It's now August 25, 2002, and I've just been through a hearing on the oldest case I have - it was filed more than three years ago!

Waiting on case 99-072 (report from Judge Smukler)

The Committee has neither filed formal charges nor dismissed the original Professional Conduct referral of Judge Smukler from 1999. That complaint was referred to Committee Member Tom Hanna of Keene for "research." Their Rules permit referring a complaint to a single member for "investigation," but they do not mention research. I've already written Attorney Hanna two letters about his lack of diligence in the matter, to no avail. Perhaps he's waiting for Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967) to be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. I could wait a very long time, if that is the case. Tom Hanna replied to my first letter on August 20, 2001, and has not bothered to reply to my second letter. I have reproduced the correspondence in its entirety below and on the report page.

I filed a grievance with the Judicial Conduct Commission on May 22, 2002 to try to enlist their assistance in hurrying Tom Hanna along. They concluded that they don't have jurisdiction over members of the PCC, even though the committee is part of the Supreme Court.

The PCC held a hearing on this case on August 21, 2002. I had a presentation prepared to discuss the history of the Right to Free Speech, but we quickly went into a rathole of whether it is legal to violate an unconstitutional statute. Apparently that is not the common knowledge I thought it was even though it is taught in both Law School's Constitutional Law courses and in the NH Bar Review. Had I known, I would have referenced cases that created the case law rather than the disent of an important related case that is more quotable. Yet another WWW page I need to write! In the meantime, I've added mail I sent to the PCC to reference the better case law below and on the report page.

Waiting on case 00-036 (report from Judge Taube)

The concept of due process is violated when the decision-making body refuses to make a decision. In this case, the Professional Conduct Committee has not made decisions on two complaints on which they held a hearing. For the record, following the November hearings, I filed a "supplemental answer" which answered some of the committee's concerns. In particular, they were troubled (and said so) that I had jumped to the conclusion with respect to Judge Taube that he had not appointed attorneys for my clients, and that there was no "list" of attorneys from which the Family Division appointed attorneys.

I also wrote to Heidi Boyack of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Despite the fact that Donald Goodnow, the head of the Administrative Office of the Courts had stated in a letter to me that there were no rules to guide judges in the exercise of their discretion on appointment of attorneys, Judge Taube repeatedly stated that Heidi Boyack would verify his statement that the criminal contract attorney list was used. It has now been four months since that letter was sent. I sent another letter this week, and I am told by Elizabeth Hodges, counsel for the Administrative Office of the Courts, confirmed today (March 12, 2002) that finally an answer is on the way.

March 19, 2002 Update: The PCC asked for a copy of the transcript of Judge Taube's testimony from the the hearing. Note he says '... the Clerk came to me and said, "Judge, Attorney Werme wants to be appointed, she's not on our list. "I says, "Fine, that ends it." The policy of the Court is, if you're not on the list, you don't get appointed, ...'.

March 24, 2002 Update: I finally heard from Elizabeth Hodges on the guidelines for appointing attorneys in the Family Court system. They have no formal rules, however, under RSA 169-C (the Child Protection Act), on an informal guide used by clerks, it clearly states that "any attorney" except a public defender may be appointed. This clearly would put me in the classification of attorneys who MAY be appointed. However, the case involved a termination of parental rights. There were no informal guidelines for these cases. I wrote to the PCC, cc to Judge Taube sending them the entire package I received, and asking him to provide evidence that the "list" used was the "criminal contract attorney" list.

April 3, 2002 update: I received a letter from Heidi Boyack to the PCC explaining that the list is really the "contract attorney" list. Nina Gardner had told me that "under the terms of this agreement, contractors cannot handle first and second degree murder cases and abuse and neglect cases ... Overall, the contract serves as the second tier of criminal representation provided in the statute."

I assume that appointments for DCYF cases from this list are outside of the contract and that the Judicial Council may not even know the list is being used that way. However, Gardner also said that "Applicants for a Contract fill out an application which is reviewed by the Executive Director as to relevant experience. Generally, the Council attempts to select attorneys who have had prior criminal defense representation."

August 27, 2002 update: I recently received a Reprimand but filed a Request for Reconsideration that the PCC accepted.

Done waiting on case 00_056 (report from Judge Lyons)

It begins to appear that if the Professional Conduct Committee cannot make a finding against me, they'll be happy to keep my reputation at stake indefinitely so as to call into question my legal judgment. I appeared at a routine preliminary divorce hearing last week (March of 2002) in the Keene Superior Court. Afterward, my client told me that her husband informed her that his attorney stated I was in a LOT of trouble with the NH Professional Conduct Committee, and probably didn't care about my reputation. I don't know if his attorney got information on my open professional conduct complaints on my web site or not, but I assure readers that they are not posted here because I wish to sully my own reputation, but because the work that I and the manner in which I've done it has been called into question by judges themselves. Judge Lyons claimed "deliberative privilege" when asked under oath in my hearing exactly what laws he believed I had broken. "Deliberative privilege" was apparently done away with in the impeachment trial of Justice Brock. Despite repeated questions from the committee members themselves during the Professional Conduct Hearing, Judge Lyons refused to name any law I had broken, despite the fact that one of his complaints alleged that I "knew or should have known" that my conduct violated "multiple provisions" of state law. His referral on that matter I consider to be nothing less than libel. The other complaint involved statements I made about the opposing attorney's conduct toward my client. In a cover letter to him, I apologized for being so harsh. I never believed that softening the blow would result in a complaint against me! My client testified that he had certainly engaged in the conduct which my motion stated. Following the complaint, I had a chance to review the file, and discovered that in a case involving medical facts, he had permitted a day of trial to go forward and a physician to be deposed without obtaining the child's medical records!

And so the wait continues. . . .

Correspondence related to my PCC cases in general

June 14, 2000

Robert C. Varney, Esq.
NH Professional Conduct Committee
c/o James DeHart
4 Park Street
Suite 304
Concord, NH 03301

Re: PCC Complaints # 00-N-041, 99-072

Dear Mr. Varney,

With respect to these two professional conduct complaints pending against me, the first is related to the newspaper article appearing in the Concord Monitor on June 13, 1999 regarding one of my clients, the second has to do with the surreptitious taping of Nancy Rollins. As you may know, the Attorney General's office, using the same United States v. Katz analysis, has determined that no laws were broken.

I would request at this time, since the statute of limitations on the misdemeanor of violating confidentiality laws has expired, and since the attorney general has weighed in on the matter of the legality of my conduct, that both matters be closed at this time.

As you know, Due Process includes the concept of timely consideration of matters involving a person's liberty interest. It includes the right to have the matters decided as well. A person's interest in their law license, and their interest in their reputation are both interests protected by the Due Process clause. I would therefore also request some information from the committee at this time as to when you anticipate scheduling other complaints against me, or making decisions on them. I understand that both matter are significantly more factually complicated than the matters I am requesting to be closed, however, I would not hope that they are pending for longer than a year. Martha Watkins anticipates that I might represent her in Superior Court if the matter goes there for a trial de novo. Thank you.

Sincerely, Paula J. Werme

Cc: File

---

September 25, 2000

James L. DeHart, Administrator
Professional Conduct Committee
4 Park Street, Suite 304
Concord, NH 03301

Re: Professional Conduct Complaints

Dear Attorney DeHart,

I spoke with you the other week regarding the status of my professional conduct complaints. Three, I believe have now been referred to a study committee. While I understand New Hampshire's reliance on volunteer work, all of these complaints have been outstanding for some time now.

My practice, as you may know, is almost exclusively limited to constitutional issues with RSA 169-C.. I just argued In Re: Samantha L. in the New Hampshire Supreme Court on September 13. The issues it represents are important, and fundamental. Should my client lose her appeal in this state, we intend to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am enclosing a copy of the Supreme Court Application for Admission to Practice. I will call your attention to question # 12(b), in which it asks if there are any pending professional conduct proceedings against me. I'm sure you can understand why any attorney would highly prefer not to answer that question in the affirmative.

I would ask for your fullest attention to disposing of open complaints in a timely manner. While my trial schedule is very busy for the next couple of months, I have not been taking any new cases for a while, and anticipate time opening up in January for hearings. Perhaps the committee could schedule hearings, or dispose of complaints before the end of January. Thank you.

Sincerely, Paula J. Werme

Correspondence related to case 99-072

Correspondence related to case 00-036

A letter from Heidi Boyack would be included here, however it's important to my WWW page about court appointed lawyers, so I put it there.

Contact Paula Werme, Esq. or return to Law Practice home page.

Last updated 2002 August 25.