CONCORD — A Hanover attorney violated the Professional Conduct Code when he represented both a husband and the wife he allegedly assaulted, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The Professional Conduct Committee recommended Atty. K. William Clauson be suspended from the practice of law for six months because the committee found he violated four separate professional conduct rules in representing the couple.

Clauson appealed their finding and the Supreme Court determined he violated only two of the four rules. The court said it could not be confident the PCC still would have recommended a six-month suspension for two violations and sent the case back to them to consider the appropriate sanction.

The discipline stemmed from a 2009 case where Clauson represented Brenda and Todd Gray. Mr. Gray was accused of breaking a bathroom mirror, throwing furniture around, slapping his wife in the face and throwing her into a refrigerator, table and chair. He was also accused of slapping his daughter in the face.

He was freed on personal recognizance bail and ordered not to have contact with his wife or daughter.

Mrs. Gray contacted Clauson and asked him to help her get the no contact order lifted so her husband could return home.

Clauson, who has practiced law in New Hampshire since 1971, agreed to take the case and after talking to the husband, obtained his consent to appear in 2nd Circuit Court, Lebanon District, on his behalf.

He filed a motion for an immediate hearing on bail conditions and appeared with Mrs. Gray in Lebanon District Court. The wife told the judge she did not consider herself a victim and wanted the no-contact condition lifted. The judge refused to issue a ruling because Mr. Gray was not present.

Clauson appeared again in court at Mr. Gray’s arraignment where Mrs. Gray testified she was not afraid of her husband and wanted him to return home. The judge expressed concern at that point to Clauson, who was representing both the Grays, pointing out it presented a possible conflict of interest.

Mrs. Gray then testified she was not afraid of her husband and she wanted him to return home. Mr. Gray did not speak. The next day the court lifted the no-contact bail order.

Clauson represented Mr. Gray in the criminal case. The charges were placed on file for a year without finding, conditioned on Gray’s good behavior and completion of an anger management course.

The court, in finding Clauson had a conflict of interest, said the attorney had an obligation to offer candid and independent advice to Mrs. Gray, which could have conflicted with her husband’s interests in removing the no-contact provision and his defense on the assault charge.

Mrs. Gray had told the trooper investigating the case that her husband had assaulted her, according to the court order, and their daughter also told him her father had assaulted both of them.

The court said, as an example, Clauson knew Mrs. Gray had an obligation to tell the truth in the bail hearing.

“A disinterested lawyer might have examined the facts, explain to Mrs. Gray the risks of telling the court that the assaults never happened notwithstanding substantial evidence to the contrary, and, accordingly, advised her to refrain from denying the assault took place,” the court said.

The court also wrote that a disinterested lawyer might have perceived the possibility that Mrs. Gray would change her mind and opt later to proceed as a willing witness for the prosecution.

“In that event, prudence might also dictate advising her to refrain from supporting removal of the no contact order lest she later face exposure to cross examination based upon her prior statements to the court (a possibility made even more pronounced in light of her having told Trooper Hamilton on the night of the incident that Mr. Gray had, in fact, assaulted her). Providing such advice obviously would have been detrimental to Mr. Gray’s interest in lifting the no contact condition and defending against the criminal case.”

The court said whether or not Clauson was in fact satisfied that there was no assault, his loyalty to Mr. Gray in seeking to lift the no contact order and defend him against the charged crime could have compromised his ability to provide independent and disinterested advice to Mrs. Gray.

As for Clauson being incompetent, the court pointed out he was successful both in lifting the no contact order after the initial hearing and in negotiating a plea, which resulted in Mr. Gray avoiding trial.

pgrossmith@unionleader.com