Joseph M. Carreiro Jr. (2010)

File NH Bar Association x4 Sherri Kluesener, Supreme Court Professional Conduct Committee Joseph M. Carreiro, Jr. Thomas V. Trevethick, Esq. Distribution:

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

commencement date of the suspension is February 5, 2010. court's decision imposing a two-year suspension commences immediately. The Respondent's motion for reconsideration is denied. Accordingly, the

following order: Carreiro, Jr., the court on February 5, 2010, issued the In Case No. LD-2009-0009, In the Matter of Joseph M.

seriousness of Attorney Carreiro's misconduct, the court does not find that the opportunity to be heard in the Massachusetts proceedings. In light of the been met. It appears from the material filed that Attorney Carreiro had an for Suffolk County, the court does not find that any of these conditions have Having reviewed the order of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

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

response to the court's order. Attorney Carreiro filed no response. unwarranted. The PCC notified the court that it did not intend to file a imposition of identical or substantially similar discipline would be Conduct Committee (PCC) inform the court if either contended that the Carreiro. It further ordered that Attorney Carreiro and the Professional a copy of the February 4, 2009 disciplinary order be served on Attorney In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(12)(b), the court ordered that

converted. providing falsified documents to the law firm about the funds that he had funds that he received on its behalf; and by making false statements and law firm's funds to his own use; by failing to account to the law firm for the employed him funds that he received on the law firm's behalf; by converting the Professional Conduct by failing to promptly turn over to the law firm that upon the finding that Attorney Carreiro violated the Massachusetts Rules of of law in Massachusetts for a period of two years. The discipline was based Suffolk County, suspending Attorney Joseph M. Carreiro, Jr. from the practice of the February 4, 2009 order of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for On October 29, 2009, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a certified copy

LD-2009-0009, In the Matter of Joseph M. Carreiro, Jr.

File Professional Conduct Committee Joseph M. Carreiro, Jr. Thomas V. Trevethick, Esq. Distribution:

DATE: January p. 3 20, 2010

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

possession of any client files or trust accounts. advise the court whether the appointment of an attorney is necessary to take On or before February 19, p. 3 2010, the Attorney Discipline Office shall

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

retroactive. suspension shall commence when this order becomes final and shall not be from the practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of two years. The Therefore, the court orders that Joseph M. Carreiro, Jr., be suspended

be imposed. Accordingly, the court concludes that a reciprocal two-year suspension should