New Hampshire Bar Association
About the Bar
For Members
For the Public
Legal Links
Publications
Newsroom
Online Store
Vendor Directory
NH Bar Foundation
Judicial Branch
NHMCLE

Keep your contact information up-to-date.

NH Bar's Litigation Guidelines
New Hampshire Bar Association
Lawyer Referral Service Law Related Education NHBA CLE NHBA Insurance Agency
MyNHBar
Member Login
Member Portal
Casemaker

Bar News - February 19, 2010


NH Supreme Court Orders

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(3), the Supreme Court reappoints Margaret Nelson, of Concord, David N. Cole, of Hanover, James R. Martin, of Brookfield, and Gerald A. Daley, of Dover, to the Professional Conduct Committee of the Attorney Discipline System. The terms of these members shall commence on January 1, 2010, and shall expire on December 31, 2012.

January 12, 2010
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire


The Supreme Court of New Hampshire hereby appoints Attorneys Matthew J. Fossum and Evan J. Mulholland to serve as members of the board of bar examiners for three-year terms expiring on November 1, 2012.

January 20, 2010
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire


ADM-2009-0078
In the Matter of Robert P. Brown

On August 11, 2009, Robert P. Brown was suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for failing to pay his 2008/2009 bar dues. The court has been advised by the New Hampshire Bar Association that Attorney Brown has now paid all outstanding bar dues and fees.

Attorney Brown has filed a motion for reinstatement to the practice of law in New Hampshire. Attorney Brownís motion for reinstatement is granted. Attorney Brown is reinstated to the practice of law in New Hampshire effective immediately.

Broderick, C. J., and Dalianis, Duggan, Hicks and Conboy, JJ., concurred.
DATE: January 27, 2010
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk


LD-2009-0013
In the Matter of Grenville Clark, III

On December 8, 2009, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) filed an assented-to petition for a two-year suspension from the practice of law of the respondent, Attorney Grenville Clark, III. On December 11, 2009, the court issued an order of notice, which required that the petition be sent to the respondent by first class and certified mail and that the respondent file an answer to the petition within 30 days of service.

The respondent filed an answer to the petition stating that he admitted the allegations of the petition and that he accepted the sanction recommended by the PCC. He requested that the court allow him 90 days to take steps to protect the interests of his clients and to wind up his practice before the suspension takes effect.

In this case, the PCCís petition alleged violations of the following Rules of Professional Conduct:
(1) Rules 1.1(a). This rule requires a lawyer to provide competent representation to a client. The respondent violated this rule by failing to prepare responses to interrogatories and other discovery requests, which caused avoidable harm to his clientís interests in an adversary proceeding.

(2) Rule 1.3(a). This rule requires a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. The respondent violated this rule by failing to prepare responses to interrogatories and other discovery requests, which caused avoidable harm to his clientís interests in an adversary proceeding.

(3) Rule 1.4(a). This rule requires a lawyer to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter; to promptly comply with a clientís request for information; and to explain the legal and practical aspects of a legal matter and the alternative courses of action so as to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. The respondent violated this rule by failing to forward copies of correspondence and discovery requests to his client, failing to finalize his clientís answers to discovery requests, failing to advise his client of the dismissal of his claim and explain the effect of the dismissal so that his client could consider the options available to him, and failing to respond to numerous telephone calls from his client.

(4) Rule 8.4 (c). This rule makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. The respondent violated this rule by giving his client false information about the status of his case after the case was dismissed to induce his client into believing that his case was still ongoing. The PCC found that the respondent engaged in both a pattern of affirmative misrepresentation and in a pattern of omission.

(5) Rule 8.4(a). This rule makes it professional misconduct to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Having considered the PCCís recommendation and petition for two-year suspension, the court accepts the recommendation of the PCC that the respondent be suspended for a period of two years. Considering the seriousness of the violations, the court concludes that a two-year suspension is necessary to "protect the public, maintain public confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and prevent similar conduct in the future." Coddingtonís Case, 155 N.H. 66, 68 (2007) (quotation omitted). The court grants the respondentís request that the effective date of the suspension be delayed to enable him to take steps to protect the interests of his clients and to wind up his practice.

THEREFORE, the court orders that Grenville Clark, III, be suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of two years, effective April 28, 2010. During the period between the respondentís receipt of this order and the date of his suspension, the respondent is limited to taking the following actions:
(1) The respondent may take steps to wind up his practice and pending client matters, but he shall not take on new client matters.

(2) The respondent shall notify all clients in writing that he will be suspended from the practice of law effective April 28, 2010, and shall further advise them that they should obtain the services of other lawyers of their choice.

On or before March 1, 2010, the Attorney Discipline Office shall advise the court whether an attorney should be appointed in accordance with Rule 37(17) to take possession of Attorney Clarkís client files and trust accounts upon his suspension and to take such action as is necessary to protect the interests of his clients.

Attorney Clark 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 courtís order. He is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

Broderick, C.J., and Dalianis, Duggan, and Hicks, JJ., concurred.
DATE: January 28, 2010
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37, the Supreme Court appoints Attorney William S. Orcutt, of Manchester, to serve on the Hearings Committee of the Attorney Discipline System. The term of Attorney Orcutt shall commence immediately and shall expire on December 31, 2012.

February 4, 2010
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire


LD-2009-0009
In the Matter of Joseph M. Carreiro, Jr.

On October 29, 2009, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a certified copy of the February 4, 2009 order of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, suspending Attorney Joseph M. Carreiro, Jr. from the practice of law in Massachusetts for a period of two years. The discipline was based upon the finding that Attorney Carreiro violated the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to promptly turn over to the law firm that employed him funds that he received on the law firmís behalf; by converting the law firmís funds to his own use; by failing to account to the law firm for the funds that he received on its behalf; and by making false statements and providing falsified documents to the law firm about the funds that he had converted.

In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(12)(b), the court ordered that a copy of the February 4, 2009 disciplinary order be served on Attorney Carreiro. It further ordered that Attorney Carreiro and the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) inform the court if either contended that the imposition of identical or substantially similar discipline would be unwarranted. The PCC notified the court that it did not intend to file a response to the courtís order. Attorney Carreiro filed no response.

Rule 37(12)(d) provides for the imposition of reciprocal discipline by the court unless the respondent attorney or the PCC demonstrates, or the court finds, based on the face of the record from which the discipline is predicated, that: (1) the procedure followed by the jurisdiction imposing discipline was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; (2) the imposition of the same or substantially similar discipline by the court would result in grave injustice; or (3) the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in New Hampshire.

Having reviewed the order of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, the court does not find that any of these conditions have been met. It appears from the material filed that Attorney Carreiro had an opportunity to be heard in the Massachusetts proceedings. In light of the seriousness of Attorney Carreiroís misconduct, the court does not find that the imposition of a two-year suspension would result in grave injustice or that his misconduct would warrant substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. Accordingly, the court concludes that a reciprocal two-year suspension should be imposed.

Therefore, the court orders that Joseph M. Carreiro, Jr., be suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of two years. The suspension shall commence when this order becomes final and shall not be retroactive.

Any motion for reinstatement will be governed by Rule 37(14)(f). Attorney Carreiro is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. See Rule 37(19).

On or before February 19, 2010, the Attorney Discipline Office shall advise the court whether the appointment of an attorney is necessary to take possession of any client files or trust accounts.

Broderick, C.J., and Dalianis, Duggan, Hicks and Conboy, JJ., concurred.
DATE: January 20, 2010
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk


In Case No. LD-2009-0009
In the Matter of Joseph M. Carreiro, Jr.


The court on February 5, 2010, issued the following order:

Respondentís motion for reconsideration is denied. Accordingly, the courtís decision imposing a two-year suspension commences immediately. The commencement date of the suspension is February 5, 2010.

Broderick, C.J., and Dalianis, Duggan, Hicks and Conboy, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox, Clerk

Supreme Court Rule 42(9) requires all NH admitted attorneys to notify the Bar Association of any address change, home or office.

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