O'Meara's Case, 164 N.H. 170

O’Meara represented the Conants in a Pennsylvania personal injury case arising from a 2005 wreck that left Anita Conant a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic.
The Conants signed a contingent fee agreement for O’Meara to receive 33.33% of gross recovery, with the Conants bearing all expenses.
O’Meara learned the defendant’s insurer had $11 million limits and retained counsel, but he later sent settlement communications without express authority.
O’Meara negotiated and discussed a potential $11 million settlement; the Conants’ total life-care needs exceeded $15–23 million, influencing fee discussions.
A dispute arose over a January 2006 settlement for $11 million and a February 2006 mediation, culminating in the ultimate settlement of $11.5 million and a disputed fee totaling roughly $1.25 million placed in escrow.
During arbitration of the fee dispute, O’Meara testified that the Conants agreed to a $2 million fee, which the PCC found to be false and deceitful.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did O’Meara violate Rule 1.2(a)?	Yes; he communicated a settlement demand for $11 million without client authorization.	The demand could be viewed as a Dumas-type demand inviting an offer; authority issue disputed.	Yes, Rule 1.2(a) violated.
Did O’Meara violate Rule 1.7(a)(2) (conflict of interest)?	Yes; personal fee interests interfered with loyal client representation and led to coercive mediation tactics.	No material conflict; interests were aligned toward securing a favorable outcome.	Yes, Rule 1.7(a)(2) violated.
Did O’Meara violate Rule 8.4(c) (deceit) by lying at arbitration?	Yes; he falsely testified that the Conants agreed to a $2 million fee on Feb. 25.	Dispute over credibility; PCC record insufficient to resolve the arbitration testimony.	Yes, Rule 8.4(c) violated.
Did O’Meara violate Rule 8.4(a) (general misconduct) and justify disbarment?	Yes; violations against honesty and integrity undermine the profession.	Disciplinary action should be a suspension, not disbarment, given mitigating context.	Yes, 8.4(a) violated; disbarment warranted.
Is disbarment the appropriate sanction given the conduct?	Disbarment necessary to protect the public and profession due to deceit and conflicts.	A lesser sanction may suffice given delay and other factors.	Disbarment; no lesser sanction suffices.

Conner’s Case, 158 N.H. 299 (2009) (bedrock duties; honesty and client loyalty)
Morse’s Case, 160 N.H. 538 (2010) (attorneys’ duties to truth; public trust in the profession)
Bosse’s Case, 155 N.H. 128 (2007) (injury to profession when deceit occurs; public trust concerns)
Fitzpatrick’s Case, 182 N.H. 211 (1989) (disbarment for lying; serious disregard for institutions)
Budnitz’ Case, 139 N.H. 489 (1995) (disbarment for lying to grand jury and PCC)
O’Meara’s Case, 150 N.H. 157 (2003) (prior disciplinary offense for similar misconduct)