This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Robert R. Bennett (2006)
respondent fails to file an answer, the allegations set forth in the notice of charges shall be
in the disciplinary process. This is therefore a default proceeding. \Vhere, as here,"the
ofthe hearing, but did not attend. Mr. Bennett provided notice that he would not be participating
Robert R. Bennett did not file an Answer to the Notice of Charges. Mr. Bennett received notice
Hearing Panel Report dated July 17,2006.
Law; Disciplinary Counsel's Memorandum on Sanction; Transcript of June 15,2006; and
Notice of Charges; Correspondence from Respondent; Proposed Findings of Fact and Rulings of
The Professional Conduct Committee thoroughly reviewed the record, including the following:
Darling were recused from t.he matter and were not present. David N. Page was not present.
Esquire, Thomas P. Connair, David N. Cole, Gretchen Rule Hamel. Gerald Daly and Richard
Chair, Toni M. Gray, James R. Martin, Reporter, Alan Cronheim, Esquire, Ellen L. Arnold,
matter. Members present were: Margaret H. Nelson, Esquire, Chair, Benette Pizzimenti, Vice
On August 15, 2006, the Professional Conduct Committee considered the above-referenced
Recommendation for Disbarment
Bennett, Robert R. advs. NH Judicial Council # 04-082
Alan J. Cronheim Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Thomas P. Connair * non attorney member David N. Cole David N. Page* Ellen L. Arnold James R. Martin Toni M. Gray, * Vice Chair 603-224-5828 + Fax 228-9511 Gretchen Rule Hamel Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Richard H. Darling* Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Park Street, Suite 304 Gerald A. Daley*
Professional Conduct Committee New Hampshire Supreme Court 4. From 1988 through 2002, Mr. Bennett was such a contract attorney.
State.
unable to provide representation. Such attorneys are known as"contract attorneys" for the
circumstances where the New Hampshire Public Defender Program is unavailable or
State in entering into contracts with attorneys to represent indigent defendants in
3. Pursuant to state law, the Judicial Council ("JC") is authorized to act on behalf of the
30,2004.
Judicial Council. Ms. Gardner filed her grievance against Mr. Bennett on or about June
2. The complainant is Nina C. Gardner, the Executive Director ofthe New Hampshire
New Hampshire 03263-3106.
New Hampshire 03038. Mr. Bennett's current address is 304 Clough Road, Pittsfield,
operated his law office as Law Offices of Robert R. Bennett, 42 Crystal Avenue, Derry,
admitted to practice in 1987. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Bennett
1. Mr. Bennett is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Mr. Bennett was
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
and convincing evidence:
The Professional Conduct Committee makes the following factual findings and rulings by clear
(III) (3) (A).
deemed to be admitted." Rules and Procedures of the Attorney Discipline System, Rule 37 A. Public Defender Program cannot accept the case.
11. The courts then appoint contract attorneys to represent indigent defendants where the
courts with a list of contract attorneys on an annual basis.
in this State that the attorney is under contract with the JC. Typically, the JC provides the
10. After securing a contract with an attorney, the JC notifies the district and superior courts
outlined these procedures.
every attorney's contract with the lC. Mr. Bennett's most recent contract with the JC
verifies his caseload. The JC's practices and procedures in this regard are outlined in
9. What follows is a description of how the JC determines a contract attorney's stipend and
JC Policies and Procedures re: Payment of Contract Attorney
based on what the JC anticipated that attorney's caseload would be.
8. As explained in more detail below, the JC determined an attorney's monthly stipend
felony, such as an aggravated felonious sexual assault, was worth $2,075.00.
one unit ($250.00), while a typical felony was worth 2.75 units ($687.50). A more serious
determined by the type of crime charged. For instance, a typical misdemeanor was worth
the relevant time, each unit was worth $250.00 and the unit value of a case was
7. Under his contract, Mr. Bennett was required annually to perform 300 "units" of work. At
monthly stipend of $6,250.00, which totaled $75,000.00 per year.
6. Pursuant to Mr. Bennett's most recent contract with the JC, Mr. Bennett was paid a
30,2002.
5. Mr. Bennett's most recent contract with the JC was effective July 1,2001, through June 19. In cases where the felony begins in district court and the defendant is later indicted on
even though the charge is resolved in district court as a misdemeanor.
court. In such instance, a contract attorney is paid tor the unit value of a feiony ($687.50)
seek an indictment. The felony may be reduced to a misdemeanor and resolved in district
in district rather than superior court. In certain felony cases, a prosecutor may elect not to
18. In felony cases where a defendant has been charged but not yet indicted, the case begins
simply deducts that one-half unit of value from the attorney's next stipend.
attorney to reimburse the JC under those circumstances, as a practical matter, the JC
receives only one-half the unit value of that case. Again, while the contract requires the
17. If the attorney withdraws from a case as a result of a conflict of interest, the attorney
withdrawal is the result of a conflict of interest.
disposition; the attorney receives credit for the full unit value except in cases where his
16. If the attorney is assigned a case but later withdraws before the case reaches a final
the overpayment amount from the attorney's stipend for the next pay period.
15. As a practical matter, rather than requiring cash reimbursements, the JC simply deducts
after receiving'WTitten notice from the JC that reimbursement is due.
attorney is required at the end of his contract term to reimburse the JC within 60 days
14. If the JC has paid the attorney an amount that exceeds the unit value of his services, the
paperwork to the JC so it can track the units that the attorney is earning.
13. Each month, the contract attorney is required to submit copies of his appointment
forwards the"appointment" paperwork to the assigned contract attorney.
12. Once the court decides to assign a particular case to a contract attorney, the court then CCCs to the JC within 30 days offinal disposition of the case.
record of the attorney's time spent on the case. An attorney is required to submit his
how every charge is finally resolved in every case handled by the attorney, as well as a
25. The CCC, on the other hand, is submitted at the end of a case and contains a record of
the corresponding appointment paperwork.
list of the attorney's appointments for the month, and the attorney attaches to the CMR
24. An attorney's CMR is essentially a case list for a particular month. The CMR contains a
to document his role in the case from appointment to final disposition.
the end of a case, a contract attorney is required to submit a"Closed Case Card" ("CCC")
("CMR") to inform the JC of appointments accepted during that month. Additionally, at
23. On a monthly basis, contract attorneys are required to submit"Contract Monthly Reports"
paperwork at the beginning and end of each case.
22. The JC requires its contract attorneys to account for their pre-paid unit credits by filing
court levels, the attorney would be double-billing the JC for that felony case.
21. Were the attorney to seek unit credit for the felony case at both the district and superior
Je for that same felony at the district COUi1: leveL
attorney would have already received the unit credit and, therefore, full payment from the
does not receive any further unit credit from the superior court appointment. Such
20. In such instance, the contract attorney who handled the felony at the district court level
court level.
appoints the same contract attorney who handled the felony (pre-indictment) at the district
that same felony, the case begins anew in superior court and the superior court typically as a result, experiencing difficulty accounting for Mr. Bennett's performance under his
32. Additionally, Mr. Bennett had failed to file CCCs in hundreds of his cases. The JC was,
contract and monthly stipend.
Mr. Bennett began to accept fewer cases on a monthly basis than contemplated by his
31. During the contract period for Mr. Bennett's 2002 contract (July 1,2001 -June 30, 2002),
Mr. Bennett was under contract with the JC.
30. The State paid contract attorneys in the manner described above for the entire time that
Mr. Bennett's Conduct as a Contract Attorney
disposed of in superior court.
double-bills for a felony that was originally brought in district court but is finally
'" .;.,.; '" identify cases. the JC would not readilv be able to identify situations where an attornev
29. Because the district and superior courts typically utilize different docket numbers to
paperwork to the JC since he has already been fully compensated for that case.
paperwork for that same felony, the attorney would not submit the superior court
28. However, if that defendant is later indicted and the superior court issues appointment
($687.50) for that felony case at that time.
of his CMR that month, thereby allowing the JC to credit him for the full felony unit
attorney would submit to the JC the district court felony appointment paperwork as part
27. Where an attorney represents a defendant on a pre-indictment felony in district court, the
reimbursement owed.
26. The JC utilizes the CMRs and CCGs to verify the units paid and to determine ($3,120.00 rather than the usual monthly payment of $6,250.00).
Gardner. Reluctantly, Ms. Gardner agreed to forward to Mr. Bennett a partial payment
39. Ms. Reilly brought Mr. Bennett's request for continued payments to the attention of Ms.
"suspected Leukemia."
taken fewer cases was because he was having health problems, and that his doctor
owed to the JC at that point. Mr. Bennett further explained that one of the reasons he had
so that he could keep his business running, take more cases, and pay down the balance
38. Mr. Bennett responded to Ms. Reilly's concerns by asking that stipend payments continue
that he fulfill his CCC requirements.
37. As of the date of this telephone call, Mr. Bennett was on notice that the JC was requesting
requested that he bring his CCCs up-to-date.
respect to his non-compliance with the requirement that he file CCCs in all his cases and
his monthly stipend and his unit performance. She also told him of the JC's concerns with
the CCC, and informed Mr. Bep..nett of the JC's concerns regarding the disparity between
36. During that telephone call, Ms. Gardner had many conversations regarding the filing of
telephoned Mr. Bennett to inform him of the JC's decision.
35. To that end, in January 2002, Susan M. Reilly, Administrative Assistant to Ms. Gardner,
34. In January 2002, the JC decided to terminate Mr. Bennett's monthly stipend.
$14,900.00.
Bennett's CMR for January 2002, the JC had overpaid Mr. Bennett by an amount equal to
33. Mr. Bennett's monthly stipend began to exceed his monthly unit performance. As of Mr.
contract. 48. The JC discovered at least nine instances where, as a result of Mr. Bennett's double-
superior court.
for any felony cases that originated in district court but ultimately were resolved in
47. The JC reviewed Mr. Bennett's CMRs to determine ifhe had engaged in double-billing
total amount Mr. Bennett owes the JC.
46. Mr. Bennett is aware that, by failing to submit his CCCs, the JC is unable to calculate the
withdrew due to a conflict of interest.
unable to determine exactly how much Mr. Bennett owes the JC for cases from which he
45. To date, Mr. Bennett owes the JC a total of289 CCCs. Without those CCCs, the JC is
his last action on the case, and to notify the JC in advance of destroying any client files.
he was required to maintain JC client files for a minimum of three years from the date of
44. Mr. Bennett destroyed these files despite his awareness that, pursuant to his JC contract,
requesting that his CCCs be brought up-to-date.
43. Mr. Bennett destroyed these files despite his awareness that the JC was actively
Mr. Bennett destroyed all of his JC client files from the years 2000 through 2002.
42. At some point after Mr. Bennett's January 2002 telephone conversation \vith Ms. Reilly,
conflict of interest and for which Mr. Bennett would therefore owe the JC reimbursement.
determine the number of cases from which Mr. Bennett had withdrawn as a result of a
Bennett had fallen behind in submitting his CCCs. Without his CCCs, the JC could not
41. The JC could not calculate the exact overpayment amount at that time because Mr.
and promises about keeping his business running and reimbursing the JC.
40. Ms. Gardner made this partial payment in reliance upon Mr. Bennett's representations JC's overpayment to Mr. Bennett as a result ofthese nine cases totals $8,962.50.
51. As illustrated above, Mr. Bennett double-billed the JC for these nine felony cases. The
9. Michael Carlson 11/16/01-12/15/01 1/16/02-2/15/02 $ 687.50
8. Douglas Johnson 6/16/01-6/30/01 2/15/02-8/15/02 $2,075.00
7. Lynne Bell 11116/00-12/15/00 7/1/01-7/15/01 $ 687.50
6. John Ellsey 10/16/00-11115/00 12/16/00-1/15/01 $ 687.50
5. Thomas Bergen 5/16/00-6/15/00 10/16/00-11/15/00 $ 687.50
4. Curt Wilson 10/16/99-11/15/99 2/16/00- 3/15/00 $ 687.50
3. Robert Scarborough 7/1199-7/15/99 1116/00-2/15/00 $ 687.50
2. William Digiacomo 2/16/99-3/15/99 9/16/99-10/15/99 $ 687.50
1. Ralph Baker 10/16/98-11/15/98 7/16/99-8/15/99 $2,075.00
Defendant's N arne District Court CMR Superior Court CMR Overpaid
felony as a superior court appointment.
district court appointment, and the date of~fr. Bennett's CMR which listed the same
the Jc. The chart contains the case name, the date of Mr. Bennett's CMR which listed the
50. The chart below contains a list of these nine cases for which Mr. Bennett double-billed
for the J C to detect.
instances discussed here involved submissions that, because of their timing, were difficult
49. There were several other examples ofMr. Bennett double-billing the JC, but the nine
submissions, the JC had paid Mr. Bennett twice for the same felony case. 59. In both cases, Disciplinary Counsel included in the stipulations a reference to Mr.
matters involved misconduct occurring during 2000 and 2001.
had since placed his law license on"inactive status" as a resuit. The two stipuiated
2004, Mr. Bennett stated that he had been in treatment for Leukemia for five years and
58. Specifically, during a telephone conversation with Disciplinary Counsel on March 5,
with and was receiving treatment for Leukemia.
claimed by way of mitigation that, during the relevant time-frame, he had been diagnosed
57. Mr. Bennett did not deny the material allegations in the two stipulated matters, but he
on several occasions.
56. During Disciplinary Counsel's investigation of these matters, she spoke with Mr. Bennett
stipulation. Each resulted in a Reprimand, both dated July 6, 2004.
55. The two remaining complaints (docket numbers 00-N-112 and 01-027) were resolved by
locate the complainants (docket numbers 01-024, 01-052, 02-006).
54. Of these five complaints, three were dismissed due to Disciplinary Counsel's inability to
complaints were 00-N-112, 01-024, 01-027, 01-052, and 02-006.
different clients of l'vfr. Bennett. The docket numbers of these professional conduct
complaints against Mr. Bennett. The five complaints had been filed separately by five
53. In early 2004, Disciplinary Counsel, began investigating five unrelated pending
Resolution of Mr. Bennett's Unrelated Attorney Discipline Matters in 2004
Professional Conduct Committee complaint.
52. The JC discovered these nine instances of double-billing after Ms. Gardner filed her dilatory behavior toward the JC as due, in large part, to his having been diagnosed and
66. With Disciplinary Counsel, Mr. Bennett was more specific. Mr. Bennett explained his
conduct toward the JC as due, in large part, to his health problems.
65. During Mr. Bennett's meeting with Ms. DeVito, Mr. Bennett explained his dilatory
with Mr. Bennett to discuss the case.
Bennett to discuss the case. Subsequently, on April 10, 2006, Disciplinary Counsel met
64. First, on January 5, 2006, Janet F. DeVito, Assistant General Counsel, met with Mr.
occasions.
complaint in 2005-06, Mr. Bennett came to the ADO for an interview on two separate
63. During the Attorney Discipline Office's ("ADO") investigation of Ms. Gardner's
The Attorney Discipline Office's Investigation in 2005-06 of Ms. Gardner's Complaint
currently on inactive status for medical reasons."
62. In the end, the stipulations both contained the following sentence:"Mr. Bel1..nett is
diagnosis to be widely known.
condition." Ivlr. Bennett explained to Disciplinary Counsel that he did not want his cancer
"cancer" from the documents and substitute something more generic, like"medical
61. Mr. Bennett requested that Disciplinary Counsel remove the specific reference to
Mr. Bennett's diagnosis and ongoing"cancer" treatment.
60. Disciplinary Counsel's first draft of both stipulations had contained a specific reference to
to consider in determining the appropriate sanction.
Bennett's medical condition as one of the factors for the Professional Conduct Committee both about having cancer and about her purported destruction of his case files.
never destroyed any of his files. Ms. Bennett was shocked to learn that Mr. Bennett had lied
diagnosed with Diabetes. Ms. Bennett further informed Disciplinary Counsel that she had
for Leukemia, or any other type of cancer. Ms. Bennett indicated that Mr. Bennett had been
72. Ms. Bennett informed Disciplinary Counsel that Mr. Bennett was never diagnosed or treated
that date, Ms. Bennett telephoned Disciplinary Counsel.
with the JC, Ms. Bennett became aware ofMr. Bennett's predicament with the JC. On
71. On Apri120, 2006, as a result of a newspaper article about Mr. Bennett's related litigation
would not provide her telephone number.
information. Mr. Bennett explained that she had recently moved to Nevada, and that he
70. Disciplinary Counsel requested that Mr. Bennett provide her with Ms. Bennett's contact
Ms. DeVito that he would have Ms. Ben_nett contact Ms. DeVito. That did not occur.
69. During its investigation, the ADO was unable to locate Ms. Bennett. Mr. Bennett assured
N&'1cy P. Ben..'1ett, had destroyed the releva.nt files.
CCCs. Mr. Bennett informed both Ms. DeVito and Disciplinary Counsel that his wife,
account for his JC case load and otherwise comply with his obligation to file the required
68. Both Ms. DeVito and Disciplinary Counsel asked Mr. Bennett about his inability to
"in remission."
indicated that he needed to be cancer-free for another 18 months in order to be considered
December 2001 and had begun cancer treatments shortly thereafter. Mr. Bennett further
67. Specifically, Mr. Bennett explained to Disciplinary Counsel that he had been diagnosed in
treated for Leukemia during the relevant time-frame. violation of both N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1 (b) and 8.4(c).
79. Mr. Bennett's conduct in this regard constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a
deceit or misrepresentation.
78. Mr. Bennett's actions in this regard also constitute conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
disciplinary agency.
77. Mr. Bennett's conduct in this regard constitutes false statements of material fact to a
recommended resolution of complaint numbers 00-N-112 and 01-027.
76. These statements were material to the Disciplinary Counsel's investigation and
75. Mr. Bennett knew these statements were false at the time he made them.
cancer diagnosis and treatment were mitigating factors in his attorney discipline cases.
74. Mr. Bennett made these statements to induce Disciplinary Counsel to believe that his
complaint numbers 00-N-112 and 01-027.
been diagnosed and was being treated for Leukemia during the time-period relevant to
73. As explained more fully above, Mr. Bennett informed Disciplinary Counsel that he had
Rules 8.1(b) and 8.4(e): Deceit During Resolution in 2004 of Two Unrelated Complaints
violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:
Conduct Committee concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence that Robert R. Bennett
The above-listed facts having been found by clear and convincing evidence, the Professional
II. RULINGS OF LAW for the worse. Mr. Bennett told Ms. Reilly that his doctor"suspected Leukemia."
taken fewer cases than required under the JC contract because his health had taken a tum
88. As explained more fully above, Mr. Bennett told Ms. Reilly in January 2002 that he had
Rule SA(c): Deceit in January 2002 Conversation with Ms. Reilly
violation of both N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b) and 8.4(c).
87. Mr. Bennett's conduct in this regard constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a
deceit or misrepresentation.
86. Mr. Bennett's actions in this regard also constitute conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
disciplinary agency.
85. Mr. Bennett's conduct in this regard constitutes false statements of material fact to a
84. These statements were material to the ADO's investigation of Ms. Gardner's complaint.
83. Mr. Bennett knew these statements were false at the time he made them.
described in Ms. Gardner's complaint.
mitigating factors at play which would help explain his dilatory conduct toward the JC, as
82. Mr. Bennett made these statements to induce the ADO to believe that there were
required CCCs by blaming his wife for destroying his files.
81. Additionally, Mr. Bennett explained his inability to account for his case load and file the
complaint.
diagnosed and treated for Leukemia during the time-period relevant to Ms. Gardner's
80. As explained more fully above, Mr. Bennett informed the ADO that he had been
Rules S.l(b) and SA(e): Deceit During Investigation of Ms. Gardner's Complaint Reilly and without giving prior notice to the JC, Mr. Bennett destroyed his JC case files
97. At some point following Mr. Bennett's January 2002 telephone conversation with Ms.
the JC in advance ifhe intended to destroy his fEes under this provision of his contract.
a minimum of three years from the date of the last action taken on the case and to notify
96. Mr. Bennett was also aware that his JC contract required that he retain all JC case files for
CCC requirement and was demanding full compliance from him.
was placed on notice ofthe fact that the JC was troubled by his non-compliance with the
95. During Mr. Bennett's January 2002 telephone conversation with Ms. Reilly, Mr. Bennett
date for cases in which Mr. Bennett withdrew as a result of a conflict of interest.
94. The JC is therefore unable to determine the exact amount that Mr. Bennett owes the JC to
93. As detailed more fully above, Mr. Bennett has failed to submit 289 CCCs to the JC.
Rnle BA(c): Destruction of Case Files and Failure to Submit CCCs
violation ofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4( c).
92. Mr. Bennett's conduct in this regard constitutes clear and convincing evidence of a
or misrepresentation.
91. Mr. Bennett's actions in this regard constitute conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
would be more likely to recommend that Ms. Gardner approve further payment(s) to him.
with the Jc. Mr. Bennett intended further to evoke Ms. Reilly's sympathy so that she
explanation for his dilatory conduct with respect to fulfilling his contractual obligations
90. Mr. Bennett made these false statements to induce Ms. Reilly to believe that he had an
89. Mr. Bennett knew these statements were false at the time he made them. 105. Mr. Bennett's actions in this regard constitute conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
problem or attempt to reimburse the JC for the amount.
104. At no time subsequent to his double-billings did Mr. Bennett notify the JC ofthe
such a manner to induce the JC to believe he was entitled to the double credits.
credit. Nonetheless, in all nine instances, Mr. Bennett submitted paperwork to the JC in
103. Mr. Bennett was aware in all nine instances that he was not entitled to receive double
least $8,962.50.
102. As a result of his double-billing, the JC overpaid Mr. Bennett by an amount totaling at
cases.
101. As described in more detail above, Mr. Bennett double-billed the JC for at least nine
Rule SA(e): Double-billing
violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c).
100. Mr. Bennett's conduct in this regard constitutes clear and convincing evidence ofa
constitutes conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
99. Yli. Bennett's purposeful destruction ofms JC case files under these circumstances
money owed to the JC by Mr. Bennett.
interest. Evidence of such withdrawals would, of course, translate into a certain sum of
(for which he had filed no CCC) involved Mr. Bennett's withdrawal due to a conflict of
them, it would be difficult for the JC to determine how many of the outstanding 289 cases
98. Mr. Bennett destroyed his case files because he knew or should have known that, without
for the years 2000-2002. believe that his dilatory behavior was caused, at least in part, by serious health issues. Mr.
his duties to the JC. Mr. Bennett offered these false statements in order to induce the listener to
Discipline Office by falsely stating that he suffered from Leukemia, which caused him to neglect
doctor"suspected leukemia"; he acted intentionally when he deceived members ofthe Attorney
obligations to the New Hampshire Judicial Council ("JC") was due to health issues and that his
intentionally when he falsely informed Ms. Reilly that his failure to comply with his contractual
There can be no dispute about Mr. Bennett's mental state: Mr. Bennett acted
practice," the Standards make clear that disbarment is appropriate. See Standards § 5 .11 (b).
fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation that seriously adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to
honesty. Where, as here, such violation involves"intentional conduct involving dishonesty,
public, the legal system, and the legal profession to exhibit the highest standards of integrity and
:Mr. Bennett's misconduct can be characterized as a violation of his obligation to the
HI. DISCUSSION
Rules, there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence of a violation of Rule 8.4(a).
107. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence of violation of the aforementioned
Rule 8.4(a): General Rule
violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c).
106. Mr. Bennett's conduct in this regard constitutes clear and convincing evidence ofa
deceit or misrepresentation. statements ... during the disciplinary process." Id. § 9.22(f). Fifth, Mr. Bennett showed no
violations of Rule 8.4 c and violations of Rule 8.4 a. Fourth, Mr. Bennett submitted"false
Bennett has, in this proceeding, been found to have committed three vioiations of Rule 8.1 b; six
through its more recent investigation of Ms. Gardner's complaint. Id. § 9.22(c). Indeed, Mr.
Leukemia during the Attorney Discipline Office's 2004 investigation of him and continuing
Third, Mr. Bennett has exhibited a pattern of misconduct, beginning with his lies about
Second, Mr. Bennett acted with both a dishonest and selfish motive. See Standards § 9 .22(b).
as Exhibit 2); another in case #01-027 (a copy of this Reprimand is attached as Exhibit 3).
Bennett received two Reprimands, one for case #00-N-112 (a copy of this Reprimand is attached
received a Warning (a copy of the Warning is attached as Exhibit 1). On July 6, 2004, Mr.
has a prior disciplinary history. See Standards § 9.32(a). On April 22, 1998, Mr. Bennett
there are no mitigating factors. There are, however, many aggravating factors. First, Mr. Bennett
aggravating factors that justify either increasing or decreasing the baseline sanction. In this case,
The final step in the analysis is to consider whether there are mitigating and/or
Bennett's deceit.
legal profession. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction to redress the harm caused by Mr.
harm caused by Mr. Bennett's deceit, however, is the harm to the reputation and integrity of the
JC is quantifiable. The amount the JC overpaid Mr. Bennett totaled $8,962.50. The greatest
the injury caused by Mr. Bennett's misconduct. Mr. Bennett's misconduct in double-billing the
In addition to the duty violated and his mental state, the Standards require an analysis of
Office that his wife had destroyed his files.
Bennett also acted intentionally when he falsely informed members of the Attorney Discipline into account the severity ofthe misconduct." Id
similar conduct in the future." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted)."The sanction must take
maintain public confidence in the bar. Preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and prevent
513 (2005). Rather the purpose of the Court's disciplinary power"is to protect the public,
Lawyer discipline is not intended to be punishment, e.g., Coffey'S Case, 152 N.H. 503,
IV. SANCTION
the profession and protecting the public.
No sanction short of disbarment would adequately address the goals of preserving the integrity of
core of the justice system and render him unfit to be a licensed member of the legal profession.
Mr. Bennett's acts of deceit toward the JC and the Attorney Discipline Office strike at the
justifies disbarment." Nardi's Case, 142 N.H. 602,606 (1998) (quotations and brackets omitted).
negatively on the legal profession than a lie, attorney misconduct involving dishonesty ...
responsibility of truth, candor and honesty .... [B]ecause no single transgression reflects more
matter is disbarment. "The privilege of practicing law does not come without the concomitant
well as the purposes of attorney discipline in New Hampshire, the appropriate sanction in this
Taking into consideration both the multi-part analysis recommended by the Standards, as
Case, 152 N.H. at 717. Finally, Mr. Bennett has refused to participate in the disciplinary process.
remorse which is another aggravating factor. See Standards, supra, Section 9.22(g), Wolterbeek's participate in, or cooperate with, the disciplinary process, his prior disciplinary record, the
intentional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation, his refusal to
based on Mr. Bennett's multiple violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including
The Professional Conduct Committee concludes that the appropriate sanction called for
proceeding, and he has a long list of aggravating factors while presenting nothing in mitigation.
honesty. He has a history of misconduct, has committed multiple violations as found in this
public, the legal system, and the legal profession to exhibit the highest standards of integrity and
Mr. Bennett's misconduct is characterized by multiple violations of his obligation to the
_N.H. _ (2006), slip op. at 12.
circumstances in t the record." O'Meara's Case, 150 N.H. 157, 159 (2003). Richmond's Case,
Court] imposers] must take into account both the severity of the misconduct and any mitigating
710, 714 (2005). "each case is judged on its own facts and circumstances, and the sanction [the
aggravating or mitigating factors on the ultimate sanction." See Wolterbeeks' Case, 152 N.H.
appropriate sanction. After detemlining the sanction. [the Court] considers the effect of any
these factors, the first step is to categorize the respondent's misconduct and identify the
or mitigating factors." Standards Section 3.0; Coffey'S Case, 152 N.H. at 153."In applying
potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating
consider in imposing sanctions: (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the
Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. at 513. The Standards set forth a four part analysis for courts to
Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, it looks to them for guidance. File Robert R. Bennett Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:
Chair
Septembe~(, 2006
interests. Sup. Ct. R. 37(14) (2003).
further action as seems necessary to protect the interests of Mr. Bennett's clients as well as his
of this matte and that an attorney be appointed to inventory Mr. Bennett's cases and take such
Professional Conduct Committee for all costs associated with the investigation and prosecution
The Committee also recommends that Robert R. Bennett be ordered to reimburse the
seeking the disbarment of Robert R. Bennett.
hereby directs Disciplinary Counsel to file a Petition with the New Halnpshire Supreme Court
After consideration of the appropriate sanction, the Professional Conduct Committee
v. CONCLUSION
practice oflaw.
presence of aggravating factors and the absence of any mitigating factors, is disbarment from the