Undomesticated

The New Hampshire Supreme Court Professional Conduct Committee recommends disbarment of an attorney

Mr. Ray was admitted to the New Hampshire Bar on May 24, 2016, after having practiced in Massachusetts for over a year. Mr. Ray never opened a client trust account in New Hampshire and, in August 2022, he closed his Massachusetts client account. Mr. Ray filed his last Trust Account Compliance Certification (TACC) on July 30, 2023, for the reporting period ending May 31, 2023. Mr. Ray did not file a TACC for the reporting period ending May 31, 2024.

In July 2023, Mr. Mark Maupin retained Mr. Ray to domesticate a foreign judgment in New Hampshire. Mr. Maupin paid Mr. Ray a $3,000 retainer for the work. The Attorney Discipline Office was unable to determine where Mr. Ray deposited this retainer and there was no evidence that it was placed in a client trust account, as required.

In August 2023, Mr. Ray twice represented to his client that he had filed the Registration of Foreign Judgment in the 6th Circuit Court – District Division – Hillsborough. Mr. Ray also represented to Attorney David DeBold, counsel for another interested party in the case, that the Registration of Foreign Judgment had been filed. Although Mr. Ray had drafted a document for this purpose, no Registration was filed with the circuit court in Hillsborough and there was no evidence that it had been filed in any other court.

Mr. Ray had no further communication with his client after August 30, 2023, nor did he complete any other cognizable work on the case. After having discovered on his own that no Registration of Foreign Judgment had been filed, the client filed a grievance on October 24, 2023. At no point has Mr. Ray returned any portion of the retainer to Mr. Maupin. Mr. Ray has not responded to any of the Attorney Discipline’s Office many attempts to speak to him or to any proceeding in the disciplinary matter.

Mr. Ray was administratively suspended on July 2, 2024, by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for failing to comply with his CLE requirements.

Sanction

When determining to impose the ultimate sanction of disbarment,” the Supreme Court focuses “not on punishing the offender, but on protecting the public, maintaining public confidence in the bar, preserving the integrity of the legal profession, and preventing similar conduct in the future.” In re O’Meara’s Case, 164 N.H. 762, 179 (2012). Here, Mr. Ray’s self-dealing with client money, dishonesty, abandonment of his client, and refusal to participate in the attorney discipline process all support disbarment.

(Mike Frisch)