Emails Lead To Reprimand

A public reprimand was imposed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court for a series of emails sent by an attorney to opposing counsel in violation of the state’s version of Rule 4.4

As a result of this disciplinary matter, Mr. Hoppock is well-educated on New Hampshire’s Rule 4.4, which “differs substantially” from the ABA Model Rule, in that it uses the word “obvious” to “set a higher objective standard” as to what actions may qualify as having the primary purpose to “embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.” See Rule 4.4, Ethics Committee Comment. He deeply regrets his communications to Mr. Parent concerning Ms. Herman. He is confident that in the future he can be an effective advocate without resorting to personal attacks.

The attorney represented the parents of a man in jail for domestic violence in litigation against the spouse-victim.

A sample

On June 24, 2015, in an email exchange over pleadings in the fraudulent conveyance action, Mr. Parent sarcastically commented that the counterclaim filed against Joanna by Mr. Hoppock “sure helps the grandparents’ rights claim.” In response, Mr. Hoppock emailed Mr. Parent, cc’ing Kathy O’Donnell, attorney for Shawn. His email read in part: “Are you serious? You are despicable, disgraceful and disingenuous for these comments. . . .” Mr. Hoppock went on to say that Joanna “has cut off the entire Herman family for behaviors not attributable to them. It’s Shawn’s fault, no wait; it’s Hoppock’s fault; she is a coward and has no ability for introspection. She wants to blame every human on the planet for her circumstances. She needs to look closer to home. . . . She, or you, really want this to be ‘protracted warfare.’ So don’t tell me what nelps the grandparent’s claim.’ Your comments are outrageous.”

On July 9, 2015, Mr. Hoppock emailed Mr. Parent and Ms. O’Donnell, stating “[w]hen she [Joanna] stops pretending to be the victim and decides to do something to help solve this mess, maybe we can talk She is the one (or you) who is not moving beyond the past and blaming Shawn for all of the mileage you can manipulate; she and you are indeed disgraceful…. [I]n short; when she is done with the entitled victim attitude and wants to participate in the solution, she may well realize progress; until then we will proceed . . . Her behavior is beyond inexplicable; it is indeed disgraceful and so is yours for what you are doing to these children.”

And

Hoppock emailed Mr. Parent, cc’ing Ms. O’Donnell and the Hermans, on April 21, 2016: “I do recall from history that the NAZI’s punished relatives for the crimes of family members . . . This is the same manipulative hyperbole we have heard for over a year.” Mr. Hoppock states that he made this reference to Nazis as an analogy, i.e. just as Nazis punished people for the crimes of their relatives, Joanna was punishing the Hermans (by contesting the visitation request) for the crime of their son.

(Mike Frisch)