Cited by

The respondent, citing Morse’s Case, 160 N.H. 538, 549 (2010), and Welts’ Case, 136 N.H. 588, 593 (1993), argues that this court has never found a “pattern of misconduct” based on a “single course of conduct, even a lengthy one.” However, we do not find these cases to be availing for the respondent.

of Summit Vista v. Miller, 141 N.H. 39, 45 (1996) (concluding that “the use of the disjunctive ‘or’ [in the damages provision of the Consumer Protection Act, see RSA 358-A:10 (2009)] manifests a clear intent to award multiple damages for either knowing or willful acts”); Welts’ Case, 136 N.H. 588, 591-92 (1993) (noting that attorney professional conduct rule establishing misconduct where attorney’s “conduct involve[ed] dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,” is disjunctive and concludin

For instance, we ordered public censure in O’Meara’s Case, 150 N.H. at 159-60, and Welts’ Case, 136 N.H. 588, 592 (1993), where the attorneys in these cases engaged in an isolated instance of deceit.

Welt’s Case, 136 N.H. 588, 592 (1993) (citing cases).

Disciplinary action is not taken as a mode of inflicting punishment for an offense.” Welt’s Case, 136 N.H. 588,592 (1993) (citations, quotations, and brackets omitted).

Farley’s Case, 147 N.H. 476, 478 (2002); Welt’s Case, 136 N.H. 588, 593-94 (1993).

After considering all factors presented by the committee and Feld, we conclude that a public censure in this instance will further the purposes of protecting the public, preserving the integrity of the bar, maintaining public confidence in the bar, and preventing similar instances in the future.

The sanction we impose must be sufficient to satisfy these goals, and must take into account the severity of the misconduct and any mitigating circumstances disclosed by the record.

In reviewing the referee’s findings, we “determine whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the referee on the basis of the evidence before him.” Welts’ Case, 136 N.H. 588, 590, 620 A.2d 1017, 1018 (1993) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Welts’ Case, 136 N.H. 588, 592, 620 A.2d 1017, 1019 (1993) (because Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct is disjunctive, a finding of misrepresentation alone constitutes misconduct); Boyce v. Concord Gen.

The sanction we impose must be sufficient to satisfy those goals.

“In our review of the referee’s findings, our only function is to determine whether a reasonable person could have reached the same decision as the referee on the basis of the evidence before him.” Welts’ Case, 136 N.H. 588, 590, 620 A.2d 1017, 1018 (1993) (quotation and brackets omitted).

An intentional misrepresentation requires a misstatement of fact “for the purpose of inducing another to act or to refrain from action in reliance upon it.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 525 (1976); see, e.g., Welts’ Case, 136 N.H. 588, 591-92, 620 A.2d 1017, 1018- 19 (1993).

In reviewing the referee’s findings, ordinarily we determine whether a reasonable person could have reached the same outcome as the referee, based on the evidence presented.