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

Set Your Business Apart - Advertise with NH Bar News!

Order with big business buying power.
New Hampshire Bar Association
Lawyer Referral Service Law Related Education NHBA CLE NHBA Insurance Agency
MyNHBar
Member Login
Member Portal
Casemaker

Bar News - August 19, 2011


Supreme Court Orders
SC-Orders
Pursuant to Part II, Article 73-a of the New Hampshire Constitution and Supreme Court Rule 51(A)(7), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire adopts the following temporary amendments to court rules.

I. Minimum Continuing Legal Education Rules

1. Amend Supreme Court Rule 53.2(B)(4), regarding exemptions from minimum continuing legal education requirements, on a temporary basis, as set forth in Appendix A.

Effective Date

These amendments shall take effect immediately, and apply to the reporting year that began on July 1, 2011. See Supreme Court Rule 53.1(C) (reporting year shall be the period from July 1 to June 30). They shall be referred to the Advisory Committee on Rules for its recommendation as to whether they should be adopted on a permanent basis.

Date: July 6, 2011
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire

APPENDIX A

Amend Supreme Court Rule 53.2(B)(4), on a temporary basis, as follows (additions are in [bold and brackets]; deletions are in strike-thru format):

4. State and Federal full-time judges, [State part-time judges,] judges retired from a full time judgeship, full-time magistrates, full-time marital masters, [part-time marital masters,] the state reporter appointed pursuant to RSA 505:1, and full-time clerks and deputy clerks of court, provided[,] however[, with respect to all of the foregoing, that] they are not engaged in the practice of law.


Pursuant to RSA 71-B:2, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire designates Michele E. LeBrun to serve as chairman of the Board of Tax and Land Appeals, effective July 15, 2011.

July 8, 2011
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire


Pursuant to Part II, Article 73-a of the New Hampshire Constitution and Supreme Court Rule 51(A)(7), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire adopts the following temporary amendments to court rules.

I. Counsel Fees and Guardians ad Litem Fees Rules

1. Amend Supreme Court Rule 48(2), regarding counsel fees and expenses Ė other indigent cases, on a temporary basis, as set forth in Appendix A.

2. Amend Supreme Court Rule 48-A(2), regarding guardians ad litem fees Ė indigent cases, on a temporary basis, as set forth in Appendix B.

Effective Date

These amendments shall take effect immediately. They shall be referred to the Advisory Committee on Rules for its recommendation as to whether they should be adopted on a permanent basis.

Date: July 12, 2011
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire

APPENDIX A

Amend Supreme Court Rule 48(2), on a temporary basis, as follows (additions are in [bold and brackets]; deletions are in strike-thru format):

(2) Fees. Maximum compensation is limited as follows:

(a) Time properly chargeable to case: $60 per hour. The paralegal hourly rate shall not exceed $35.00 and shall be included with fees of counsel for the purposes of determining the maximum fee on any case. Travel time is not a compensable event unless expressly authorized by the court in advance for exceptional circumstances.

(b) Maximum fee for all juvenile cases pursuant to RSA chapters 169-B, C, and D: $1,700.

(c) De novo appeal of juvenile cases pursuant to RSA chapter 169-C: $1,400. (d) Maximum fee for guardianships under RSA chapters 463 or 464-A:

(i) RSA chapter 463: $1,200; (ii) RSA chapter 464-A: $900.

(e) Maximum fee for annual review hearings for guardianships: $300.

(f) Maximum fee for TPR cases pursuant to RSA chapter 170-C: $1,700.

(g) Maximum fee for involuntary admissions under RSA chapter 135-C: $600. (h) Appeals to the supreme court in all juvenile cases and any matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the probate court: $2,000.

(i) Maximum fee for court review hearings of juvenile cases pursuant to RSA 169-B and D: $300.

Only upon express, written finding for good cause and exceptional circumstances by the court will the maximum fees be exceeded or will additional fees be authorized. All petitions to exceed the maximum fee guidelines must be approved prior to the guidelines being exceeded; provided, however, that the court may waive the requirement for prior approval when justice so requires.

[In any case filed before July 12, 2011, any petition to exceed the maximum fee guidelines must be approved prior to the guidelines being exceeded; provided, however, that the court may waive the requirement for prior approval when justice so requires.

In any case filed on or after July 12, 2011, any petition to exceed the maximum fee guidelines must be approved prior to the guidelines being exceeded. In any such case, fees in excess of the maximum compensation in this rule will be paid only if the administrative judge of the circuit court or the chief justice of the superior court, as the case may be, certifies the good cause and exceptional circumstances justifying the excess fees.]


When counsel represents more than one client on any particular day, the hours spent shall be allocated accordingly. Representation of more than one client on the same day and in the same court shall be noted on the bills submitted. All bills shall be reviewed by the judge who presided over the case, if practicable.

The adequacy of the rates prescribed by this rule may, upon request of the supreme court, be reviewed periodically by the advisory committee on rules.

APPENDIX B

Amend Supreme Court Rule 48-A(2), on a temporary basis, as follows (additions are in [bold and brackets]; deletions are in strike-thru format):

(2) Fees. The provisions of this rule shall only apply to proceedings within the original jurisdiction of the district and probate courts, in which guardians ad litem are appointed, and the party responsible for payment is indigent.

Maximum guardian ad litem compensation as authorized by the administrative justice shall be limited as follows:

(a) Time properly chargeable to case: $60 per hour. Travel time is not a compensable event unless expressly authorized by the court in advance for exceptional circumstances.

(b) Maximum fee for abuse and neglect cases through conclusion of dispositional hearing pursuant to RSA 169-C:19: $1,400.

(c) Maximum fee for CHINS cases (169-D) or delinquency cases (169-B) through conclusion: $900. (d) Maximum fee for court review hearings in guardianship of minor or adult cases or abuse and neglect case: $300. (e) Maximum fee for TPR case (170-C): $1,400.

(f) Maximum fee for appeals to the superior court: $900.

(g) Maximum fee for guardianship cases pursuant to RSA chapters 463 or 464-A: $1,400.

Only upon express, written finding for good cause and exceptional circumstances by the court will the maximum fees be exceeded or will additional fees be authorized. All petitions to exceed the maximum fee guidelines must be approved prior to the guidelines being exceeded; provided, however, that the court may waive the requirement for prior approval when justice so requires.

[In any case filed before July 12, 2011, any petition to exceed the maximum fee guidelines must be approved prior to the guidelines being exceeded; provided, however, that the court may waive the requirement for prior approval when justice so requires.

In any case filed on or after July 12, 2011, any petition to exceed the maximum fee guidelines must be approved prior to the guidelines being exceeded. In any such case, fees in excess of the maximum compensation in this rule will be paid only if the administrative judge of the circuit court or the chief justice of the superior court, as the case may be, certifies the good cause and exceptional circumstances justifying the excess fees.]


When a guardian ad litem represents more than one client on any particular day, the hours spent shall be allocated accordingly. Representation of more than one client on the same day and in the same court shall be noted on the bills submitted. All bills shall be reviewed by the judge who presided over the case, if practicable.

The adequacy of the rates prescribed by this rule may, upon request of the supreme court, be reviewed periodically by the advisory committee on rules.


LD-2011-0005
In the Matter of Rosemary A. Macero

On April 27, 2011, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a certified copy of the April 8, 2011 order of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, suspending Attorney Rosemary A. Macero from the practice of law in Massachusetts for a period of one year. The discipline was based upon the finding that Attorney Macero violated the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct by attempting to pay a filing fee with a backdated check, subsequently filing a motion blaming the post office for the late receipt of the check, and attempting to mislead the court once her misrepresentation was discovered.

In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(12)(b), the court ordered that a copy of the April 8, 2011 disciplinary order be served on Attorney Macero. It further ordered that Attorney Macero 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 agreed with the imposition of a similar one-year suspension. Attorney Macero 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 upon 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 Macero had an opportunity to be heard in the Massachusetts proceedings. In light of the seriousness of Attorney Maceroís misconduct, the court does not find that the imposition of a one-year suspension would result in grave injustice or that her misconduct would warrant substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. Accordingly, the court concludes that a reciprocal one-year suspension should be imposed.

Therefore, the court orders that Rosemary A. Macero be suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of one year. 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 Macero 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 August 12, 2011, 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.

Dalianis, C.J., and Duggan, Hicks, Conboy and Lynn, JJ., concurred.
DATE: July 13, 2011
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk


ADM-2011-0036
In the Matter of Michael K. Krebs, Esq.

The court on July 20, 2011, issued the following order:

On August 2, 2001, Attorney Michael K. Krebs was suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for failing to comply with minimum continuing legal education requirements for the reporting year ending June 30, 2000, and for failing to pay the late fees assessed. Attorney Krebs is now in compliance with these requirements and has filed a motion for reinstatement. Having reviewed Attorney Krebsí motion and the material submitted with the motion, the court concludes that Attorney Krebs has established his continued competence and learning in the law and his continued moral character and fitness. Accordingly, Attorney Krebsí motion for reinstatement is granted.

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

ADM-2011-0044
In the Matter of Paul A. Rinden

On July 14, 2011, the Attorney Discipline Office filed an assented-to petition for temporary suspension of Attorney Paul A. Rinden from the practice of law due to medical incapacity. In accordance with Rule 37(10), the court orders as follows:

(1) The relief requested in the assented-to petition for temporary suspension of Paul A. Rinden from the practice of law due to medical incapacity is granted. In accordance with Rule 37(10), Attorney Rinden is hereby suspended from the practice of law for an indefinite period and pending further order of the court;

(2) The pending disciplinary matter involving Attorney Rinden shall be stayed pending further review of Attorney Rindenís medical condition;

(3) A copy of the assented-to petition for temporary suspension and of this order shall be served upon Attorney Rinden by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, restricted delivery;

(4) A further order will be issued in accordance with Rule 37(17), appointing an attorney to make an inventory of Attorney Rindenís files and to take action to protect the interests of Attorney Rindenís clients; and

(5) The assented-to petition for temporary suspension due to medical incapacity shall be placed in a confidential file. In accordance with Rule 37(21(b), this order shall be public.

Dalianis, C.J., and Duggan and Conboy, JJ., concurred.
DATE: July 20, 2011
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk


In accordance with RSA 328-C:4, I, the chief justice reappoints the Honorable Lucinda Sadler, of Bow, to the Board of Family Mediator Certification. Judge Sadler shall serve a three-year term commencing on October 1, 2011, and expiring on September 30, 2014.

August 9, 2011
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire

NHLAP: A confidential Independent Resource

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