Bar News - July 13, 2012
Supreme Court Orders
In the Matter of Joseph Santo Mangano
On April 11, 2012, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a certified copy of the March 20, 2012 judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County (Massachusetts), disbarring Attorney Joseph Santo Mangano. A summary filed with the judgment describes numerous instances of misconduct by Attorney Mangano, including practicing bankruptcy law in violation of the rules of the jurisdiction, failing to notify clients that he was not authorized to represent them in bankruptcy matters, failing to provide competent representation to clients and failing to act with reasonable diligence on their behalf, converting fees that he was paid by clients for his own use, and making false statements of material fact to Massachusetts bar counsel in connection with a disciplinary matter. The judgment of disbarment issued by the Supreme Judicial Court states that Attorney Mangano filed a waiver of hearing and consent to disbarment.
Rule 37(12)(d) provides for the imposition of reciprocal discipline by the court unless the respondent attorney or the PCC demonstrates, or the court finds, based on the face of the record from which the discipline is predicated, that: (1) the procedure followed by the jurisdiction imposing discipline was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; (2) the imposition of the same or substantially similar discipline by the court would result in grave injustice; or (3) the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. In accordance with this provision, the court issued an order providing Attorney Mangano with the opportunity to show why the imposition of discipline identical or substantially similar to that imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County (Massachusetts) would be unwarranted. Attorney Mangano filed no response to the order.
Having reviewed the order of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, the court does not find that any of the conditions set forth in Rule 37(12)(d) have been met. It appears from the order that Attorney Mangano had an opportunity to be heard in the Massachusetts disciplinary proceedings and that he consented to the disbarment. In light of the seriousness of Attorney Mangano’s misconduct, the court does not find that disbarment would result in grave injustice or that his misconduct would warrant substantially different discipline in New Hampshire.
Therefore, the court orders that Attorney Joseph Santo Mangano be disbarred from the practice of law in New Hampshire. Attorney Mangano is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. See Rule 37(19).
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy and Lynn, JJ., concurred.
DATE: June 20, 2012
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk
In the Matter of Betsy J. Kelley, Esquire
On April 10, 2012, Attorney Betsy J. Kelley was suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for failing to file her 2011 annual trust accounting certificate and failing to pay late fees assessed for late filing of her certificate. Attorney Kelly has now filed her 2011 annual trust accounting certificate and she has paid the late fees assessed. She has filed a motion for reconsideration and has asked the Court to waive the late fees assessed. She also has requested that she be reinstated to the practice of law in New Hampshire.
Because Attorney Kelley is in compliance with the trust accounting requirements, Attorney Kelly’s request for reinstatement is granted. Attorney Betsy J. Kelley is reinstated to the practice of law in New Hampshire, effective immediately. To the extent that Attorney Kelley’s request for reconsideration requests that the court’s April 10, 2012, suspension order be vacated entirely, her request is denied.
The court defers ruling on Attorney Kelley’s request for waiver of the late fees. On or before Tuesday, July 10, 2012, Attorney Kelly may file additional information or documentation to establish that she notified the New Hampshire Bar Association and the Supreme Court of her new address and of the date of such notice.
Dalianis, C.J., and Conboy and Lynn, JJ., concurred.
DATE: June 20, 2012
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk
In accordance with the Supreme Court’s order of April 27, 2012, adopting amendments to Supreme Court Rule 42, the Supreme Court designates Attorney Mary E. Tenn to serve as vice-chair of the Board of Bar Examiners.
June 28, 2012
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire