To facilitate participation by as many lawyers and judges as possible in the New Hampshire Bar Association's "A Lawyer and Judge In Every School" program in celebration of Law Day 2005, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, pursuant to RSA 490:4, directs that participation by a lawyer or a judge in the program on Friday, May 6, 2005, will serve as sufficient grounds to continue any conflicting hearings scheduled on that date. Proceedings may not be continued if a judge or master, in his or her discretion, decides that efficient administration of the court or ensuring justice in a particular case compels that a case remain scheduled for a hearing or trial, or that a hearing or trial continue to be litigated, during that day.

Date: March 15, 2005
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk
Supreme Court of New Hampshire

LD-2003-0009
In the Matter of Mark E. Wolterbeek, Esquire

On December 16, 2003, the Committee on Professional Conduct (PCC) filed a petition seeking an order suspending the respondent, Mark E. Wolterbeek, of Rindge, New Hampshire, from the practice of law in New Hampshire for six months. The respondent answered the petition on February 27, 2004.

On March 12, 2004, the court referred this matter to a referee (Murphy, C.J., retired) "for a hearing and the filing of a written report with specific findings of fact and rulings of law as to the alleged violations of the rules of professional conduct and recommended sanction."

On February 23, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation settling this action, which the referee recommends that the court approve. In this stipulation, the parties agreed that Attorney Wolterbeek's conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

1. Rule 1.1(a) by failing to provide competent representation to his clients, Dwight and Tanis Whitcomb;
2. Rule 1.1(b)(5) by failing to appear at a September 6, 2000 structuring hearing and by failing to inform his clients of this fact or to correct the situation;
3. Rule 1.4(a) by failing to keep his clients informed of the status of their case and failing to advise them that their case had been dismissed;
4. Rule 1.3(a) by failing to manage his clients' case with due diligence; and
5. Rule 8.4(a) by violating provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Having reviewed the parties' stipulation, the court concludes that further proceedings are unnecessary for the disposition of this case. The court accepts the parties' stipulation and the referee's recommendation that the court approve it. The court agrees with the parties and the referee that the respondent's violations of the Rules of Professional Responsibility justify a six-month suspension.

Mark E. Wolterbeek is hereby suspended for a period of six months from the practice of law in New Hampshire for violating Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a), 1.1(b)(5), 1.4(a), 1.3(a) and 8.4(a). He is ordered to notify the PCC of any other jurisdictions in which he is licensed to practice law of the issuance of the court's order.

Mark E. Wolterbeek is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the PCC in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. See Rule 37(19).

The PCC shall inform the court on or before March 25, 2005, whether the court should appoint an attorney to make an inventory of the respondent's files and trust accounts and to take such action as may be necessary to protect the interests of the respondent and his clients. See Rule 37(17).

Broderick, C.J., and Dalianis, and Galway, JJ., concurred.
DATE: March 15, 2005
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk

ADM-2004-0156
In the Matter of Edmund DiSanto

On January 18, 2005, Edmund DiSanto was suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for failing to file his 2004 annual trust accounting certificate and failing to pay late fees assessed for late filing of his certificate. Mr. DiSanto has now filed his 2004 annual trust accounting certificate and paid the late fees assessed. He has requested that he be reinstated to the practice of law in New Hampshire.

Edmund DiSanto is reinstated to the practice of law in New Hampshire effective immediately.

Broderick, C.J., and Dalianis, Duggan and Galway, JJ., concurred.
DATE: March 21, 2005
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk

ADM-2004-0158
In the Matter of Barbara C. Huppe

On January 18, 2005, Barbara C. Huppe was suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for failing to pay late fees assessed for late filing of her 2004 trust accounting certificate. Ms. Huppe has now paid the late fees assessed. She has moved for reinstatement to the practice of law in New Hampshire. Ms. Huppe's motion for reinstatement is granted. Barbara C. Huppe is reinstated to the practice of law in New Hampshire effective immediately.

Broderick, C. J., and Dalianis, Duggan, and Galway, JJ., concurred.
DATE: March 21, 2005
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk

LD-2004-0004
In the Matter of Arthur C. Randlett

On December 20, 2004, the Professional Conduct Committee filed a petition to disbar the respondent, Arthur C. Randlett. Shortly thereafter, the court issued an order requiring that the petition be sent to Attorney Randlett by certified mail and requiring Attorney Randlett to file an answer to the petition within 30 days of service. The petition and order were delivered to Attorney Randlett's last known address on December 24, 2004. No answer to the petition has been filed.

Rule 37(16)(c) provides that if a respondent attorney fails to answer a petition filed by the Professional Conduct Committee, the allegations of the petition "shall be deemed to be admitted and no further hearing shall be required." In this case, the petition alleged violations of the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

1. Rules 1.1 and 1.3. Rule 1.1 requires a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client and Rule 1.3 requires a lawyer to act with reasonable promptness and diligence in representing a client. The committee alleged that Attorney Randlett violated these rules by failing to file accurate, complete and timely tax and accounting documents on behalf of clients.
2. Rule 1.4(a) and (c). Rule 1.4(a) requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed regarding the status of a matter and to promptly comply with requests for information. In accordance with Rule 1.4(c), a client is reasonably informed when information relevant to the protection of the client's interest is provided at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner. The committee alleged that on many occasions Attorney Randlett failed to comply with requests from clients for information about their cases.
3. Rule 1.15(a)(1). This rule requires that a lawyer who is holding the property of another in connection with a representation hold the property separate from the lawyer's own property. The committee alleged that Attorney Randlett misappropriated funds, failed to deposit client retainers into trust and withdrew funds from trust accounts for his own use prior to the funds being earned and without proper authorization.
4. Rule 1.15(a)(2) and Supreme Court Rule 50(2)A, C and F. These rules require a lawyer to maintain records regarding the handling and disposition of all client funds and property in the lawyer's possession. The committee alleged that Attorney Randlett failed to maintain the required records.
5. Rule 3.3(a)(1) and (3). Rule 3.3(a)(1) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal and Rule 3.3(a)(3) prohibits a lawyer from offering evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. The committee alleged that Attorney Randlett made material misrepresentations on his annual trust accounting compliance certificates submitted to the Supreme Court. The committee also alleged that Attorney Randlett filed misleading documents with the probate court regarding an estate.
6. Rule 4.1(a). This rule prohibits a lawyer from making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person. The committee alleged that Attorney Randlett made numerous false statements of material fact to governmental entities and to individuals.
7. Rule 7.5(d). This rule permits a lawyer to state that he practices in a partnership only when that is the fact. The committee alleged that Attorney Randlett used letterhead that falsely implied that he was in partnership with another lawyer.
8. Rule 8.1(b). This rule prohibits a lawyer from failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority. The committee alleged that Attorney Randlett failed to respond to a letter of complaint from the committee.
9. Rule 8.4(c). This rule makes it professional misconduct to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. The committee alleged that Attorney Randlett lied to clients on numerous occasions and misappropriated client funds.
10. Rule 8.4(a). This rule makes it professional misconduct to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In accordance with Rule 37(16)(c), the committee's allegations are deemed admitted. Because of the number and seriousness of the violations, the court concludes that the respondent's violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct justify disbarment.

THEREFORE, Arthur C. Randlett is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in New Hampshire. He is ordered to notify the attorney discipline authority of any other jurisdictions in which he is licensed to practice law of the issuance of the court's order.

Arthur C. Randlett is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Committee on Professional Conduct in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

Broderick, C.J., and Dalianis, Duggan and Galway, JJ., concurred.
DATE: March 22, 2005
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer