## Facts

- Blair C. Wood was a well-known real estate attorney who practiced in Hanover, New Hampshire, and lived in Lebanon, New Hampshire.
- In June 1990, representatives of Heritage Companies (Heritage), a developer, met with Wood to discuss developing a regional shopping mall near Exit 15 of Interstate 89 in Enfield.
- Wood had prior involvement with the Enfield site and had obtained town approvals related to its commercial development.
- Heritage retained Wood for help with Enfield zoning matters. Wood conferred with Heritage representatives and sent them a written review of Enfield’s zoning ordinance.
- Wood told Heritage that his law partner, Jay P. Cooper, would be responsible for developing a strategy to obtain approvals for the Enfield mall.
- Heritage later obtained an option on a different parcel in Lebanon (the McQuade property) near Exit 16 of Interstate 89, which abutted Wood’s own property.
- In early November 1990, Heritage asked Cooper for advice on gaining approval for a mall on the McQuade site. Cooper contacted Lebanon officials and, on November 21, 1990, sent Heritage a detailed memorandum.
- Cooper subsequently learned that the McQuade property abutted Wood’s land. Wood and his family opposed rezoning and building a mall next to their home.
- After recognizing the conflict, Wood’s firm notified Heritage that it would withdraw from further representation and recommended that Heritage retain other counsel.
- Heritage pursued rezoning efforts, including circulating a petition signed by Lebanon residents seeking rezoning of the McQuade property.
- Wood opposed the rezoning publicly as an abutting landowner and resident: he spoke with a newspaper reporter (who wrote that Wood planned a campaign against the project), wrote to the city council, and attended public meetings where his objections were reported.
- Lebanon ultimately rejected the rezoning proposal.
- The New Hampshire Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct filed an original petition in the New Hampshire Supreme Court seeking public censure. The parties stipulated to the material facts and exhibits, and the court decided the matter on that record.

## Issues

1. Whether, after withdrawing, Wood violated the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct governing former clients by opposing Heritage’s Lebanon rezoning effort in a matter related to his prior work for Heritage.
2. Whether Wood improperly used or revealed information relating to his prior representation of Heritage in his public opposition to the rezoning.
3. Whether the rules required Wood to maintain a “passive or nominal representation” of Heritage after withdrawal to avoid potential harm associated with his later conduct.
4. Whether public censure was warranted on the stipulated record.

## Decision

- The court denied the petition for public censure.
- The court concluded the committee had not proved, on the stipulated record and under the applicable burden of proof, that Wood’s public opposition involved prohibited use or disclosure of information gained from the prior representation.
- The court rejected the theory that a lawyer who properly withdraws must continue a passive or nominal role for the former client until the risk of harm from withdrawal passes.
- The court determined that discipline was not justified on the facts presented.

## Legal Principles

- In attorney-discipline matters, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has original authority to determine whether the rules were violated and what sanction, if any, should be imposed, based on the record presented.
- A former-client conflict generally bars a lawyer from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter where that person’s interests are materially adverse to the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent.
- The rules also restrict a lawyer from using or revealing information relating to the prior representation to the disadvantage of the former client, except as the rules permit.
- The committee bears the burden of proving charged misconduct by clear and convincing evidence.
- A lawyer who withdraws because of a personal conflict is not required to continue “passive or nominal representation” of the client merely to reduce the chance of later harm linked to the withdrawal.
- A lawyer’s participation in public processes as a private citizen and property owner is not, without more, professional misconduct; discipline requires proof of a specific rule violation, such as misuse of protected client information.

## Conclusion

Wood’s Case held that public censure was not warranted where an attorney’s firm withdrew after discovering that a former client’s proposed mall site abutted the attorney’s home, and the attorney then opposed the rezoning through public statements, letters, and meeting participation, because the stipulated record did not establish clear and convincing proof of improper use of information relating to the former representation and the rules did not impose any duty of continuing passive representation after withdrawal.


Wood's Case, 137 N.H. 698 (1993)