Rosemary A. Macero (2011)

be imposed. Accordingly, the court concludes that a reciprocal one-year suspension should misconduct would warrant substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. imposition of a one-year suspension would result in grave injustice or that her seriousness of Attorney Macero'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 Macero 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 upon 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

Attorney Macero filed no response. court that it agreed with the imposition of a similar one-year suspension. substantially similar discipline would be unwarranted. The PCC notified the (PCC) inform the court if either contended that the imposition of identical or further ordered that Attorney Macero and the Professional Conduct Committee a copy of the April 8, 2011 disciplinary order be served on Attorney Macero. It In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(12)(b), the court ordered that

discovered. check, and attempting to mislead the court once her misrepresentation was subsequently filing a motion blaming the post office for the late receipt of the Professional Conduct by attempting to pay a filing fee with a backdated check, the finding that Attorney Macero violated the Massachusetts Rules of law in Massachusetts for a period of one year. The discipline was based upon Suffolk County, suspending Attorney Rosemary A. Macero from the practice of the April 8, 2011 order of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for On April 27, 2011, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a certified copy of

LD-2011-0005, In the Matter of Rosemary A. Macero

Distribution:

DATE: July 13, 2011

Dalianis, C.J., and Duggan, Hicks, Conboy and Lynn, 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 August 12, 2011, the Attorney Discipline Office shall advise

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

shall commence when this order becomes final and shall not be retroactive. the practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of one year. The suspension Therefore, the court orders that Rosemary A. Macero be suspended from