Lester W. Firstenberger (2007)

these conditions have been established. Firstenberger has not demonstrated, and the court does not find, that any of for Suffolk County, and the response filed by Attorney Firstenberger. Attorney Hampshire. The court has reviewed the order of the Supreme Judicial Court misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in New discipline by the court would result in grave injustice; or (3) that the due process; (2) that the imposition of the same or substantially similar lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of that: (1) the procedure followed by the jurisdiction imposing discipline was so finds, based on the face of the record from which the discipline is predicated, court unless the respondent attorney or the PCC demonstrates, or the court Rule 37( 12)(d) provides for the imposition of reciprocal discipline by the

the suspension pending appeal, and that this request was denied by the court. that the Supreme Judicial Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts stay imposition of discipline. We also note that Attorney Firstenberger requested discipline provided sufficient notice of the charge that was the basis for the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, ruled that the petition for Court for Suffolk County, which rejected it. Justice Spina, acting as the note that Attorney Firstenberger made this argument to the Supreme Judicial opportunity to be heard that it constituted a deprivation of due process. We Board of Bar Overseers Hearing Committee was so lacking in notice and unwarranted. He argued that the procedure followed by the Massachusetts that the imposition of identical or substantially similar discipline would be Attorney Firstenberger filed a response to the order in which he argued

identical or substantially similar discipline. The PCC advised the court that it did not object to the imposition of

identical or substantially similar discipline would be unwarranted. Committee (PCC) inform the court if either contended that the imposition of further ordered that Attorney Firstenberger and the Professional Conduct a copy of the April 10,2007 order be served on Attorney Firstenberger. It In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(12)(b), the court ordered that

practice of law in Massachusetts for a period of six months and one day. (Massachusetts), which suspended Attorney Lester W. Firstenberger from the the April 10, 2007 order of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County On April 25, 2007, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a certified copy of

LD-2007-0004, In the Matter of Lester W. Firstenherger

File Attorney Lester W. Firstenberger Landya B. McCafferty, Esquire James 1. DeHart, Esquire Distribution:

DATE: June p. 2 22,2007

Broderick, C.J., and Dalianis, Duggan, Galway and Hicks, JJ., concurred.

possession of any client files or trust accounts. the court whether the appointment of an attorney is necessary to take On or before July 1 p. 2 2, 2007, the Attorney Discipline Office shall advise

matter. See Rule 37(19). Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this 37(14). Attorney Firstenberger is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the months and one day. Any motion for reinstatement will be governed by Rule suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of six Accordingly, as provided in Rule 37(1 p. 2 2), Lester W. Firstenberger is hereby p. 3 File NH Bar Association Margaret H. Nelson, Chair Attorney Lester W. Firstenberger Jennifer B. Sargent, Esquire James L. DeHart, Esquire / Distribution:

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

Lester W. Firstenberger's motion for reinstatement is granted.

order: Firstenberger, the court on March 29,2011, issued the following In Case No. LD-2007-0004, In the Matter of Lester W.