Dennis M. O'Driscoll (2009)

the question whether Supreme Court Rule 37 allows the imposition of a court issued an order giving the parties the opportunity to file memoranda on for a period of tjme specified by the COllIt...." On February 3,2009, the "suspension" as"the suspension of an attorney's right to practice in this State, "indefinite period." New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37 defines a The Supreme Judicial Court suspended Attorney O'Driscoll for an

discipline should be imposed. discipline in New Hampshire. Accordingly, the court concludes that reciprocal injustice or that the misconduct would warrant substantially different imposition of identical or substantially similar discipline would result in seriousness of Attorney ODriscoll's misconduct, the court cannot find that the funds and to have failed to return funds belonging to his client. In light of the due process. The court notes that ODriscoll was found to have misused client Court's record that the procedure it followed deprived Attorney O'Driscoll of In this case, there is no indication on the face of the Supreme Judicial

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 ofreciprocal discipline by the

order. discipline would be unwarranted. Attorney ODriscoll filed no response to the either contended that the imposition of identical or substantially similar ODriscoll and the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) inform the court if 8, 2006 order be served on Attorney ODriscoll. It further ordered that Attorney Supreme Court Rule 37(12)(b), the court ordered that a copy of the November practice of law in Massachusetts for an"indefinite period." In accordance with County (Massachusetts) suspending Attorney Dennis M. O'Driscoll from the of the November 8, 2006 order of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk On December 3, 2008, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a certified copy

LD-2008-0009, In the Matter of Dennis M. O'DriscoJ]

File Sherri Kluesener, Supreme Court NH Bar Association x6 Professional Conduct Committee Dennis M. O'Driscoll James L. Kruse, Esquire Distribution:

DATE: March 3, p. 2 2009

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

Rule 37(19). Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. s.e.e Attorney O'Driscoll is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Professional Any motion for reinstatement will be governed by Rule 37(14)(a) - (e).

years. The suspension shall take effect immediately. is suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of five Judicial Court. Therefore, the court orders that Attorney Dennis M. O'Driscoll similar" to the"indefinite suspension" imposed by the Massachusetts Supreme The court concludes that a suspension for five years is"substantially

no response to the order. "substantially similar" discipline under Rule 37(1 p. 2 2)(b). Attorney O'Driscoll filed It contends that a suspension for a minimum of five years would constitute indefinite suspension is essentially a suspension for a minimum of five years. that under Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 4:01, § 18(2)(b), an The Attorney Discipline Office filed a memorandum in which it argued

imposed in this case. suspension for an"indefinite period," and if not, what discipline should be