## Facts

- K. William Clauson, a New Hampshire attorney, became involved after Todd Gray was arrested for assault arising from an alleged domestic incident involving his wife, Brenda Gray, and their daughter, Amber.
- A bail commissioner released Todd subject to a no-contact condition barring contact with Brenda and Amber and requiring him to stay away from them.
- Brenda approached Clauson seeking to lift the no-contact condition so Todd could return home; Clauson agreed to represent Brenda.
- Clauson then contacted Todd by phone, obtained his consent to appear on his behalf, and filed an emergency motion seeking immediate review of bail conditions on behalf of both Brenda and Todd.
- Clauson proceeded without obtaining informed consent confirmed in writing from either client regarding the potential conflict of interest in representing both the alleged victim and the criminal defendant.
- The trial court lifted the no-contact order and continued the criminal case for a year conditioned on Todd’s good behavior.
- A disciplinary complaint was filed; after hearing, the Professional Conduct Committee found violations of Rules 1.1, 1.7, 1.9(a), and 8.4(a) and imposed a six-month suspension.
- Clauson appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported a finding that Clauson’s simultaneous representation of Todd (criminal defendant) and Brenda (alleged victim) created a concurrent conflict of interest under Rule 1.7, notwithstanding their shared goal of lifting the no-contact order.
2. Whether the record supported separate violations of Rule 1.1 (competence) and Rule 1.9(a) (former-client conflicts).
3. Whether a Rule 1.7 violation established professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(a) and whether the six-month suspension should stand.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the finding that Clauson violated Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflict of interest).
- The court affirmed the finding that Clauson violated Rule 8.4(a) because the misconduct was based on violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.
- The court reversed the findings of violations of Rule 1.1 and Rule 1.9(a).
- The court vacated the sanction to the extent it rested on the reversed violations and remanded for reconsideration of an appropriate sanction based only on the sustained violations.

## Legal Principles

- A concurrent conflict exists when clients’ interests are directly adverse or when there is a significant risk the lawyer’s representation of one client will be materially limited by duties to another client.
- In the domestic-violence context, representing both the accused and the alleged victim presents a significant risk of material limitation even if both clients share a short-term objective (such as lifting a no-contact condition) and deny the alleged conduct.
- Even when a conflict might be waivable, the lawyer must obtain each affected client’s informed consent, confirmed in writing; absent written consent, the Rule 1.7(b) conditions are not satisfied.
- A violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct may constitute professional misconduct under Rule 8.4(a).
- A mistaken conflict-of-interest judgment under Rule 1.7 does not, without more, establish incompetence under Rule 1.1.
- Rule 1.9(a) addresses materially adverse representation against a former client in the same or a substantially related matter; it does not apply where the core problem is concurrent representation.
- When some disciplinary violations are reversed on appeal, the sanction must be recalibrated to reflect only the sustained misconduct.

## Conclusion

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that an attorney’s simultaneous representation of a domestic-assault defendant and the alleged victim created a concurrent conflict under Rule 1.7, and the resulting Rules breach supported misconduct under Rule 8.4(a); it rejected separate findings of incompetence and former-client conflict, and remanded for reconsideration of discipline based on only the sustained violations.


In re Clauson’s Case, 53 A.3d 621 (N.H. 2012)