Salomon’s Case

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire disbarred Craig N. Salomon after finding clear and convincing evidence that he violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct in two unrelated matters. The misconduct involved conflicts of interest, unsupported foreclosure proceedings, false statements, assisting a violation of a federal injunction, mishandling escrowed funds, and related dishonesty. The opinion addresses the rule violations and the appropriate disciplinary sanction.

Holdings

1. Salomon violated Rule 1.7 by representing Fogg, who sought to maximize the sale price of the property, while representing Pan American Fund, which had an interest in acquiring the property at the lowest possible price, and by allowing his personal interest in obtaining fees to limit his representation.
2. Salomon violated Rule 3.1 by initiating foreclosure proceedings against Mr. Fogg and demanding an excessive payoff without a legal or factual basis.
3. Salomon violated Rule 4.1 by knowingly making materially false representations concerning the existence and enforceability of a $22,350 mortgage and by issuing a foreclosure demand for $47,891.13 without legal or factual support.
4. Because the evidence established violations of multiple professional-conduct rules, including Rule 4.1, Salomon also violated Rule 8.4(a) and (c).
5. Salomon violated Rule 1.2(d) by knowingly assisting Wood in conduct that violated the federal court’s preliminary injunction.
6. Salomon violated Rule 1.4(a)(5) by failing to consult with Blackport or its representatives about the injunction’s limitations on his conduct.
7. Salomon violated Rule 1.15 by failing to notify HPC of its interest in the sale proceeds and by disbursing disputed funds rather than keeping them separate until the competing claims were resolved.
8. Salomon violated Rule 3.4(c) by knowingly disobeying the federal court’s preliminary injunction and assisting Wood to violate it.
9. Salomon violated Rule 8.4(a) and (c) by violating the Rules of Professional Conduct and engaging in dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, or misrepresentative conduct.
10. Disbarment was the appropriate sanction because Salomon knowingly committed multiple serious violations involving conflicts, dishonesty, disregard of a court order, and injury to clients, third parties, the legal system, and the profession, and the aggravating factors substantially outweighed mitigation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the Professional Conduct Committee’s findings that Salomon violated Rules 1.7, 3.1, 4.1, and 8.4 in the Haase matter.
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the findings that Salomon violated Rules 1.2, 1.4, 1.15, 3.4, and 8.4 in the Florida matter.
3. What sanction was appropriate given the respondent’s duties, mental state, actual or potential injury, and aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Disposition

other