Last week, I published the first in a series of articles looking at how New Hampshire is trying to cancel the only lawyer in the state who challenged COVID policies.
In short, the NH Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) appears to be using Fojo’s disruptive work in COVID cases as an excuse to cancel him (get caught up here).
Where We Left Off
At the Jan 4 hearing (get caught up here), Fojo – through his attorney – presented evidence refuting the ADO’s accusations. That he misappropriated client funds, allegedly lied about closing out a medical lien, and did not cooperate with the ADO.
Fojo’s attorney also pointed out at the hearing that the ADO attempted to force him to breach attorney-client privilege (in and of itself, alarming) and provide the ADO with information for one of his clients. The ADO’s suspension order also left hundreds of Fojo’s New Hampshire clients without an attorney. A group that included hundreds of parents in the midst of mask mandate lawsuits and several large institutional clients.
Switching lawyers in the middle of a suit is not like switching grocery stores and the ADO left them all unrepresented for what appears to be political payback for daring to challenge state and local COVID mandates based on statutes and rules as written.
You know, the law.
Making it Look Political
After the ADO issued the temporary suspension and before the Jan 4 hearing, someone at the ADO tipped off the media. Several news articles were published (misrepresented the facts).
I asked around and attorneys’ licenses get “suspended” all the time. It’s a lot like politicians getting fined by the SEC. It happens often but is rarely publicized.
In the case of attorneys, disciplinary action is quite common. But can you name any of them? Unless there is some political joy to be had no one covers them. They aren’t considered news. No one inside bothers to notify the media because the media wouldn’t waste the time.
How about the lawyer daring to say things like look, the rules, and laws as written do not support these mask mandates? How about that guy? Maybe we trump up some charges, get a little overzealous, ignore process and procedure again, and give him a little media perp walk.
Use him to set an example.
In this instance, the media’s advertised allegations echoed the ADO’s petition, including allegations that Fojo stole money from his clients.
The NH Union Leader even quoted the ADO inviting “Any client who believes he or she is due funds from [Fojo Law’s trust] account should contact the Attorney Discipline Office.”
A blanket invitation for complaints against a licensee is, I am told, a major due process problem.
Inmates Running the Asylum
The hearing referee issued a recommendation on January 12 that Fojo’s temporary suspension remain in place. Fojo has appealed (filed February 10), noting that the hearing referee applied the wrong standard of review when concluding Fojo was dishonest despite evidence contradicting that conclusion.
Also refuted in the appeal is the charge Fojo overpaid himself in two matters despite documents demonstrating Fojo did no such thing. The appeal also notes that the referee ignored much of the evidence Fojo presented to refute the ADO’s allegations.
As of mid-February (after nearly eight months), the ADO has yet to file a notice of charges against Fojo – so Fojo’s license was suspended for a month and a half and he still did not know what charges the ADO intended to bring.
As of this writing, Mifd-March, Fojo cannot practice law in NH and the ADO has not filed a notice of charges. No discovery had been allowed, and no witnesses have testified.
Imagine being detained without notice or a hearing or knowledge of what you’ve been charged with: that’s what’s happening here.
The Supreme Court did hold oral arguments on Fojo’s appeal on February 15.
We’ll get to that in the next piece.
