined, the Court then looks to the fourth and final part of respondent’s misconduct and identify the appropriate sanction”). Once the 303 (stating that “[i]n applying these factors, the first step is to categorize the misconduct and determining a baseline sanction., 158 N.H. at 110. Case, 156 N.H. 613, 621 (2007)); and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors.” Id. mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; courts to consider in imposing sanctions: “(a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer’s Conner’s Case, 158 N.H. at 303. The 109., it looks to them for guidance. misconduct.” Coffey’s Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005). N.H. 299, 303 (2009). “The sanction…must take into account the severity of the profession, and preventing similar conduct in the future.” Conner’s Case, 158 maintaining public confidence in the bar, preserving the integrity of the legal 108. Lawyer Sanctions Standards”) support this sanction. 107. Standards for Imposing the purposes of attorney discipline. suspension is the appropriate sanction in this matter. This sanction would serve 106.

Mr. Plache’s conduct, as described herein, violated N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). p. 16 In the case of multiple charges of misconduct, the Standards recommend that the Richmond’s Case Under the first prong of the analysis, Mr. Plache violated duties of diligence and See § § 4.4, 4.5, 5.1, 6.2 and 7.0. With respect to Mr. Plache’s mental state under the second prong of the sanction define “knowledge” as the “conscious awareness of the nature or The third prong of the sanction analysis requires an assessment of the actual or Mr. Plache’s conduct caused injury to Ms. Geschwindner. First, Mr. Plache’s

suffering or lost wages because Mr. Plache did not submit evidence relating to past pain and suffering, the award did not include an award for future pain and Second, while Ms. Geschwindner’s original award was for $92,500 in damages for actions significantly delayed the resolution of her matter before the vaccine court. 115. potential injury caused by Mr. Plache’s misconduct. 114. Plache also knew that the ADO was seeking his cooperation with the matter. had ordered him to submit certain information and he had not done the work. Mr. could potentially have hindered his judgment.”). Mr. Plache knew that the Court the volitional nature of the respondent’s acts, and not the external pressures that 413 (2009) (discussing “knowing” misconduct and stating “[w]hat is relevant ... is (“Definitions”). See also In Re Wyatt’s Case, 159 N.H. 285, 307, 982 A.2d 396, purpose to accomplish a particular result.” ABA Standards, Sec. III attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious objective or Standards analysis, the parties agree that Mr. Plache’s mental state was knowing. The ABA 113. Standards respond to lawful demands for information from a disciplinary authority. violated the duty to maintain the integrity of the profession by his failure to duties owed to the legal system to comply with Court orders. Mr. Plache also competence that he owed to his client, Ms. Geschwindner. Mr. Plache violated 112. (citing, 152 N.H. 155, 160 (2005)). generally should be greater than the sanction for the most serious misconduct.” Id. serious instance of misconduct among a number of violations; it might well be and sanction imposed “should at least be consistent with the sanction for the most 111. p. 17 Ms. Geschwindner suffered injury due to the delay in the ligation of her matter. The parties agree that the baseline sanction in this matter is a suspension. See §§ 4.42, 4.52, 6.22, 7.2. Mr. Plache’s Rule 1.3 and 1.4 violations implicate Section 4.4 of the Disbarment is generally appropriate when: a lawyer abandons the practice and causes serious or potentially a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect with respect to client Suspension is generally appropriate when: a lawyer knowingly fails to perform services for a client and a lawyer engages in a pattern of neglect and causes injury

or potential injury to a client. (b) causes injury or potential injury to a client, or (a)

4.42

client. matters and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a (c) causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client; or (b) serious injury to a client; or (a)

4.41 promptness in representing a client: appropriate in cases involving a failure to act with reasonable diligence and factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the That Section provides: 118. Standards. Standards 117. lost confidence in attorneys as a result of Mr. Plache’s inaction on her matter. Mr. Plache caused injury to the reputation of attorneys in that Ms. Geschwindner 116.

deprived of that right due to the complete inaction of her lawyer. present her case. Vaccine Rule 3(b)(2). Petitioner has been Ultimately, Petitioner has a right to a full and fair opportunity to stated: 2022, the Court vacated its decision awarding damages. In its order, the Court represent her with respect to her case and the matter was reopened. On October 11, those claims. Third, Ms. Geschwindner had to retain subsequent counsel to p. 18 [Public Censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer is [Reprimand] is generally appropriate when a lawyer is negligent and (emphasis Mr. Plache’s conduct in this matter, when considered under 4.42, would Mr. Plache’s Rule 1.1 violation implicates Section 4.5 of the Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer’s course of Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an [Public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer: demonstrates failure to understand relevant legal doctrines or is negligent in determining whether he or she is competent to [Reprimand] is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an The ABA Standards uses the terms “admonition” and “reprimand.” The term “admonition,” as ABA Standards

“reprimand,” as used in the ABA Standards, is analogous to a public censure in New Hampshire. used in the, is analogous to a reprimand in New Hampshire. The term 1

potential injury to a client. (emphasis added). competent to handle a legal matter, and causes little or no actual or isolated instance of negligence in determining whether he or she is 4.54 client. handle a legal matter and causes injury or potential injury to a (b) procedures and causes injury or potential injury to a client; or (a) 4.53 competent, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. area of practice in which the lawyer knows he or she is not 4.52 causes injury or potential injury to a client. fundamental legal doctrines or procedures, and the lawyer’s conduct conduct demonstrates that the lawyer does not understand the most 4.51 to a client: appropriate in cases involving failure to provide competent representation factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the Section provides:

120. Standards. That call for a baseline sanction of a suspension. 119. Standard

added). causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client. does not act with reasonable diligence in representing a client, and 4.44 a client, and causes injury or potential injury to a client. negligent and does not act with reasonable diligence in representing 4.43 1 p. 19 Mr. Plache’s conduct in this matter, when considered under 4.52, would Mr. Plache’s Rule 3.4 violation implicates Section 6.2 of the Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that p. 18 [Public Censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently [Reprimand] is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an Mr. Plache’s conduct in this matter, when considered under 6.22, would Mr. Plache’s Rule 8.1 violation implicates Section 7.1 of the

the public, or the legal system. another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client, professional with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a 7.1 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly Section, in relevant part, provides:

124. Standards. That call for a baseline sanction of a suspension. 123. Standard

proceeding. (emphasis added). causes little or no actual or potential interference with a legal rule, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or isolated instance of negligence in complying with a court order or 6.24 potential interference with a legal proceeding. potential injury to a client or other party, or causes interference or fails to comply with a court order or rule, and causes injury or 6.23 potential interference with a legal proceeding. potential injury to a client or a party, or causes interference or he or she is violating a court order or rule, and causes injury or 6.22 interference with a legal proceeding. serious injury to a party or causes serious or potentially serious the lawyer or another, and causes serious injury or potentially violates a court order or rule with the intent to obtain a benefit for 6.21 obligation exists: tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid meritorious claim, or failure to obey any obligation under the rules of a appropriate in cases involving failure to expedite litigation or bring a factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application of the Section provides:

122. Standards. That call for a baseline sanction of suspension. 121. Standard p. 19 p. 20 Mr. Plache’s conduct in this matter, when considered under 7.2, would The baseline sanction must be considered in light of any aggravating and E.g. Conner’s Case In this case, there are two aggravating factors: Mr. Plache’s substantial experience See Standards § 9.22. Mitigating factors include absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a See Standards § 9.32. Mr. Plache has also received other penalties The parties agree that given the baseline sanction, and consideration of both

aggravating and mitigating circumstances, neither an upward nor downward 129. counsel in late April 2023. been cooperative with the ADO and NHLAP since he contacted undersigned the ADO for many months with respect to this matter. However, Mr. Plache has Grievance Commission and U.S. Court of Claims. Mr. Plache failed to respond to through discipline in the form of an indefinite suspension from the Maryland agreement. through a New Hampshire Lawyer’s Assistance (“NHLAP”) monitoring dishonest motive, remorse, and personal problems that are now being addressed 128. several months. in the practice of law and Mr. Plache’s lack of cooperation with the ADO for 127. mitigating factors.,, 158 N.H. at 303. 126. call for a baseline sanction of a suspension. 125. Standard

system. (Emphasis added.) no actual or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal conduct violates a duty owed as a professional, and causes little or isolated instance of negligence in determining whether the lawyer’s 7.4 [Reprimand] is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an public or the legal system. professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a 7.3 [Public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently the legal system. and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty as a professional 7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly p. 21 The New Hampshire Supreme Court and the Professional Conduct Committee has #09-032, PCC Larkowich, Peter advs. Attorney Discipline Office Larkowich, Peter advs. Brenda L. McKelvey A two-year suspension is proportionate to other cases involving similar Rule Consider that long-term suspensions have been imposed for a lack of cooperation, Coddington’s Case 155 N.H. 66 (2007). Like Mr. The Supreme Court suspended Mr. Id The Court in Coddington reduced the initially-imposed sanction of disbarment to Id. at 67. Thus, even though Mr. Coddington Mr. Coddington violated Rule 1.15 by failing to maintain proper records and by commingling Id

undertaken. funds, essentially determining that his underlying conduct was not egregious or knowingly clients “negligible” and further found that Mr. Coddington did not knowingly convert client Mr. Coddington owed one client only $39.60.. at 68-69. The Court found this actual loss to his earned funds with client funds. However, after an audit by the ADO, it was determined that 2

and made a plea for mitigation. belatedly) appeared, filed a motion for reconsideration of the disbarment order, the two-year suspension because Mr. Coddington ultimately (though extremely 133. Coddington for two years.. at 72. failure to cooperate, were also present. 2 information from the ADO. Other “underlying” rule violations, in addition to the Plache, Mr. Coddington violated Rule 8.1(b) by failing to respond to requests for involved a Respondent’s failure to cooperate. with lesser underlying conduct. For example, squarely 132. of time, makes a suspension appropriate in this case. violations. Mr. Plache’s lack of cooperation with the ADO, over a lengthy period 131. 2012)(imposing a public censure on a Massachusetts attorney.) 055 and, #10-061, PCC (May 12, Massachusetts attorney);, #10- (May 22, 2012)(imposing six month suspension stayed for one year on a See e.g. Pasquina, Edward F. Jr. advs. Attorney Discipline Office previously imposed discipline on lawyers that are not licensed in New Hampshire. 130.

serves the purposes of discipline and is an appropriate sanction in this case. departure from the baseline sanction is appropriate. As such, a one-year suspension p. 22 Standards § 6.22 (baseline suspension for knowingly violating court Id In the Matter of Anna M. Roulston, Esq. - #13-027 (August 7, 2015), a In the Matter of James E. Michalik, Esquire #17-049 (December 14, This sanction is also proportional to discipline imposed in other cases involving See e.g. In the - #19-003 (October 11, 2022) (Six-Month Santuccio,

stayed for one year for violations of Rules 1.1: Competence; 1.3: Diligence; 3.2: Danielle L. Richey advs. ADO, #13-043 (August 8, 2016) (six-month suspension of Rule 1.3: Diligence; 1.4: Communication and 8.4(a): Misconduct); Suspension with Requirement of Medical Fitness for Reinstatement for violations Sheridan, William C. advs. ADO Competence; 1.3: Diligence; 1.4: Communication; and 8.4(a): Misconduct); stayed for one year with mandatory conditions for violations of Rules 1.1: Matter of Carol L. Kunz, LD-2023-0007 (June 21, 2023) (one-year suspension where an attorney has cooperated with the disciplinary process. and stayed suspensions have frequently been issued for these Rule violations competence, diligence and communication violations. For example, suspensions 136. poorly on his fitness to serve as counsel and demands a sanction.” Charges, or any other communication sent by the ADO. That conduct reflects his obligation to respond to the Notice of Court Rule 42(XIV). The Committee noted that “Mr. Michalik chose to disregard Rules 8.1, 8.4(b) (violating a domestic violence restraining order) and Supreme 2018), the respondent, Mr. Michalik was suspended for two years for violations of Michalik, James E. advs. Attorney Discipline Office, 135., LD-2017-0017 (May 6, 2019); Charges and was not present at the hearing before the Hearing Panel. respond to requests from the ADO, did not file an Answer to the Notice of Rule 8.1(b), in addition to Rules 5.5, 8.4(b) and 8.4(c). Ms. Roulston did not two-year suspension was imposed for a respondent, Ms. Roulston, who violated Roulston, Anna M. advs. Attorney Discipline Office 134., LD-015-0011 (October 2, 2015); orders or rules and causing potential injury to a client or third party).. at 69. applying finally “cooperated,” the Supreme Court still saw fit to suspend him for two years, p. 23 #07-044 (May 29, 2009)(six-month Taking into consideration the four-part analysis recommended by the Standards The suspension shall be effective immediately after the date of the entry of a final Mr. Plache agrees that he will not accept any new retainers or engage as a lawyer Mr. Plache agrees to immediately begin the process of winding up and completing, Mr. Plache further agrees to complete the following within seven (7) days of the file a notice of withdrawal as of the effective date of the suspension with resign as of the effective date of the suspension all appointments as provide notice to all clients and to all wards, heirs, and beneficiaries that

Respondent has been suspended; that he is disqualified from acting as a c. caption and docket number of the proceedings, if any; place of residence of the wards, heirs, or beneficiaries, and the case wards, heirs, or beneficiaries pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) below, the fiduciary, attaching to the resignation a copy of the notices sent to the guardian, executor, administrator, trustee, attorney-in-fact, or other b. with a copy of the notices sent pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) below. every court, agency or tribunal before which a matter is pending, together a. issuance of a final order in this matter:

141. on behalf of any client, any and all matters which are currently pending, if any. 140. for any individual or entity in any new cases or legal matters of any nature. 139. order in this matter. 138.

suspension is appropriate. as well as the indefinite suspension in Maryland, the parties agree that a one-year the purposes of attorney discipline in New Hampshire, and case law in this state, 137., Rule 1.2(a): Scope of Representation; Rule 1.3(a): Diligence; and Rule 8.4(a). suspension stayed for two years for violations of Rule 1.1(a)-(c): Competence, White, Stephen A.S. advs. Elaina Roberts, Expediting Litigation; 3.4(c); Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel and 8.4(a)); provide notice to counsel for all parties (or, in the absence of counsel, the make available to all clients being represented in pending matters any refund any part of any fees paid in advance that have not been earned; and close every IOLTA, client, trust or other fiduciary account and properly All notices required by the above paragraph shall be served by certified mail, Mr. Plache agrees that within thirty (30) days after the entry of a final order, he a copy of each form of notice, the names and addresses of the clients,

return receipts and returned mail. Such names and addresses of clients the affidavit. Supplemental affidavits shall be filed covering subsequent were sent, and all return receipts or returned mail received up to the date of wards, heirs, beneficiaries, attorneys, courts and agencies to which notices a. of compliance shall be: stipulation and with the rules of professional conduct. Appended to the affidavit Rule 37(13) certifying that he has fully complied with the provisions of this shall file with the Supreme Court an affidavit in compliance with Supreme Court

143. return receipt requested, in a form approved by the Court. 142.

possession, custody or control. disburse or otherwise transfer all client and fiduciary funds in his/her g. f. urgency for obtaining the papers or other property; papers or other property to which they are entitled, calling attention to any e. of the suspension; consequence, is disqualified from acting as a lawyer after the effective date parties) in pending matters that Mr. Plache has been suspended and, as a d. of the case; elsewhere, calling attention to any urgency arising from the circumstances promptly to substitute another lawyer or fiduciary or to seek legal advice represented by co-counsel, the client, ward, heir, or beneficiary should act lawyer after the effective date of the suspension; and that, if not a schedule showing the location, title and account number of every bank a schedule describing the lawyer’s disposition of all client and fiduciary such proof of the proper distribution of such funds and the closing of such a list of all other state, federal and administrative jurisdictions to which the the residence or other street address where communications to the lawyer any and all bar registration cards issued to the lawyer by the bar Mr. Plache shall retain copies of all notices sent and shall maintain complete See Supreme Mr. Plache agrees that within thirty (30) days after the entry of a final order, he a copy of the affidavit of compliance required by paragraph 136 of this a list of all other state, federal and administrative jurisdictions to which Mr. the residence or other street address where communications to Mr. Plache

may thereafter be directed. c. Plache is admitted to practice; and b. stipulation; a. shall file with the clerk of the NH Supreme Court the following:

145. Court Rule 37(13)(e). records of the steps taken to comply with these notice requirements. 144.

association. g. may thereafter be directed; and f. lawyer is admitted to practice, e. checks and other instruments; accounts as has been requested by the bar counsel, including copies of d. the final order or thereafter; funds in the lawyer’s possession, custody or control as of the entry date of c. this order any client, trust or fiduciary funds; of every account in which the lawyer holds or held as of the entry date of account designated as an IOLTA, client, trust or other fiduciary account and b. lawyer or ordered by the court; shall remain confidential unless otherwise requested in writing by the p. 26 Mr. Plache agrees to comply with the New Hampshire Lawyers Assistance Mr. Plache must provide evidence of compliance with the Agreement should he Mr. Plache must also provide evidence of reinstatement to the Maryland Bar in Subject to the PCC’s approval of Mr. Plache’s Stipulation, Mr. Plache agrees to See Supreme Court Rule 37(19). His agreement to pay the Mr. Plache understands that this Stipulation represents a recommended Mr. Plache acknowledges that the admissions of misconduct and the proposed Mr. Plache understands that he has a right to obtain counsel regarding this

Stipulation and, that he is fully aware of the consequences of the Stipulation. 152. Stipulation coercion, or duress, or of any promises or inducements not set forth in the submitted; that he is not entering this Stipulation as a result of any threats, disposition contained in this Stipulation are freely, knowingly, and voluntarily 151. Stipulation pursuant to Rule 37A(III)(aa)(1). disposition, and that the PCC may accept, reject, or conditionally accept the 150.

Plache. costs incurred by the ADO is the subject of a separate agreement signed by Mr. disciplinary matter. pay the costs incurred by the ADO in the investigation and enforcement of this 149.

order to apply for admission to the New Hampshire Bar. 148. later seek admission to the New Hampshire Bar. 147. of May 10, 2025. hereto) which he entered into on May 10, 2023, with a projected completion date Program Health & Recovery Monitoring Agreement (“Agreement”) (attached 146.