William E. Conner (2006)

of Fact by clear and convincing evidence: The Professional Conduct Committee determined that the record supports the following Findings

Counsel's Motion to Permit Waiver of the Hearings Committee Process. After deliberation, the Committee voted to issue a Public Censure and grant Disciplinary

Stephen B. Stepanek. Connair, Reporter; Alan Cronheim; Eleanor Wm. Dahar; James R. Martin; David N. Page and Members present included: Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair; Thomas P.

December 7,2005. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel, in a Motion to Permit Waiver of Hearings Committee, dated matter. The matter was presented pursuant to NH Sup. Ct. R. 37(A)(111) by Landya B. On December 13, 2005, the Professional Conduct Committee considered the above-captioned

Conner, William E. advs. Sherry E. Rowell #03-104

Eleanor Wm. Dahar Holly B. Fazzino, Admin. Coordinator Alan J. Cronheirn Thomas P. Connair * non attorney member David N. Cole Stephen B. Stepanek' Toni M. Gray,' Vice Chair 603-224-5828. Fax 228-9511 David N. Page' Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 James R. Martin Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Park Street, Snite 304 Gretchen Rule Hamel

investigation and was prepared to make recommendations to the Court. On May 8, p. 2 200 p. 3 3, 9. In early May, 2003, Mr. Conner became aware that the GAL had completed her automobile accident referenced in the ex parte petition. this time period, Ms. Rowell pled guilty to the DWI charge t.hat resulted from the about Ms. Rowell's continued alcohol consumption and its effect on the children. During period, Ms. Tierney communicated to Mr. Conner that Mr. Marsh had strong concerns 8. After the October 22, 2002, hearing, the GAL began her investigation. During this time him in the custody case. 7. At some point after the hearing, Mr. Marsh retained Nancy S. Tierney, Esq. to represent custody and visitation would be scheduled upon receipt of the GAL's report. conditions regarding her alcohol consumption. The Court held that a further hearing on Ms. Rowell the right to visit with the children at a supervised visitation center with and appointed Mary L. Wade, Esq., as Guardian ad Litem ("GAL"). The Court granted 6. After the hearing on October 22,2002, the Court (Cyr, J.) affirmed the ex parte orders 5. At the hearing, Mr. Marsh was pro se and Ms. Rowell was represented by Mr. Conner. scheduled for October 22, 2002, the date on which Ms. Rowell retained Mr. Conner. Mr. Marsh temporary custody of the three children. The hearing on the petition was alcohol consumption. The Court issued an ex parte order granting the petition and giving children to consume alcohol, and was engaged in an automobile accident as a result of The petition alleged that Ms. Rowell abused alcohol in front of the children, allowed the 4. On October 18, 2002, Mr. Marsh filed an ex parte petition to change the custody order. Mr. Marsh shared custody, the children's primary residence was with Mr. Marsh. share legal and physical custody of their three minor children. Although Ms. Rowell and entered the divorce on a pro se basis. The Permanent Stipulation provided that they would 3. Ms. Rowell and her ex-husband, Alan T. Marsh, were divorced on April 1, 2002. They custody matter. 2. From October 22, 2002, through July 22, 2003, Mr. Conner represented Ms. Rowell in a allegations of professional misconduct against William E. Conner. 1. In a letter of complaint sworn to on September 16, 2003, Sherry E. Rowell made 3

Ms. Tierney. 19. Prior to July 22,200 p. 3 3, Mr. Conner did not inform Ms. Rowell of his relationship with began living together. representation of Ms. Rowell. Indeed, in mid-June, 206::r,~. Conner and Ms. Tierney relationship. The relationship was steady and lasted throughout Mr. Conner's 18. Prior to Ms. Rowell hiring Mr. Conner, he and Ms. Tierney had been involved in a sexual GAL. "quickly" to assist in the recent developments involving the July 15,2003, letter from the withdrawal and gave her instructions with respect to obtaining alternative counsel 17. By letter to Ms. Rowell dated July 22,2003, Mr. Conner enclosed a copy of his formal relationship with Ms. Tierney and, as a result, he could no longer represent her. 16. On July 22,2003, Mr. Conner informed Ms. Rowell that he was involved in a necessary"ASAP." her receipt of the note. Mr. Conner's note also indicated that a response to the GAL was 15. By note dated July 18, 2003, Mr. Conner requested that Ms. Rowell telephone him upon Rowell was again consuming alcohol in the presence of the children. 1 p. 4 4. By letter dated July 15,2003, the GAL informed Mr. Conner of her suspicion that Ms. 13. On July 1, 2003, the Court approved the stipulation. conditions relative to her alcohol consumption. awarded Ms. Rowell limited visitation with the children in her home and included strict 12. On June 17,2003, Mr. Conner and Ms. Rowell signed the stipulation. The stipulation reached. 11. By letter dated June 4, 2003, Ms. Tierney informed the Court that a settlement had been the terms of the stipulation, she was not pleased with it. 10. In early June, 2003, the parties negotiated a stipulation. Although Ms. Rowell agreed to Rowell agreed with the GAL's proposed recommendations and requesting a hearing. Mr. Conner filed a"Partially Assented to Motion to Set Hearing," indicating that Ms. 4

evidence ofa violation ofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(b). 2 p. 4 4. Mr. Conner's failures in this regard, as explained above, constitute clear and convincing Ms. Tierney. representation of Ms. Rowell would not be adversely affected by his relationship with representation. This is true even though Mr. Conner reasonably believed that his Mr. Conner was required to obtain Ms. Rowell's informed consent to further with Ms. Tierney). Once Mr. Conner learned that Mr. Marsh had retained Ms. Tierney, been materially limited by Mr. Conner's own interests (i.e., Mr. Conner's relationship 23. Mr. Conner represented Ms. Rowell at a time when his representation of her might have through July 22,2003, the date of Mr. Conner's withdrawal. 22. Mr. Conner failed to inform Ms. Rowell of the relationship from October 22,2002, failed to do so. Rowell's consent as soon as he learned that Mr. Marsh retained Ms. Tierney. Mr. Conner the date on which Ms. Rowell retained Mr. Conner, he should have obtained Ms. 21. Because Mr. Conner had a sexual relationship with Ms. Tierney as of October 22, 2002, circumstances, Mr. Conner engaged in a prohibited conflict of interest under Rule 1. 7(b). Rowell and seeking her consent to the continued representation under these 20. By engaging in a sexual relationship with opposing counsel without fully informing Ms.

Conner has violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: Conduct Committee concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence that William E. The above-listed facts having been found by clear and convincing evidence, the Professional

II. RULINGS OF LAW p. 5 5 File William E. Conner, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

Date: January"\0,2006 By:· P21Pzs~Q9l<.\..9i----

appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See also Supreme Court RuleJ7(3)(c). Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(A)(lII)(d)(2)(D)(4)(A), William E. Conner has the right to

E. Conner for violating N.H. Prof. Conduct Rules 1.7(b) and 8.4(a). For the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee issued a Public Censure to William

Standards, the Court has considered them when imposing sanctions). Case 149 N.H. 132, 139 (2003) (noting that although the Court has never formally adopted these Professional Responsibility, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991). See, e.g., Shillen's Feld's Case, 149 N.H. 19,28 (2002). This sanction is also in accord with the ABA Center for purposed of attorney discipline as described by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See, e.g., the appropriate discipline in this matter is a Public Censure. This sanction is in accord with the Having made the above fmdings and rulings, the Professional Conduct Committee concludes that

Conduct 8.4(a). rule, there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. 2 p. 5 5. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Conner violated the above

Attorney Discipline Office, 4 Park Street, Suite 304, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. The matter is public record, and available for inspection at the new Hampshire Supreme Court

Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.7(b): Conflict ofInterest: General Rule, and 8.4(a): Misconduct. The Committee found by clear and convincing evidence that William E. Conner violated the following

his representation would not be adversely affected by his relationship. consent to further representation. This is true even though Mr. Conner reasonably believed that retained the opposing counsel, Mr. Conner was required to obtain Ms. Rowell's informed materially limited by Mr. Conner's own interests. Once Mr. Conner learned that Mr. Marsh had • lvI...!. Conner represented Ms. Rowell ata time when his representation of her might have been

• Mr. Conner did not seek his client's informed consent, and

ofthe identification of opposing counsel in the matter; • Mr. Conner failed to inform Ms. Rowell of his relationship with opposing counsel at the onset

• Mr. Conner was involved in this relationship throughout his representation of Ms. Rowell; facts: as a result, could no longer represent her. The Committee approved a Stipulation with the following Conner informed Ms. Rowell that he was involved in a sexual relationship with opposing counsel, and after the first hearing. A Stipulation was signed in the matter on June 17,2003. On July 22,2003, Mr. matter. Ms. Rowell's ex-husband, Alan T. Marsh, initially represented himself, but retained counsel Sherry E. Rowell hired William E. Conner, Esquire, on October 22, 2002, to represent her in a custody

Conner, WilliamE. advs. Sherry E. Rowell # 03-104 and issued a Public Censure on January 17,2006. The New Hampshire Supreme Court Professional Conduct Committee investigated the matter of