Dawn E. Caradonna (2005)

N.H. R. Prof. Conduct l.3(a), 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.4(c), and 8.4(a).

Caradonna, Esquire, for violating the following Rules: For all of the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee Reprimands Dawn E.

them when imposing sanctions). that, although the Court has never formally adopted these Standards, the Court has considered for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991). See e.g. Shillen's Case, 149 N.H. 132,139 (2003) (noting This sanction is also in accord with the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Standards accord with the purposes of attorney discipline. See e.g., Feld's Case, 149 N.H. 19, 28 (2002). been violated, and the appropriate discipline in this matter is a Reprimand. This sanction is in The Professional Conduct Committee concludes that the Rules of Professional Conduct have

attached hereto and made part thereof, are supported by clear and convincing evidence. findings contained in the Hearing Panel Report and the Stipulation As To Facts and Sanction Having reviewed the record, the Professional Conduct Committee concluded that the factual

Stepanek. Nancy R. Hacking and Gretchen Rule Hamel did not participate. Connair; Alan J. Cronheim; James R. Martin; Richard B. McNamara; David N. Page; Stephen B. Margaret H. Nelson, chair, Benette Pizzimenti, Toni M. Gray; David N. Cole; Thomas P. Stipulations As To Facts and Sanction dated November 22, 2004. Members present included: referenced matter, including the Hearing Panel Report dated December 10, 2004, and the On January 18, 2005, the Professional Conduct Committee reviewed the record in the above

Caradonna, Dawn E. advs. Keith R. Marsh #02-038

File Dawn Caradonna, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

Date:: p. 2 2//1/07)"

with the Rilles of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Dawn E. Caradonna, Esquire, shall be entitled to appeal the findings or sanction in accordance p. 3 "-.'.'-" ," - --" .. -:,.- ~;':".. -~.. • ?, ••... aIr... .' C . . . eth M. Brown, Esqurre By rirLlJ }1J rf/Jrn"J Dated: _-'!~.==' _,--1.=.0-1/_-,, p. 2 2004

1.4(c), and 8.4(a). Dawn E. Caradonna for violating New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct 1. 3 (a), 1.4(a), 1.4(b), that the New Hampshire Supreme Court Professional Conduct Committee impose a Reprimand upon In accordance with New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37(A) (lII)( d)(l) the Hearing Panel recommends

Stipulation. Sanction, unanimously agree that a Reprimand is an appropriate sanction for the reasons specified in the The Hearing Panel having reviewed the Notice of Charges, Answer, and Stipulation On Facts and

reference hereto. Dawn E. Caradonna, entered into a Stipulation On Facts and Sanction, attached and incorporated by A pre-hearing conference was held on November 8, 2004. Prior to t.l:!e Final Hearing, the Respondent

Henrietta W. Luneau, Esquire Alva L. Swanson Nancy G. Spater Patrick F. Harrigan, Esquire, Reporter Kenneth M. Brown, Esquire, Chair

on October 26, 2004. The following Panel was appointed: A cOinplaint was referred to this Panel pursuantto New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37 A(III)(b)(4)

Patrick F. Harrigan, Vice Chair (603) 224-5828 + Fax (603) 228-9511 Administrative-Coordinator Robert C. Varney, Chair 4 Park Street, Suite 304 + Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Holly B. Fazzino,

employment at the Farm,

4. On June 30, p. 4 1999, Ms. Helmers terminated Mr. Marsh's

. and operator of the Farm.

3. Donna Louzier-Helmers (hereinafter"Ms. Helmers") was the owner

Horse Trainer for Pixel Acres Farm ("the Farm").

2. On November p. 4 1, 1997, Mr. Marsh began working as the Resident

Caradonna.

made allegations of professional misconduct against Dawn E.

and in a supplemental letter dated May 20,2002, Keith R. Marsh

p. 4 1. In a letter dated March 11,2002, and sworn to on March 21, 2002,

p. 4 1. Stipulation of Facts

Caradonna, hereby submit this Stipulation in the above-referenced case.

Disciplinary Counsel, Landya B. McCafferty, and Respondent, Dawn E.

communicated to Mr. Marsh that she intended to seek an attorney

11. At some point after the HRC hearing, Ms. Caradonna

federal court.

of Mr. Marsh's case and her ability to litigate the case by herself in

that hearing, Ms. Caradonna became concerned about the strength

a nine hour "predetermination hearing" before the HRC. Following

10. On or about May 1, p. 5 2001, Ms. Caradonna and Mr. Marsh attended

Hampshire to Colorado to take a new job.

9. On or about October 31, p. 5 2000, Mr. Marsh moved -from New

case was pending before the HRC.

8. Ms. Caradonna represented Mr. Marsh for the entire time that his

in federal court.

would represent Mr. Marsh on this claim before the HRC as well as

7. Ms. Caradonna's fee agreement specifically provided that she

employer, Ms. Helmers, and the Farm.

sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge against his former

Commission ("HRC") and federal court with respect to a claim of

represent him before the New Hampshire Human Rights

6. On November 16, 1999, Mr. Marsh hired Ms. Caradonna to

his employment.

against him for not responding to these advances by terminating

advances towards him in the workplace and ultimately retaliated

5. Mr. Marsh claimed that Ms. Helmers made unwanted sexual p. 6 3

the process of preparing the case for federal court, and finding an

18. At this point, Mr. Marsh understood that Ms. Caradonna was in

dismissal or her doubts about representing him in federal court.

17. Ms. Caradonna did not mail him any letter explaining the

26,200l.

the HRC dismissal letter, but she mailed it to him on September

16. Ms. Caradonna does not recall when she spoke to Mr. Marsh about

the telephone.

Mr. Marsh until after she could speak to him about the letter on

15. Ms. Caradonna decided not to forward the HRC dismissal letter to

cause."

HRC dismissed Mr. Marsh's claim with a finding of"no probable

14. On September 12,2001, at the end of the HRC investigation, the

the file.

and Ms. Caradonna enclosed for his review documentation from

Jauron, in which she sought his assessment of Mr. Marsh's case,

1 p. 6 3. On September 4,2001, Ms. Caradonna wrote a letter to Mr.

Jauron did not"seem optimistic" about the case.

Jauron at the McLane Law Firm about Mr. Marsh's case. Mr.

12. On August 20,2001, Ms. Caradonna spoke with Attorney Robert

the federal court proceedings.

with experience in employment law to assist Ms. Caradonna with p. 7 4

of his calls.

respect to the federal lawsuit. Ms. Caradonna did not return any

about the forms and to find out exactly what he should do with

federal case. He telephoned Ms. Caradonna to ask questions

did not understand how the forms would assist him in filing his

2 p. 7 4. Mr. Marsh found the forms very hard to read and understand. He

to the forms.

23. Ms. Caradonna gave Mr. Marsh no other instructions with respect

three-page telefax which she described as the "forms."

22. On December 27,2001, Ms. Caradonna forwarded to Mr. Marsh a

complaint.

would send him some"forms" that would help him file the federal

not know h.ow to file a federal claim. Ms. Caradonna told him she

21. During this telephone call, he protested and explained that he did

federal court.

court. Ms. Caradonna suggested that he file the claim pro se in

informed him that she was riot going to file his claim in federal

20. Ms. Caradonna telephoned Mr. Marsh in mid-December 2001 and

telephone to discuss his case.

it increasingly difficult to make contact with Ms. Caradonna on the

19. Followingthe dismissal letter in September 2001, Mr. Marsh found

attorney from another law firm to co-counsel the federal case with p. 8 5

understand any specifics with regard to such time-limits.

there may have been applicable time-limits,but he did not

29. At the time he filed his PCC complaint, Mr. Marsh understood that

limitations" and the expiration of time-limits.

Marsh expressed general concerns regarding"the statute of

conduct complaint against Ms. Caradonna. In this complaint, Mr.

case, on March 11, 2002, Mr. Marsh drafted this professional

28. Not knowing that the EEOC had issued a "right to sue" letter in his

and these letters usually go to the complainant."

and that I had also received a copy since it was addressed to him

complaint, she wrote: "I assumed a copy was sent to Mr. Marsh

document. In Ms. Caradonna's reply to this professional conduct

Caradonna assumed that the EEOC sent Mr. Marsh a copy of the

not forward a copy of this important document to Mr. Marsh. Ms.

27. After receiving the EEOC"right to sue" letter, Ms. Caradonna did

to sue in federal court.

the date of his receipt of the "right to sue" letter or forfeit the right

that Mr. Marsh must file his federal lawsuit within 90 days from

26. The EEOC"right to sue" letter contains in bold print a notification

of the HRC and was dismissing the case.

to sue" letter, notifying Mr. Marsh that it had adopted the findings

mailed to Mr. Marsh (at Ms. Caradonna's office address) the "right

2 p. 8 5. On or about February 7,2002, the Equal Opportunity Commission p. 9 6

convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3(a).

35. Ms. Caradonna's failure in this regard constitutes clear and

complaint against her.

Caradonna mailed it to hL'TI after he filed this professional conduct

Caradonna waited until April 2, 2002, to mail it to Mr. Marsh. Ms.

the beginning of a gO-day time limit to file a federal case. Yet Ms.

34. As Ms. Caradonna was aware, receipt of that document marked·

EEOC "right to sue" letter in his case.

months to forward to Mr. Marsh a copy of the February 7,2002,

diligence on Mr. Marsh's behalf when she waited almost two

33. Ms. Caradonna failed to act with reasonable promptness and

II. Stipulation as to Rules Violated

conduct complaint.

32. Ms. Caradonna declined to assist him in light of his professional

would assist him in drafting the necessary federal pleading.

Marsh telephoned Ms. Caradonna's office in the hope that she

attorney and file a timely federal action to preserve his claim, Mr.

31. Upon learning that he had approximately one month to hire an

time that Mr. Marsh had seen the document.

February 7, 2002, EEOC "right to sue" letter. This was the first

conduct complaint, Ms. Caradonna mailed Mr. Marsh a copy of the

30. On April 2, 2002, after receiving a copy of Mr. Marsh's professional p. 10 7

. a timely copy of the EEOC "right to sue" letter, as discussed above,

explanation of the legal and practical aspects of his case and with

38. Ms. Caradonna's failures to provide Mr. Marsh both with a timely

evidence of a violation of N. H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4 (b).

Caradonna's failure in this regard constitutes clear and convincing

that he could make informed decisions about the case. Ms.

with an explanation of the legal and practical aspects of his case so

clear nor applicable. Ms. Caradonna did not provide Mr. Marsh

helpful in that effort. As it turned out, tJ:iese forms were neither

basis and forwarded to him"forms" which she told him would be

case. Ms. Caradonna advised him to represent himself on a pro se

assistance with respect to the legal and practical aspects of his

Marsh in federal court, Ms. Caradonna gave him little advice or

3 p. 10 7. Upon deciding that Ms. Caradonna did not want to represent Mr.

evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(a).

Caradonna's failure in this regard constitutes clear and convincing

reasonably informed regarding the status of his case. Ms.

the EEOC "right to sue" letter, Ms. Caradonna failed to keep him

failure. By waiting two months to forward to Mr. Marsh a copy of

to Mr. Marsh in a timely manner also constitutes a communication

36. Ms. Caradonna's failure to forward the EEOC "right to sue" letter

Dated: l'rove~ber2!12oo4

Dated: November dd, 2004

because Ms. Caradonna has no prior disciplinary history.

violations (i.e., negligence rather than intentional misconduct) and

41. A Reprimand is appropriate both because ofthe nature of the

Reprimand as the appropriate sanction in this matter.

40. Ms. Caradonna and Disciplinary Counsel jointly recommend a

clear and convincing evidence of a violation of Rule SAra).

Caradonna violated Rule 1. 3 (a) and Rule lA, there is necessarily

39. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence that Ms.

of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4(c).

constitute clear and convincing evidence of two distinct violations