Martha M. Davis (2009)

Hampshire. Accordingly, the court concludes that a reciprocal three-month her misconduct would warrant substantially different discipline in New imposition of a three-month suspension would result in grave injustice or that seriousness of Attorney Davis' misconduct, the court does not find that the had an opportunity to be heard during the board's proceedings. In light of the been met. It appears from the order issued by the board that Attorney Davis Responsibility Board, the court does not find that any of these conditions have Having reviewed the order of the State of Vermont Professional

warrants substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. by the court would result in grave injustice; or (3) the misconduct established due process; (2) the imposition of the same or substantially similar discipline 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

notified the court that it did not intend to file a response to the court's order. and requiring a period of probation instead of imposing a suspension. The PCC imposed. She requested that the court consider issuing a public reprimand for her conduct and stated that she would accept whatever discipline the court Attorney Davis filed a response to the court's order. She expressed regret

unwarranted. imposition of identical or substantially similar discipline would be Conduct Committee (PCC) inform the court if either contended that the Attorney Davis.' It further ordered that Attorney Davis and the Professional ordered that a copy of the October 31, 2008 disciplinary order be served on equipment. In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(12)(b), the court Attorney Davis had been in possession of marijuana and marijuana cultivating of twelve months. The discipline was based upon the board's finding that law in Vermont for three months and placing her on probation for a minimum Responsibility Board suspending Attorney Martha M. Davis from the practice of of the October 31,2008 order of the State of Vermont Professional On January 6, 2009, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a certified copy

LD-2009-0001, In the Matter of Martha M. Davis

Sherri Kluesener, Supreme Court NH Bar Association x5 Professional Conduct Committee Martha M. Davis, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Esquire Distribution:

DATE: February 13,2009

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

of any client files or trust accounts. court whether the appointment of an attorney is necessary to take possession On or before May 15, 2009, the Attorney Discipline Office shall advise the

37(19). Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. See Rule Davis is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Any motion for reinstatement will be governed by Rule 37(14)(f). Attorney

suspension shall take effect on June 1, 2009. practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of three months. The Therefore, the court orders that Martha M. Davis be suspended from the

in Vermont, the court concludes that aperiod of probation is unnecessary. sl,-lspension should be imposed. Because Attorney Davis remains on probation p. 2 p. 3 File Sherri Kluesener, Supreme Court NH Bar Association x5 Professional Conduct Committee Martha M. Davis, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Esquire Distribution:

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

immediately. M. Davis is reinstated to the practice of law in New Hampshire, effective 37(14)(f), Attorney Davis' motion for reinstatement is granted. Attorney Martha be reinstated to the practice of law. In accordance with the provisions of Rule fully complied with the terms of the suspension order and requesting that she Davis has filed a motion for reinstatement and an affidavit stating that she has Hampshire for a period of three months, commencing June 1, 2009. Attorney Attorney Martha M. Davis was suspended from the practice of law in New

Davis, the court on October 8, 2009, issued the following order: In Case No. LD-2009-0001, In the Matter of Martha M.