Clark's Case, 37 A.3d 327

Gaudreau hired Clark to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, intending to exclude her husband’s income from the petition.
Clark submitted Schedule I with the spousal income column filled with zeroes and listed $2,195 as contributions from spouse in the debtor column.
On the Chapter 13 Statement, Clark again left the spousal income column at zero, except $365.83 for contributions from another person, and left marital adjustment fields at zero.
After a hearing, a trustee recommended against plan confirmation due to lack of disclosed disposable income, Gaudreau converted to Chapter 7, and later withdrew the petition; the case was dismissed.
The PCC sought disbarment for knowingly making a false statement to a tribunal under Rule 3.3(a)(1); Clark was already under a separate two-year suspension.
The Supreme Court ordered Clark disbarred and required reimbursement of investigative and enforcement expenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statements were knowingly false	Gaudreau’s husband income was undisclosed; Clark knew of it.	The law on spousal income was unsettled; he noted some income as contributions from spouse elsewhere.	Yes; clear and convincing evidence of knowing false statements to the court.
Whether the sanction of disbarment is appropriate	Disbarment warranted due to candor violation and potential harm.	Disciplinary measure should be less severe given mitigating factors or lack of intent to deceive.	Disbarment appropriate; no mitigating factors to offset.
What standards govern the sanctioning decision	Standards consider duty, intent, harm, and aggravating factors; candor to tribunal is paramount.	Standards may not justify extreme sanction given disputed mortgage of intent.	Standards support disbarment given the gravity of dishonesty and potential injury.

Kalil's Case, 146 N.H. 466 (2001) (oath and candor are fundamental to the profession)
Young's Case, 154 N.H. 359 (2006) (courts consider disciplinary sanctions with emphasis on candor and integrity)
Wolterbeek's Case, 152 N.H. 710 (2005) (standards guide imposing lawyer sanctions)
Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. 155 (2005) (purpose of discipline is public protection and integrity)
Grew's Case, 156 N.H. 361 (2007) (aggravating/mitigating factors influence sanction level)