Peter Paul Mitrano (2008)

process. Nor has Attorney Mitrano established that disbarment would result in in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due procedure followed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals was so lacking Columbia Court of Appeals. We cannot find on the face of the record that the Responsibility violated due process was reviewed and rejected by the District of hearing committee and the District of Columbia Board on Professional court notes that Attorney's Mitrano argument that the procedure before the the court does not find, that any of these circumstances have been met. The and Attorney Mitrano's response, Attorney Mitrano has not demonstrated, and Having reviewed the decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

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

Hampshire. that the misconduct found warranted substantially different discipline in New the same or substantially similar discipline would result in grave injustice, or Columbia Court of Appeals deprived him of due process, that the imposition of disciplinary violations. He also argued that the procedure before the District of determination of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that he committed Attorney Mitrano filed a response to the court's order. He challenged the

similar discipline would be unwarranted. court if either contended that the imposition of identical or substantially Attorney Mitrano and the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) inform the 17, 2008 decision be served upon on Attorney Mitrano. It further ordered that with Supreme Court Rule 37(12)(b), the court ordered that a copy of the July disbarring Attorney Peter Paul Mitrano from the practice of law. In accordance the July 17, 2008 decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, On July 29, 2008, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a certified copy of

LD-2008-0006, In the Matter of peter Paul Mitrano

File Sherri Kluesener, Supreme Court NH Bar Association x5 Peter Paul Mitrano Landya B. McCafferty, Esquire James L. DeHart, Esquire Margaret H. Nelson, Chair Distribution:

DATE: October 6, p. 2 2008

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

in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. See Rule 37(19). hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee disbarred from the practice of law in New Hampshire. Attorney Mitrano is Accordingly, as provided in Rule 37(1 p. 2 2), Peter Paul Mitrano is hereby

disbarment is warranted. belong to him." In light of this finding, we conclude that the imposition of knowing that the funds - or at least the major part of the funds - did not entirely of a ... check for $ p. 2 241,336.59 issued ... to his client, ... Board's determination that Mitrano took and spent for his own purposes the Appeals stated in its decision that"[u]nderlying all of the violations is the different punishment in New Hampshire. The District of Columbia Court of grave injustice or that the misconduct established would warrant substantially