NHCaseLaw.com

The facts giving rise to this order are undisputed and readily established by the record. Plaintiff brought suit against defendant, his ex-wife, for a so-called "Murphy" (Murphy v. Financial Development Corp., 126 NH 536 (1985)) claim after defendant foreclosed on a mortgage which she held on the marital homestead to secure payment of her interest therein. Attorney Tony F. Soltani represented the defendant at all material times and was solely responsible for conducting the foreclosure sale. Following trial, the jury found that the defendant had breached not merely her duty of due diligence but also her duty of good faith to the plaintiff in her conduct of the foreclosure sale and awarded damages based on the "fair market value" of the residence as of the date of the foreclosure. During deliberations, the jury specifically asked whether the defendant was responsible for the actions of her attorney in the conduct of the sale which question was answered in the affirmative.

On this date, the Court conducted a hearing on the N.H. Department of Corrections' motion to consider potential disqualification of plaintiffs' counsel, Attorney Richard Lehmann. All parties in these cases (consolidated for discovery) were represented at the hearing. At the commencement of the hearing, the Court addressed the Douglas law firm's Motion to File Redacted Versions (of its objection) And File Attachments Under Seal. Because no other party interposed objection, the motion was granted.

The plaintiffs have brought suit against three sets of attorneys alleging negligence on their part regarding a failed business transaction. The plaintiffs are the owners of Television Station WNDS, and they executed an Asset Purchase Agreement for its sale on September 26, 1996, with Ramcast Corp., predecessor in interest to a company named Global Broadcasting System, Inc. Pursuant to the Agreement, the plaintiffs turned over possession of the television station to Global on April 4, 1997. The purchase price was 18 million dollars and representations were made by Global's attorneys, based upon the assurances of Global's principals, that the moneys had been wired that day to the plaintiffs when in fact they had not. The plaintiffs initially sued Global for breach of contract and recovered a judgment. However, the judgment is uncollected because of the bankruptcy of Global.

DUGGAN, J. The petitioner, Lisa Holmes, appeals the ruling of the Superior Court (Lynn, J.) prohibiting Theodore Kamasinski from sitting at counsel table during the trial of her divorce from the respondent, Ralph F. Holmes. We affirm.

The issues presently before the court in this divorce action arise out of plaintiff's efforts to discharge her counsel and to substitute a non-lawyer, Theodore Kamasinski, as her "attorney-in- fact." Based largely, although not entirely, upon Mr. Kamasinski's appearance, plaintiff has moved to recuse the undersigned justice from continuing to preside over the case. The defendant objects to the recusal motion and seeks to bar Kamasinski's appearance on the grounds that he is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Also before the court are a motion to withdraw and a motion for instructions filed by plaintiff's present counsel, Attorney Donald Kennedy, and a petition for access to court records filed by Mr. Kamasinski in his capacity as a private citizen. After reciting the pertinent facts, I address these various motions below.

Petitioner Theodore Kamasinski began this action by filing a petition for declaratory judgment, asking the Court to declare that he is not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Pursuant to RSA 311:7-a, Respondents filed a cross-petition, seeking to enjoin Mr. Kamasinski "from appearing in any court in the State of New Hampshire on behalf of any person or entity other than himself personally" and "from rendering, offering to render or holding himself out as rendering any legal service or representation which violates RSA 311:7, i.e. ‘practicing as an attorney in court’[.]" Resp'ts' Answer and Cross-Pet. at 9.

The plaintiff, William D. Totherow, a long time professor of chemistry at defendant Rivier College, was discharged from his employment in 2003. Claiming that his discharge was improper, Totherow thereafter instituted this action against the college and two of its officials, President William J. Farrell and Academic Vice President Therese Larochelle. The writ contains counts for breach of contract, violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and enhanced compensatory damages. Plaintiff Barbara Totherow, the wife of William, also has made a claim for loss of consortium. Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for an order authorizing their counsel to conduct ex parte interviews (i.e., without prior notice to the defendants) of “lower echelon employees [of Rivier College] who are not representatives of the organization.”[1] For the reasons stated below, I grant the motion in part and deny it in part.