New Hampshire Bar Association
About the Bar
For Members
For the Public
Legal Links
Publications
Newsroom
Online Store
Vendor Directory
NH Bar Foundation
Judicial Branch
NHMCLE

A confidential, independent resource for NH lawyers, judges and law students.

Trust your transactions to the only payment solution recommended by over 50 bar associations.
New Hampshire Bar Association
Lawyer Referral Service Law Related Education NHBA CLE NHBA Insurance Agency
MyNHBar
Member Login
Member Portal
Casemaker

Bar News - October 19, 2016


Supreme Court Orders

LD-2016-0016
In the Matter of John A. James, Jr., Esquire

By letter dated September 8, 2016, the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) notified the court that Attorney John A. James, Jr., has been disbarred by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County for numerous violations of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct. The ADO requests that Attorney James be immediately suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pending a final decision by this court about the imposition of reciprocal discipline.

The court has reviewed the order of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the summary of the case prepared by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers. Based on this information, the court finds that Attorney James’s immediate suspension from the practice of law is necessary to protect the public and to preserve the integrity of the legal profession. See Rule 37(16)(d) and (f). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:

(1) In accordance with Rule 37(16)(d) and (f), Attorney John A. James, Jr., is immediately suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire pending a decision about the imposition of reciprocal discipline in accordance with Rule 37(12) and further order of this court. Attorney James is enjoined from transferring, assigning, hypothecating, or in any manner disposing of or conveying any assets of New Hampshire clients, whether real, personal, beneficial, or mixed.

(2) A copy of the order of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and of this order shall be served upon Attorney James by first-class and certified mail at the latest address he has provided to the New Hampshire Bar Association.

(3) Within 15 days from the date of this order, Attorney James may request a hearing on the issue of whether the interim suspension should be lifted, which will be promptly scheduled. See Reiner’s Case, 152 N.H. 163 (2005).

(4) Rule 37(12) governs reciprocal discipline. Paragraph (d) of this section authorizes the court to impose final discipline identical or similar to the discipline imposed by another jurisdiction unless the disciplined attorney or the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) demonstrates, or the court finds, based upon one of the grounds as set forth in Rule 37(12)(d), that the imposition of identical or substantially similar discipline would be unwarranted.

(5) Within 30 days of service of this order, Attorney James and the PCC shall inform the court if they contend that the imposition of discipline substantially similar to that imposed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would be unwarranted, and if they so contend, of the reasons for their contention.

Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

DATE: September 13, 2016
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk


The Supreme Court of New Hampshire, pursuant to RSA 490:4, directs that proceedings in every State court in New Hampshire be suspended on Friday, October 28, 2016, to facilitate continuing judicial and legal education and to accommodate judges’ meetings being held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the New Hampshire Bar Association. A judge or master may decide not to suspend proceedings if the judge or master and the lawyers on a case do not plan to attend the annual meeting, or if the judge or master, in his or her discretion, decides that the efficient administration of the court or ensuring justice in a particular case compels that a case be scheduled for a hearing or trial, or that a hearing or trial continue to be litigated, on that day.

Issued: September 16, 2016
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire


On June 16, 2016, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) filed a recommendation that Attorney Vaughn Tamzarian be disbarred. The recommendation was based, in part, on the PCC’s finding that Attorney Tamzarian had exercised control over the money of two clients with a purpose to deprive them of it. The PCC found that this conduct amounted to theft and violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct. The PCC also recommended that Attorney Tamzarian be ordered to pay the costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

On July 5, 2016, an order was issued to notify Attorney Tamzarian of the filing of the PCC’s recommendation. The order stated that Attorney Tamzarian and the Attorney Discipline Office’s Disciplinary Counsel must notify the court by August 4, 2016, if they wished the court to review any legal or factual issues relating to the PCC’s recommendation. The order stated that if neither party identified an issue to be reviewed, no further hearing on the PCC’s recommendation would be required, and the court could decide the matter based upon the record of the PCC proceedings.

The order was mailed to Attorney Tamzarian by first class and certified mail at the latest address that Attorney Tamzarian provided to the New Hampshire Bar Association. Both copies of the order were returned to the court. In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 42E(c), Attorney Tamzarian is deemed to have received notice of this matter. No response to the court’s July 5, 2016 order was filed. Accordingly, no further hearing will be scheduled and the matter will be decided based on the record of the PCC’s proceedings.

The PCC found that Attorney Tamzarian violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

1. Rule 1.1, which requires a lawyer to provide competent representation;

2. Rule 1.3, which requires a lawyer to act with reasonable diligence in representing a client;

3. Rule 1.7, which prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest;

4. Rule 1.15, which requires a lawyer to safeguard the property of clients;

5. Rule 1.16(a)(1), which prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation will result in violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct;

6. Rule 3.3, which prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making false statements to a tribunal;

7. Rule 5.5, which prohibits the unauthorized practice of law;

8. Rule 8.4(b), which makes it professional misconduct to commit a criminal act;

9. Rule 8.4(c), which makes it professional misconduct to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and

10. Rule 8.4(a), which prohibits a lawyer from violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court has reviewed the record of the PCC proceedings in this case. It concludes that the record supports the PCC’s findings. After considering the nature, seriousness, and extent of Attorney Tamzarian’s misconduct, the court concludes that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case.

THEREFORE, the court orders that Vaughn Tamzarian be disbarred from the practice of law in New Hampshire. He is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

DATE: September 19, 2016
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk


On July 19, 2016, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) filed a recommendation that Attorney Brandon D. Ross be disbarred. The PCC’s recommendation was based on a stipulation signed by Attorney Ross and Disciplinary Counsel, in which Attorney Ross admitted that he had violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct and conceded that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for his misconduct. Because the PCC’s recommendation was based on the stipulation agreed to by both Attorney Ross and Disciplinary Counsel as to Attorney Ross’s violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the appropriate discipline for the violations, the court concludes that it is unnecessary to serve Attorney Ross with the PCC’s recommendation or to provide an opportunity for further review. Accordingly, the requirements of Rule 37(16)(c) are deemed to have been waived.

In the “Stipulation to Disbarment” filed with the PCC, Attorney Ross admitted that he misappropriated funds from a special needs trust, failed to account for client funds in his possession, filed false trust accounting certificates, and failed to respond to the ADO’s lawful demand for information. He conceded that his conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

1. Rule 1.1 and 1.3, which requires a lawyer to act competently and diligently;

2. Rule 1.4, which requires a lawyer to keep a client informed of the status of a matter;

3. Rule 1.15, which requires a lawyer to safeguard the property of a client, and Supreme Court Rule 50, which imposes certain requirements on lawyers regarding trust accounts;

4. Rule 3.3, which prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement to a tribunal;

5. Rule 8.1(b), which prohibits a lawyer from making false statements in connection with a disciplinary matter;

6. Rule 8.4(c), which makes it professional misconduct to engage in conduct involving dishonesty; and

7. Rule 8.4(a), which makes it professional misconduct to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court has reviewed the “Stipulation for Disbarment” and the PCC’s recommendation that Attorney Ross be disbarred. After considering the nature, seriousness, and extent of Attorney Ross’s misconduct, the court concludes that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case.

THEREFORE, the court orders that Brandon D. Ross be disbarred from the practice of law in New Hampshire. He is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

DATE: September 19, 2016
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk


In accordance with RSA 592-B:2, the “Felonies First” project is currently effective in Cheshire County Superior Court, Strafford County Superior Court, and Belknap County Superior Court. RSA 592-B:2 provides that the “Felonies First” project shall become effective in the remaining superior courts upon order of the Supreme Court.

In accordance with RSA 592-B:2, the Supreme Court orders that “Felonies First” project take effect in the remaining superior courts on the following dates:

Merrimack County Superior Court January 1, 2017
Carroll County Superior Court January 1, 2017
Coos County Superior Court April 1, 2017
Grafton County Superior Court April 1, 2017
Hillsborough County Superior Court-Northern Division September 1, 2017
Hillsborough County Superior Court-Southern Division September 1, 2017
Rockingham County Superior Court October 1, 2017
Sullivan County Superior Court October 1, 2017

Issued: September 19, 2016 ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court Supreme Court of New Hampshire


ADM-2016-0064
In the Matter of Connor Boyle, Esquire

On August 1, 2016, this court issued an order requiring Attorney Connor Boyle to file his certificate of compliance with the minimum continuing legal education requirements for years 2014-2015, and to pay the late fees assessed, or be suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire. Attorney Connor has neither responded to the show cause order, nor brought himself into compliance with Supreme Court Rule 53.7(A)(2).

Attorney Connor Boyle is hereby suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire. The court hereby requires that Attorney Boyle’s trust accounts and other financial records be audited at his expense.

Attorney Boyle is ordered to notify his clients in writing that he has been suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire and to notify the Attorney Discipline Office by Monday, October 24, 2016, that he has completed this task. On or before Thursday, November 3, 2016, the Attorney Discipline Office shall advise the court if it believes that an attorney should be appointed to make an inventory of Attorney Boyle’s files and to take action to protect the interests of his clients.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

ISSUED: September 22, 2016
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk


In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(3)(a), the court reappoints Attorney Peter G. Beeson and Mr. Georges Roy to the Professional Conduct Committee, to serve three-year terms commencing January 1, 2017, and expiring December 31, 2019.

Issued: October 6, 2016

ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire


Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(5), the Supreme Court reappoints Attorney Joseph M. McDonough and Ms. Janet Ackerman to the Complaint Screening Committee of the Attorney Discipline System, to serve three-year terms commencing January 1, 2017 and expiring December 31, 2019.

Issued: October 6, 2016
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire


Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(4), the Supreme Court reappoints the following members of the Hearings Committee of the Attorney Discipline System:

Attorney Barbara Abbott
Attorney Edmund J. Boutin
Attorney Peter W. Brown
Mr. Robert Dabrowski
Mr. Peter A. Gauthier
Mr. Leonard Gerzon
Attorney Wilbur A. Glahn, III
Ms. Mary Nelson
Attorney Christopher J. Pyles
Attorney Jane M. Schirch
Ms. Marilyn E. Watson

These members are appointed to serve three-year terms commencing on January 1, 2017, and expiring on December 31, 2019.

Issued: October 6, 2016
ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Your New Hampshire resource for professional investigative services since 2005.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer