Bar News - March 21, 2008
NH Supreme Court Professional Conduct Committee
Public Censure with Conditions Summary
The New Hampshire Supreme Court Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the above-captioned matter, and issued a Public Censure with conditions as stipulated to by the parties, on January 31, 2008.
Clark, Grenville III advs. Lisa M. Cassidy # 05-111
Lisa M. Cassidy retained Grenville Clark, III, Esquire, to provide legal representation and advice with respect to a student loan obligation. Ms. Cassidy met with Mr. Clark on January 13, 2004 and paid him a retainer of $750.00. Over time, Ms. Cassidy became dissatisfied with what she viewed as Mr. Clark’s failures both to communicate with her and to take action on her behalf. Ms. Cassidy sent him a certified letter on October 25, 2005, in which she expressed her dissatisfaction with Mr. Clark and demanded that he return her "retainer of $750 within 2 weeks." As of December 23, 2005, Ms. Cassidy still had no response from Mr. Clark and didn’t receive her money back until a complaint was docketed against Mr. Clark on the basis of Ms. Cassidy’s grievance.
The Committee found that the Stipulation of Facts and Rule Violations constituted clear and convincing evidence that:
· Mr. Clark did not respond to Ms. Cassidy’s request for the return of funds in a timely manner, and
· Mr. Clark held Ms. Cassidy’s funds without justification for approximately three months.
The Committee found that Grenville Clark, III violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct by clear and convincing evidence: Rule 1.15(b): Failure to Return Funds Promptly, and Rule 8.4(a), Misconduct, as stipulated.
Mr. Clark was issued a Public Censure with the condition that he complete the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Exam within one year to the satisfaction of the Attorney Discipline Office; hire, within 45 days, at his own expense, a consultant in law office management to: (a) evaluate Mr. Clark’s law office practices, including calendaring, (b) make recommendations, within 90 days for improvements to Mr. Clark’s office practices, with a schedule on which the recommended improvements are to be implemented, and (c) to report on Mr. Clark’s progress to the ADO on a quarterly basis for one year from the date of the recommendations. Mr. Clark was assessed all costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter, as stipulated. The matter is public record, and available for inspection at the New Hampshire Supreme Court Attorney Discipline Office, 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102, Concord, New Hampshire 03301.
March 6, 2008