Information to post on Unethical NH Attorneys, Guardian Ad Litems, Marital Masters, Judges or any other persons involved in "Judicial Child Abuse" or "Judicial Child Neglect." Please email details to nh.unethical.attorney@gmail.com. We will not post your identity or give out your personal information.

Message Board:

We need to keep the pressure on the NH Family Courts by educating the public about the numerous injustices occurring. Please feel free to send us your information for posting. I have not had any recent dealings with the court system so I do not have current information to post. The best way to deal with these unethical judges, guardian ad litems and lawyers is to post as much on them as you can so that people do not want to do business with them. I have personally known judges that have their own practices as most judges are attorneys first. Hit these people where it counts. Their wallets. Starve them out and cut off their funds. When people do not want to use their services, they will have to change their evil ways or be unemployed.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Attorney John J Cronin III Joins the Unethical “Wall of Shame”

I know of someone that is dealing some post divorce issues with their ex.  Their ex is represented by Cronin.  Cronin appears to be using unethical tactics to drive up the cost of litigation.  I will keep you posted as more information becomes available. 

I recently came upon some information on Attorney John J. Cronin of Bennington, NH which prompted me to add him to The Unethical “Wall Of Shame.”  This information was from the Mass.Gov website http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/bd08-086.htm.


NO. BD-2008-086

S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension/Suspended entered by Justice Botsford on September 29, 2008.1
On February 26, 2008, the respondent John J. Cronin III was suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for six months, all of which was stayed for two years subject to conditions that the respondent take and pass the Multi-state Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) within one year, submit his financial records to random audits, and reimburse the Professional Conduct Committee of the New Hampshire Supreme Court for the costs of investigation and prosecution. The misconduct giving rise to this sanction is as follows.

During an audit of the respondent’s trust account, a staff auditor for the Attorney Discipline Office of New Hampshire discovered that the respondent as a matter of practice deposited retainers paid for services to his operating account prior to earning those retainers in full. The retainers remained in the operating account, and the respondent returned the unearned portion of the retainers and otherwise properly accounted to the clients at the conclusion of the case. The respondent’s failure to deposit the retainers to a trust account violated Rule 1.15(a) of the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct.

The respondent also committed additional misconduct in handling a domestic relations case and the execution of a will. In the domestic relations case, the respondent kept a check for $23,866 representing disputed funds in the matter in his office for three weeks before depositing the check to an interest-bearing account. In the matter involving the will, the respondent signed the client’s will as a witness and left his office prior to the client’s appearance at the office and execution of the will in front of the other witnesses. The respondent’s conduct in the first matter violated New Hampshire Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) and, in the will matter, Rule 8.4(c).

The respondent failed to report the suspended suspension to the Office of Bar Counsel. On September 4, 2008, bar counsel filed a petition for reciprocal discipline in the
Supreme Judicial Court
for Suffolk County. Subsequently, the parties waived hearing and assented to an order of reciprocal discipline, which was entered on September 29, 2008.

1 The complete Order of the Court is available by contacting the Clerk of the
Supreme Judicial Court
for Suffolk County.
2 Compiled by the Board of Bar Overseers based on the record filed with the
Supreme Judicial Court

No comments:

Post a Comment