Shillen's Case

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that attorney Dennis O. Shillen violated Rule 1.7(a) by continuing to represent spouses whose interests became directly adverse after evidence indicated that the husband may have caused the accident that injured the wife. The court also found a corresponding violation of Rule 8.4(a), publicly censured Shillen, and ordered reimbursement of the professional conduct committee’s costs. The court declined to address alleged violations of Rules 1.7(b), 1.9(a), and 1.9(b).

Holdings

1. Shillen violated Rule 1.7(a) by continuing to represent both Vincent and Pamela Hammond after learning that Vincent's conduct may have contributed to Pamela's injuries and by pursuing Pamela's claim against Vincent and his insurer. A client's consent could not cure the conflict because a disinterested lawyer would conclude that the representation should not be undertaken.
2. Because Shillen violated Rule 1.7(a), he also violated Rule 8.4(a), which defines violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct as professional misconduct.
3. The court did not decide whether Shillen also violated Rules 1.7(b), 1.9(a), or 1.9(b), because the established Rule 1.7(a) violation resolved the disciplinary issue.
4. Public censure was the appropriate sanction, and Shillen was ordered to reimburse the Committee for the costs of investigating and prosecuting the matter.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Shillen violated New Hampshire Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a) by representing Pamela and Vincent Hammond despite their directly adverse interests after learning that Vincent may have contributed to Pamela's injuries.
2. Whether Shillen's violation of Rule 1.7(a) also constituted professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(a).
3. Whether Shillen violated Rules 1.7(b), 1.9(a), or 1.9(b).
4. What sanction was appropriate for the established professional-conduct violation.

Disposition

other