Thomas H. Trunzo Jr. (2024)

Thomas H. Trunzo, Jr. (via email) cc: Elizabeth M. Murphy, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel (via email)

DATED: September 23, 2024 /s/Caroline K. Leonard

Mitchell M. Simon, Esq. abstained from this vote. one year with mandatory conditions. The Committee also approved the agreement to pay costs. recommends to the Supreme Court that the Respondent have a one-year suspension stayed for conditions. Following review of the stipulation, the Committee voted to accept it and hereby as to facts, violations, and sanction: one-year suspension stayed for one year with mandatory On September 17, 2024, the Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the stipulation

*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 Robert R. Lucic, Esq.

support staff. times material to this proceeding, Mr. Trunzo was a solo practioner without Offices of Thomas H. Trunzo, Jr., PA, 797 NH Route 10, Orford, NH. At all 4. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Trunzo operated his law office as Law He is currently on inactive status for the Vermont Bar. 3. Mr. Trunzo was also admitted to practice law in Vermont on February 2, 1988. 1981. He is currently on inactive status for the Massachusetts Bar. 2. Mr. Trunzo was also admitted to practice law in Massachusetts on December 23, was admitted to practice in 1980. 1. Mr. Trunzo is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Mr. Trunzo

Attorney Discipline Office ("ADO") stipulate as follows: Respondent Thomas H. Trunzo, Jr., Esq., and the New Hampshire Supreme Court

February p. 3 28, 2023, March 27, 2023, and May 9, 2023. Supplements to the grievance were filed on December 30, 2022, February 18, 2023,

other things. the property for sale with a real estate agent and paid the property taxes, among Shambo and that he had taken steps to make the property more presentable, listed had been left in deplorable condition when it was vacated by Wayne and Wanda properly administer the Estate. In response, Mr. Trunzo argued that the property Motion to Remove Administrator which argued that Mr. Trunzo had failed to 1 p. 3 2. On October 11, 2017, the Court issued an order in response to Wayne Shambo's license to sell, Mr. Trunzo was unable to sell the property. Demands that was granted by the Court on July 26, 2017. Despite having a 11. On July 12, 2017, Mr. Trunzo filed a Motion & License to Sell Real Estate to Pay misappropriated personal property belonging to the decedent's Estate. Shambo ("Rickie"), and Floyd E. Jones, Jr., regarding alleged missing or 10. The Estate also had potential but likely disputed claims against Wayne, Rickie valued at $40,091. p. 4 38, for a total value of $147,591.38. the Estate consisted of real estate initially valued at $107,500 and bank accounts 9. Pursuant to the Inventory of Fiduciary filed by Mr. Trunzo on February 24, 2017, filing of a $170,000 bond with corporate sureties. 8. On July 8, 2016, Mr. Trunzo was appointed Special Administrator pending the May 2016 until the matter was finally resolved on August 14, 2023. 7. Ms. Shambo died on April 22, 2016. The Estate was pending with the Court from. Shambo ("Wayne").1 2016-ET-00254. Mr. Decato represented one of the heirs of the Estate, Wayne the 2nd Circuit Court-Probate Division-Haverhill (the "Court"), Case No. 315- Administrator of the Estate of Wanda Louise Shambo (the "Estate"), pending in 16, 2022. The grievance raises issues concerning Mr. Trunzo's role as Special 6. This matter arises from a grievance filed by R. Peter Decato, Esq. on December 3

accomplished. 2 By that date, only one task from the those ordered in the October 11, 2017 order was

were completed. 17. As of March 18, 2021, not all of the tasks ordered in the March 11, 2017 order Casualty"). bond against the bond company, The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company ("Ohio granted by Court order dated March 18, 2021. As a result, suit was brought on the administer the Estate. He later filed a second motion seeking the same, which was Fiduciary Bond citing Mr. Trunzo's failure as special administrator to fully 16. On May 29, 2020, Wayne Shambo filed a Request to Proceed Against the attract buyers. property was being marketed and the asking price was lowered to $59,000 to Shambo was incarcerated. Mr. Trunzo also stated that the Wanda Shambo to depose Wayne Shambo, but that such effort was hindered because Wayne given inconsistent statements regarding the items in the inventory, that he needed were being held by Wayne Shambo. Mr. Trunzo asserted that Wayne Shambo had Court explaining that he had been unable to locate certain items of inventory that 15. On September 19, 2019, Mr. Trunzo filed an Administrator's Further Report to the October 11, 2017 order.2 were to be imposed on Mr. Trunzo and ordered Mr. Trunzo to comply with the Court found that the Motion for Extension of Time was moot, that no sanctions Remove the Administrator filed by Mr. Decato on behalf of Wayne Shambo. The Extension of Time filed by Mr. Trunzo and Objection and Renewed Request to 1 p. 5 4. On July 11, 2018, the Court issued another order to address a Motion for firearms of the Estate, as well as the motor vehicles and other personal property. tasks within 90 days. The tasks were specific to the inventory and sale of the brothers, Ricki and Wayne." The Court ordered Mr. Trunzo to accomplish certain 1 p. 4 3. The Court noted that the Estate was "plagued by significant ill will between the 4

The only parties of record were the Court and the insurance company. County while he also represented Wayne Shambo, one of the heirs, in the Probate matter. other heirs. The suit was brought by Mr. Decato on behalf of the Judge of Grafton 3 No notice, joinder or other service was entered in Superior Court for Mr. Trunzo or the

Administrator upon approval of this settlement by the Grafton Special Administrator Thomas Trunzo will resign as Special (d) Without admission or finding of any liability or wrongdoing, Court; and approval of the settlement by the Grafton County Probate (c) Dismissal of the above-captioned action with prejudice upon indemnity claim as to Attorney Trunzo; captioned matter, reserving and not releasing the surety's Probate Court, No. 315-2016-ET-0025 p. 5 4 and the aboveissues concerning In re Wanda Shambo, Grafton County Insurance Company, as surety with respect to all claims and Administrator Thomas Trunzo and The Ohio Casualty (b) Entry of full discharge and release of both Special Grafton County Probate Court, No. 315-2016-ET-00254; Court in the estate action captioned, In re Wanda Shambo, (a) Approval of this settlement by the Grafton County Probate conditions: payment to be made only upon satisfaction of the following Hundred Dollars ($42,500.00) to the Estate of Wanda Shambo, said 1. Defendant will pay the total sum of Forty-Two Thousand Five-

and Mr. Decato resulted in a settlement agreement, which set forth as follows: deliberations in reaching the settlement. The mediation between Ohio Casualty Mr. Trunzo was included in a portion of the mediation but excluded from the 19. On April 12, 2022, the parties attended a mediation in the Ohio Casualty matter. of the Judge of Grafton Probate Court against Ohio Casualty. See RSA § p. 6 565:8. (Grafton Superior Court).3 The Complaint was brought by Mr. Decato on behalf County v. The Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 215-2021-CV-0026 p. 5 4 21, 2021 against the bond company, Ohio Casualty (Judge of Probate Grafton 18. Mr. Decato filed suit in the Grafton County Superior Court on or about September 5

incurred by counsel totaling $63,000. Mr. Trunzo later paid the settlement to indemnify the bond including all legal fees

because he filed a frivolous motion. Attorney Decato, Attorney Trunzo is liable for attorney's fees represent any of the other heirs in the matter. Thus, according to furthermore, Attorney Trunzo hadn't filed an appearance to because he was no longer the special administrator of the estate; that Attorney Trunzo had no standing to file the motion to reconsider mediation and the subsequent agreement. Attorney Decato argued Louise Shambo Morton were inadequately served notice of the administrator. He maintained, however, that Ricky Shambo and motion to reconsider and moved for the appointment of a new fees. At the start of the hearing, Attorney Trunzo withdrew his Shambo's objection to that motion as well as a request for attorney's former administrator of the estate, Attorney Trunzo; and Wayne Before the court was a motion to reconsider, which was filed by the

24. In relevant part, the Court's July 22, 2022 order stated: to the Estate. 23. On July 22, 2022, Mr. Hayes was appointed as the successor special administrator Shambo. he had brought suit in the name of the probate judge while representing Wayne wished to be heard, and arguing that Mr. Decato had a conflict of interest because approving the settlement agreement, stating that beneficiaries Rickie and Louise 22. On May 23, 2022, Mr. Trunzo filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order longer required to hold a surety bond. 21. On May 13, 2022, the Court issued a bond discharge and Mr. Trunzo was no in the Ohio Causality case. 4 Agreement on April 29, 2022. On May 2, 2022, the Court approved the settlement Grafton Probate Court" and filed an unsigned Motion to Approve Settlement 20. Mr. Decato signed the settlement agreement as Attorney for "Plaintiff Judge of

in his administration of the Estate of Wanda Shambo. County Probate Court and to waive any claim to fees incurred p. 7 6

constituted unprofessional frivolity. for whom he had not filed an appearance, and that doing so improperly; that it was filed with the intention of representing parties file it. This implies that he was aware that the motion was filed proceeding, and therefore acknowledged that he lacked standing to court as the 'former administrator' at the beginning of this acknowledged that it was 'in-artfully drafted.' He addressed the Attorney Trunzo, when withdrawing his motion to reconsider, N.H. at 3. facts provable by the evidence' in court-filed motions. Kuken, 145 level of frivolity that demonstrate a lack of 'any reasonable basiS in Hampshire Supreme Court has held that bad faith claims require a 172, 175 (1998); Kuken v. Genualdo, 145 N.H. 1, 3 (2002).'The New edict noted in subsequent case law. See Glick v. Naess, 143 N.H. responsible for their own attorney's fees, there are exceptions to that While New Hampshire law holds that parties are generally Mr. Decato. The Court stated in relevant part:

2 p. 7 6. With respect to the issue of attorney's fees, the Court awarded attorney's fees to

administrator of the estate of Wanda Shambo. Therefore, this court hereby appoints Patrick Hayes Esq. as special court acknowledges that an appointment must happen quickly. removed him as the administrator and he is no longer bonded, the needed; and, because the approval of the settlement agreement The court agrees with Attorney Trunzo that a new administrator is

25. With respect to the New Administrator the Court found:

court's ruling. approved the settlement agreement. All parties were cc'd in the Trunzo's resignation as administrator. On May 13, 2022, the court Shambo, dismissal of the action with prejudice, and Attorney Insurance Company as surety regarding all claims In re Wanda full discharge/release of the administrator and Ohio Casualty settlement is approved by the court; (2) the court issues an entry of pay $42,000.00 to the estate under the following conditions: (1) the statement of understanding, stating that the bond company would Casualty Insurance Company. The parties subsequently issued a mediation in the Judge of Probate Grafton County v. The Ohio On April 12, 2022, Wayne Shambo and the bond company entered p. 8 7

5 The Court did not rule on the substantive issue of the appeal.

for the property in the name of the Estate of.Wanda Shambo. checkbook, in the amount of $1,635.66 to the Town of Canaan for real estate taxes 36. On January 25, 2023, Mr. Trunzo issued check #1220, utilizing the Estate to successive Motions to Reconsider).5 35. On February 22, 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as untimely (due that he had raised in pleadings to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. 34. On December 2 p. 8 7, 2022, Mr. Trunzo appealed the alleged conflict of interest issue the files but has received no response to date." undersigned has attempted numerous times to contact Attorney Trunzo to transmit 33. On December 22, 2022, Mr. Hayes filed a Motion for Instructions, stating: "[t]he appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the July 22, 2022 order and eventually an 32. Mr. Trunzo did not pay Mr. Decato's attorney's fees immediately because he had 31. Mr. Trunzo did not provide his file to Mr. Hayes immediately. than October 5, 2022." "provide his file in the above referenced case to the special administrator no later 30. On September 22, 2022, the Court also issued an order directing Mr. Trunzo to $1,610.50. The Court approved the attorney's fees on September 22, 2022. 29. On August 26, 2022, Mr. Decato filed an affidavit of attorney's fees totaling which was denied by the Court by Order dated. August 26, 2022. 28. Mr. Trunzo filed a Motion to Clarify, to Vacate and to Recuse on August 5, 2022, 27. On July 26, 2022, the Court issued another discharge of Mr. Trunzo's bond.

regarding fees within 30 days. hereby grants attorney's fees. Attorney Decato may file an affidavit Therefore, the court concurs with Attorney Decato's argument and p. 9 8

6 Mr. Trunzo's insurance carrier declined coverage.

indemnify the bond and to pay bond counsel's legal fees.[] representative for Ohio Casualty) from his personal retirement account to 42. On April 17, 2023, Mr. Trunzo paid $63,000 to the Elizer Law Group (the Motion. of Mr. Hayes. Mr. Decato also requested an award of attorney's fees for filing the check in the amount of $1,635.66 which belonged to the Estate under the control to include the Estate's checkbook); and his unauthorized signing of an Estate September 22, 2022 order (to turn over his file to Mr. Hayes by October 5, 2022, the Court's. July 22, 2022 order (to pay Mr. Decato's attorney's fees); the Trunzo, Jr. in Indirect Criminal Contempt of Court for Mr. Trunzo's contempt of 41. On March 23, 2023, Mr. Decato filed a Motion to Hold Attorney Thomas H.

failure to turn over the file. sanctions may be appropriate for Attorney Trunzo's continued he has not yet turned over his file. The Court will consider what Attorney Trunzo will be required to attend in person, to explain why The Court shall schedule a Show Cause hearing in this matter, where

40. The Court also ordered: Trunzo to "provide his file . . . to the special administrator." turn the file over to Mr. Hayes. The Court issued a "second" order directing Mr. 3 p. 10 9. On March 10, 2023, the Court issued an order to address Mr. Trunzo's failure to authorized by the Court to make this payment. incurring further interest and penalties. However, at that time Mr. Trunzo was not concerned that the taxes were overdue and needed to be paid to avoid the Estate 3 p. 9 8. Mr. Trunzo has since explained that he made the payment because he was capacity. Mr. Trunzo also personally paid $59.38 in interest and penalties. Trunzo signed the check in his personal capacity rather than in his representative 37 Check #1220 accounted for taxes due in July 2022 and in December 2022. Mr. 9

"All five accountings Mr. Trunzo filed with the Court were approved.

Attorney Decato's attorney's fees. Orders Attorney Trunzo to comply with an earlier order to pay Attorney Trunzo in Indirect Criminal Contempt. Lastly, the Court Court, as is explained in greater detail below, declines to find seeking to find Attorney Trunzo in Indirect Criminal Contempt. The However, prior to the hearing Wayne Shambo had filed a Motion necessary. of the hearing, these issues had resolved, and no further orders are of the file between the former and current administrator. At the time instructions, the Court's Show Cause hearing to address the transfer At issue before the Court was the special administrator's motion for hearing. The Court noted:

47. On June 16, 2023, the Court issued an Order after a May 4, 2023 Show Cause

the Shambo residence which never happened.' that I would receive payment for services upon the eventual sale of the payment on the bond. Every accounting that I filed indicated case and am fully liable for the complete cost of indemnification for I have taken no fees during the period of my appointment for this administering the estate. He also stated: Trunzo explained the resistance and lack of cooperation he had met in Thomas H. Trunzo in Indirect Criminal Contempt of Court." In the Response, Mr.

46. On May 18, 2022, Mr. Trunzo filed a "Response to Motion to Hold Attorney response to Mr. Decato's March 27, 2023 Motion. agreement to leave the record open to allow time for Mr. Trunzo to file a Memo in file to Mr. Hayes; Mr. Hayes had filed an accounting and all involved reached an 45. At the time of the May 4, 2023 hearing, Mr. Trunzo had turned over the complete and Show Cause with regard to Mr. Trunzo's failure to turn over the file. Decato's March 27, 2023 Motion as well as Mr. Hayes' Motion for Instructions 44. A hearing went forward on May 4, 2023. The Court reviewed the issues in Mr. Motion to hold Mr. Trunzo in indirect criminal contempt. 43. Mr. Decato filed a supporting memorandum on April 2 p. 10 9, 2023 in support of his p. 11 10

Trunzo responds, as described above, that a 'combination of contempt for violating court orders as described above. Attorney In summary, Mr. Shambo asks the Court to hold Attorney Trunzo in

49. The Court also found:

turning over the complete file. accounting earlier on in the case, even though he had not finished • He did give Attorney Hayes enough information to complete the Hayes and Decato. disagree with the timeline represented to the court by Attorneys proper. He admits that he delayed compliance. He does not • He admits the Court order for him to turn over the file was his delay: Attorney Trunzo provided the following as mitigating factors despite and I agree to that.' and that 'I was not able to fulfill that obligation in a timely way, overwhelming circumstances' in the case and his personal life, • In summary, he stated that there was a 'combination of daughter who is a single mother. disabled brothers, and he was providing childcare for his • Family issues. He was caring for his mother, he had two had medication changes and other health issues. health issues, because he felt it was a personal matter. But he • Personal health issues. He did not wish to provide proof of his on the bond, and Wayne Shambo in this proceeding. he represented the Probate Judge in Superior Court in a suit o He felt that Attorney Decato had a conflict of interest because my legal status.' had any ability to respond to motions. He said 'I was not sure the finding that he had no standing and whether this meant he frivolous. Attorney Trunzo stated that he was confused by no standing, and that his filing [for reconsideration] was o He explained that the Court had issued an order that he had • Confusion over how this case has proceeded. justification for his delay: At the hearing, Attorney Trunzo provided the following as a

48. In its June 16, 2023 order the Court found in relevant part: p. 12 11

18, 2023. 51. Mr. Trunzo paid Mr. Decato's attorneys fees in the amount of $1,610.50 on July

appropriate for Attorney Trunzo's continued failure to comply. with this order, the Court will consider what sanctions may be hearing. At the review hearing, if Attorney Trunzo has not complied he has been paid his attorney fees, the Court will then cancel the Attorney Decato informs the Court prior to the review hearing that Attorney Hayes does not need to be present at the review hearing. If schedule a review hearing on this matter in approximately 30 days. Given the passage of time, and the history of this case, the Court will July 22, 2022 Order, within 30 days from the date of this order. Trunzo is ordered to pay the attorney's fees pursuant to the Court's Attorney Trunzo to pay attorney fees to Attorney Decato. Attorney Lastly, the Court declines to abate, defer or vacate the order for standards set forth above. it is sufficiently convincing to avoid a finding of contempt given the explanation for the delays that, while it does not excuse his behavior, responsibility for his delays, and he has provided sufficient Additionally, Attorney Trunzo has now accepted some degree of The administrator of the Estate is not seeking any contempt orders. over to the current administrator and an accounting has been filed. Indirect Criminal Contempt. At this time, the file has been turned declines to exercise its discretionary powers to pursue charges of After reviewing the evidence and record before the Court, the Court

50. The Court concluded, in its June 16, 2023 order:

this time. All parties agreed that no finding of civil contempt was needed at respect to a finding of Indirect Criminal Contempt for these matters. Attorney Hayes, on behalf of the estate, took no position with hearing he felt an obligation at that time to ensure that debt was paid. having been removed from his official capacity, he stated at the With respect to the payment of real estate taxes for the estate after vacate the order and relieve him of his obligation to pay the fees. reference to general hardships in his life. He asks the Court to address why he has failed to comply with this order, other than the court-ordered attorney's fees, Attorney Trunzo does not directly acknowledges that he should have. With respect to the payment of resulted in his delay in turning over the file, even though he overwhelming circumstances' in the case and his personal life p. 13 12

obligation exists; except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal A lawyer shall not:

57. Rule 3.4 states, in pertinent part, as follows: 56. The facts set forth above are incorporated by reference.

Rule 3.4: Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel

New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, as follows: 55. The parties agree that Mr. Trunzo's conduct in this case involves violations of the

his caseload to more manageable levels. management issues that contributed to his misconduct and has voluntarily reduced LAP to address some of the underlying mental health challenges and stress Lawyer's Assistance Program ("LAP"), and has agreed to be monitored through 54. As set forth further below, Mr. Trunzo has been working with New Hampshire children, Mr. Trunzo was the sole family member who could oversee their care. 2023, respectively. Because none of these brothers had spouses, partners or brother and his mother passed away in August 2021, August 2023 and October Pennsylvania who suffers from schizophrenia. His older brother, his younger her to an assisted living facility in Vermont. He supported another brother in year-old mother to an assisted-living facility in New Jersey followed by bringing frequently to New Jersey to assist two of his disabled brothers and moved his 100 his memory and perception (he is no longer on that medication). He traveled had changes to his anti-depressant medication which he indicates had an effect on 53. Beginning in 2019, Mr. Trunzo also faced a number of personal difficulties. He believed Mr. Decato had a conflict of interest. regard to the Motion for Reconsideration and the Supreme Court order because he specifically, the finding that he had no standing. He also waited on decisions with 52. As set forth above, Mr. Trunzo was confused with some of the Court orders; p. 14 13

Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards") support this sanction. 66. Both case law and the American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing matter. This sanction would serve the purposes of attorney discipline. suspension stayed for one year with conditions is the appropriate sanction in this 65. The Attorney Discipline Office and Mr. Trunzo jointly agree that a one-year

Mr. Trunzo's conduct, as described herein, violated N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a). 64. Having found the foregoing violations, there is clear and convincing evidence that

63. The parties agree that the foregoing constitutes violations of Rule 3.4(c). without authority. real estate taxes in January 2023. However, Mr. Trunzo paid the real estate taxes 62. Mr. Trunzo knew he had been removed as administrator at the time he paid the comply with this order in a timely fashion. Mr. Decato's attorney fees in the amount of $1,610.50. Mr. Trunzo failed to 61. Mr. Trunzo knew that he was ordered by the Court on September 22, 2022 to pay failed to comply with this order in a timely fashion. order to turn over his file and the estate checkbook to Mr. Hayes. Mr. Trunzo 60. Mr. Trunzo knew he was obligated to comply with the Court's March 10, 2023 fashion. October 5, 2022 deadline. Mr. Trunzo failed to comply with this order in a timely 2022 order to turn over his file and the estate checkbook to Mr. Hayes by the 59 Mr. Trunzo knew he was obligattd to comply with the Court's September 22, the estate. accomplish those tasks, resulting in a delay and contributing to the devaluation of order so that the inventory of the Estate could be completed. However, he failed to 58. Mr. Trunzo knew he was obligated to comply with the Court's October 11, 2017 p. 15 14

objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result." Standards, Sec. III the nature or attendant circumstances of the conduct but without the conscious circumstances." The Standards define "knowledge" as a "conscious awareness of of the fact[s] in question. A person's knowledge may be inferred from of the N.H.R. Prof. Conduct defines "knowingly" as "denot[ing] actual knowledge analysis, the parties agree that Mr. Trunzo's mental state was knowing. Rule 1.0(f) 71. With respect to Mr. Trunzo's mental state under the second prong of the sanction system when he failed to comply with court orders. See Standards § 6.2. 70. Under the first prong of the analysis, Mr. Trunzo violated duties owed to the legal on the ultimate sanction"). sanction, [the Court] consider[s] the effect of any aggravating or mitigating factors they affect the baseline sanction. See id. (stating that "[a]fter determining the 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. See Conner's Case, p. 16 158 N.H. at 69. The first three parts of the analysis create the framework for characterizing the Case, 156 N.H. 613, 621 (2007)); Standards § 3.0. and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." Id. (quoting Douglas' 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 Standards set forth a four part analysis for 68. Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, 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 67. The purpose of the Court's disciplinary power is "protecting the public, 15

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 [Public censure] is generally appropriate when a lawyer negligently 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 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that 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 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 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:

75. Mr. Trunzo's 3.4 rule violation implicates Section 6.2 of the Standards. That profession through his failure to timely comply with Court orders. Trunzo's conduct caused harm to the legal system and the integrity of the the Estate and contributed to the devaluation of the Estate. In addition, Mr. 74. Mr. Trunzo's conduct caused injury. Specifically, it delayed the administration of potential injury caused by Mr. Trunzo's misconduct. 73. The third prong of the sanction analysis requires an assessment of the actual or Rule 3.4(c) violation. 72. Mr. Trunzo acted knowingly, as that state of mind is an essential element for a could potentially have hindered his judgment."). is 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 . . . ("Definitions"). See also In Re Wyatt's Case, p. 16 159 N.H. 285, 307, 982 A.2d 396, p. 17 16

has agreed to enter into a formal monitoring program as of the date of this Executive Director of the Lawyers' Assistance Program since September 2023 and 82. Mr. Trunzo has sought counseling and has regularly been in contact with the support for his youngest brother who suffers from helping to care for a grandchild. Mr. Trunzo has also been available to provide care for his disabled adult brother; administering another brother's estate and frequent trips to New Jersey to oversee care for his elderly mother; overseeing health issues including his own health problems and changes to medication; 81. During the 2019-2023 time-period, Mr. Trunzo was also dealing with numerous received compensation for his role as Special Administrator of the Estate. steps he could have taken to handle these issues differently. Mr. Trunzo also never from some of the parties involved. Mr. Trunzo now understands that there were that slowed his compliance with the October 1420 p. 18 17 order, including threats 80. Mr. Trunzo faced numerous difficulties and lack of cooperation from the parties settlement on the bond). See Standards § 9.32. and the imposition of other penalties (Mr. Trunzo personally paid all of the dishonest or selfish motive, personal problems, full and free disclosure to the ADO 79. Mitigating factors include an absence of a prior disciplinary record, absence of a experience in the practice of law. See Standards § 9.22. 78. In this case there is one aggravating factor present, Mr. Trunzo's substantial mitigating factors. E.g., Conner 's Case, 158 N.H. at 303. 77. The baseline sanction must be considered in light of any aggravating and call for a baseline sanction of a suspension. 76. Mr. Trunzo's conduct in this matter, when considered under Standard 6.22, would (emphasis added). proceeding. 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 [Reprimand] is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages in an 17

within 60 days of receiving an invoice from the PCC. to pay in lump sum, shall agree to some form of payment plan with the PCC Committee in connection with this investigation and prosecution, and if unable b. Respondent shall pay the expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct and medication management. report; attend individual therapy and participate in routine health-care visits Trunzo meet monthly with the Director of NHLAP; submit a monthly selfcompletion date of August 9, 2025. In short, the Agreement requires that Mr. hereto as Exhibit A) which he entered into on August 9, 2024, with a projected Program Health & Recovery Monitoring Agreement ("Agreement") (attached a. Mr. Trunzo agrees to comply with the New Hampshire Lawyers Assistance Stipulation: shall begin on the date the Professional Conduct Committee accepts this

85. Mr. Trunzo agrees to comply with the following conditions for one year, which

D. Conditions of Imposed Discipline and Procedures

37(14)(b). length would also trigger the full reinstatement requirements under Rule health challenges, a one-year suspension would be imposed. A suspension of that preventing future misconduct and addressing underlying mental and physical 84. Should Mr. Trunzo violate the conditions of this Agreement, which are aimed at appropriate sanction in this case. suspension, stayed with conditions serves the purposes of discipline and is an aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the parties agree that a one-year 83. The parties agree that given the baseline sanction, and consideration of as a solo practitioner without support staff. his practice to a more manageable caseload, particularly to also address working Stipulation. Mr. Trunzo has voluntarily made efforts to significantly wind down p. 19 18

suspension imposed at such time as there is a finding of misconduct in the part, during the one-year period, the stay can be lifted and the one-year ("the subsequent proceeding"), and the alleged misconduct occurred, at least in a. So long as a grievance or referral is filed within the one-year period of the stay shall apply: period of the stay, thus implicating the condition at Paragraph 85, the following

87. If a new grievance or referral is filed against Mr. Trunzo during the one-year

shall review the decision of the Hearing Panel. Stipulation shall continue in force and effect pursuant to its terms. The PCC determines that no condition of the Stipulation has been violated, the shall lift the stay and impose a one-year suspension. If the Hearing Panel c. If a Hearing Panel determines that a condition has been violated, the Panel condition listed in Paragraph 85 has been violated. Disciplinary Counsel to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that a Stipulation has been violated. During such hearing, it shall be the burden of decide the sole issue of whether a condition under Paragraph 85 of this matter to the Hearings Committee so that a Hearing Panel may be appointed to b. Respondent may request that the Professional Conduct Committee remand the the Stipulation shall continue in force and effect pursuant to its terms. Committee determines that no condition of this Stipulation has been violated, Committee shall lift the stay and impose a one-year suspension. If the been violated. If it determines that a condition has been violated, the may determine whether any of the conditions enumerated at Paragraph 85 have a. Upon motion by Disciplinary Counsel, the Professional Conduct Committee Paragraph 85 above, the following shall apply:

86. If it is alleged that Mr. Trunzo violated any of the conditions enumerated at

period. c. Respondent will engage in no professional misconduct during the one year p. 20 19

disposition contained in this Stipulation are freely, knowingly, and voluntarily 90. Mr. Trunzo acknowledges that the admissions of misconduct and the proposed Stipulation pursuant to Rule 37A(III)(aa)(1). disposition, and that the PCC may accept, reject, or conditionally accept the 89. Mr. Trunzo understands that this Stipulation represents a recommended

Trunzo. costs incurred by the ADO is the subject of a separate agreement signed by Mr. disciplinary matter. See Supreme Court Rule 37( p. 20 19). His agreement to pay the pay the costs incurred by the ADO in the investigation and enforcement of this 88. Subject to the PCC's approval of Mr. Trunzo's Stipulation, Mr. Trunzo agrees to

along with supporting information or documentation. days of receipt of notice of the grievance or referral, time being of the essence, Trunzo shall provide written notice to Disciplinary Counsel within thirty (30) f. If a grievance or referral is filed within the one-year period of the stay, Mr. of stay. referral involving conduct of Respondent occurring during the one-year period e. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit prosecution of any new grievance or enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation. d. The Respondent shall bear all costs associated with compliance and pending. continue to comply with those provisions while the subsequent proceeding is c. If the conditions of Paragraph 85 have been met, Mr. Trunzo will not have to underlying this Stipulation shall not be closed. b. Pending the final resolution of the subsequent proceeding, the matter of the stay. subsequent proceeding, even if such finding occurs beyond the one-year period p. 21 20

Dated: p. 21 2024

92. Mr. Trunzo knowingly and intelligently waives his right to a hearing. Stipulation and, that he is fully aware of the consequences of the Stipulation. 91. Mr. Trunzo understands that he has a right to obtain counsel regarding this 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, p. 21 p. 22 20

Dated: p. 22 2024

Dated:

92. Mr. Trunzo knowingly and intelligently waives his right to a hearing. Stipulation and, that he is fully aware of the consequences of the Stipulation. 91. Mr. Trunzo understands that he has a right to obtain counsel regarding this 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,