Peter Larkowich (2012)

Charges.

3. To date, the Attorney Discipline Office has not received an Answer to the Notice of

meeting with Disciplinary Counsel.

2. That same day, Peter Larkowich accepted in-hand service of the Notice of Charges while

the Attorney Discipline Office issued a Notice of Charges in this matter.

1. On November 9, 2011, pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37A(III)(b)(2),

Martin, and Richard D. Sager. Jaye L. Rancourt was absent.

Chollet, David N. Cole, Alan J. Cronheim, Gerald A. Daley, Richard H. Darling, James R.

Chair, Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, Thomas P. Connair, Susan R.

matters. The entire record was also reviewed. Members present included: Margaret H. Nelson,

On April 17 , 2012, the Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the above captioned

Larkowich, Peter advs. Brenda L. McKelvey #10-061

Larkowich, Peter advs. Attorney Discipline Office #10-055

Alan J. Cronheim Holly B. Fazzino, Administrator Thomas P. Connair • non attorney member David N. Cole Richard D. Sager Susan R. Chollet' Jaye L. Rancourt Toni M. Gray,' Vice Chair 603-224-5828 • Fax 228-9511 James R. Martin Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Richard H. Darling' Margaret H. Nelson, Chair 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 Gerald A. Daley'

paragraph appears as it had in the Notice of Charges. , The ADO later learned of a more recent address for Mr. Larkowich. See Certificate of Service, below. This

12. Attomey Daniel P. Dargon was the registered agent and principal of Dargon Law Firm.

primary office was located in Concord, New Hampshire.

11. Dargon Law Firm P.L.L.C. was created in New Hampshire on November 14,2008. Its

10. In 2010, MI'. Larkowich worked at the Dargon Law Firm.

9. Mr. Larkowich's last known residential address is 216C Kearsarge Drive, Pembroke,

8. Mr. Larkowich is not admitted to the practice oflaw in New Hampshire.

payment of registration fee). He has not been reinstated.

Massachusetts for failure to comply with Massachusetts S.J.C. Rule 4:02(1) (non-

1974. In July 2005, Mr. Larkowich was suspended from the practice of law in

7. Peter Larkowich ("Respondent") has been a member of the Massachusetts bar since June

alleged facts and rule violations contained in the Notice of Charges.

6. By operation of Rule 37A(1II)(b)(3)(A), this pleading incorporates as admissions the

Ct. R. 37 A(1II)(b )(3)(A).

allegations set forth in the Notice of Charges shall be deemed to be admitted." N.H. Sup.

5. Because of Mr. Larkowich's failure to file an Answer, the same Rule requires that"the

service (November 9, 2011) to file an Answer to the Notice of Charges.

4. Pursuant to Rule 37A(III)(b)(3)(A), Mr. Larkowichhad thirty (30) days from the date of p. 3 Page 3 of31

will have counsel assigned to represent your interests (emphasis added) a description of the financial records we need and shortly thereafter you payment. Our paralegal department will send you a welcome package with I will advise you immediately once we have received your paperwork and

send them back with their payment. The letter went on as follows:

borrower, Gloria Torres-Landa. He instructed them to complete the enclosed forms and

19. On May 10,2010, Mr. Sutton forwarded documents to Ms. Chicoine and her co-

discuss the film's usual fee and typical payment arrangements.

recommendation from counsel is to initiate the loan modification." Mr. Sutton went on to

between the Dargon Law Firm and their local counsel in Washington, and that"the

18. Mr. Sutton later advised Ms. Chicoine that her case had been the subject of discussion

indicated that counsel"may be conferring with one of the other attorneys as well."

indicating that her case was being refen'ed to and reviewed by counsel. Mr. Sutton also

17. Mr. Sutton communicated with Ms. Chicoine via email over the next several days

modification.

16. Ms. Chicoine was seeking legal services regarding a possible banktuptcy and loan

contacted Dargon Law Film and spoke with the firm's Senior Consultant, Ira Sutton.

15. On or about May 3, 2010, Elizabeth Chicoine, a resident of the state of Washington,

federal courts."

licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in both the state and

Peter Larkowich" had been with the firm since January 2010, and that Mr. Larkowich"is

14.. When accessed on April 18, 2010, the Dargon Law Firm website indicated that"Attorney

State describes its primary business purpose as"attorney services to the public."

13. Dargon Law Firm's Certificate of Formation filed with the New Hampshire Secretary of p. 4 Page 4 of31 Chicoine stating:

27. _ On June 15, 2010, Dargon Law Finn's paralegal, Lade Kingsbury, sent an email to Ms.

second on June 14,2010.

26. Ms. Chicoine made two initial installment payments, the first on May 14,2010, and the

reject negotiations for all aspects of the below client's (loans and debts)."

PLLC and any of its representatives authorization to discuss, negotiate, and accept or

for Credit Report and Attorney Services. The authorization"grants the Dargon Law Finn

25. On May 14,2010, Ms. Chicoine and Ms. Torres-Landa also signed a Client Authorization

provided for three installments of $900.00 each.

24. The Agreement called for a fixed, flat fee payment of$2,700.00. The payment schedule

services reasonably required to fulfill Client's goals."

23. Further, the Agreement states that"Dargon Law will provide legal andlor law-related

through affiliate attorney( s) licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction of the Client."

22. The Agreement also indicates that"Dargon Law, where necessary, will retain and act

Client what steps need to be taken to settle, reduce or discharge debts. [X] Client's request to settle debts with creditors. An attorney will advise

residential real property. [X] Client's request for negotiation ofa loan modification on Client's

following matters: Client is hiring Dargon Law to represent Client in one or more ofthe

21. The Agreement described the scope of services as follows:

with Dargon Law Finn on May 14,2010, for"law-related services."

20. Ms. Chicoine and Ms. TOl1'es-Landa signed a Client Flat Fee Agreement (Agreement)

and they will be in touch with you immediately thereafter. p. 5 Page 5 of31

29. A copy of this letter was sent to Ms. Chicoine and Ms. Torres-Landa.

Dargon Law Firm PLLC Peter Larkowich, Esq.

( signature)

Sincerely,

additional documentation you may require. contact me in order to verify the receipt of this package and to request any Enclosed please find our client's loan modification package. Please

HAMP Program. Chicoine's and Ms. Torres-Landa's financial situation, including the internally-generated mortgage modification programs appropriate to Ms. activity in this matter until you have evaluated the available federal and contact. We formally request that you place on hold any foreclosm'e mortgage loan. An authorization form has been sent to the appropriate We are authorized to discuss the terms of any modifications of our client's

modified. accomplish this, they would need the terms of their mortgage loan are determined to retain their home and avoid foreclosure. In order to their hardship affidavit and supporting documentation make clear. They Ms. Chicoine's and Ms. Torres-Landa's financial status has changed, as

mortgage modification for our clients. mortgage modifications and debt settlement. We are formally requesting a Torres-Landa. We are a law firm which represents clients in bankruptcy, The Dargon Law Film now represents Elizabeth Chicoine and Gloria

To Whom it May Concern,

Hampshire. The letter reads as follows:

Depaliment, using Dargon Law Firm letterhead indicating its location in Concord, New

28. On June 17,2010, Mr. Larkowich wrote a letter to Bank of America, Home Retention

we will forward it to Bank of America for review. sure to contact you. Once we have the loan modification package together, documents that you sent in. If Peter 01' I have any questions, we will be I received your fax the other day. We are currently reviewing the p. 6 Page 6 of31

Discipline Office (ADO).

35. The Consumer Protection Bureau forwarded Ms. Chicoine's complaint to the Attorney

internet and that the web address for the business was www.dargonlaw.com.

seen the loan modification service offered by the Dargon Law Firm advertised on the

their involvement with the Dargon Law Firm. The complaint also stated that they had

Attorney General, Consumer Protection Bureau. They provided a brief chronology of

Complaint FOlm regarding the Dargon Law Firm with the New Hampshire Office of the

34. On September 10,2010, Ms. Chicoine and Ms. TOlTes-Landa filed a Consumer

the status of her case. The telephone line was disconnected.

33. On September 8, 2010, Ms. Chicoine called the above telephone number to inquire as to

Concord N.H. 03301 101 N. State St. Dargon Law Film Peter Larkowich, Esq.

32. Both of Mr. Larkowich's emails included the following footer:

when she received the forms from Bank of America so that they could discuss them.

31. Mr. Lal'kowich sent an email update on August 19, 2010, asking Ms. Chicoine to call him

back with the lender in 10 to 14 days.

checked with Bank of America about the modification and said he would be checking

30. On August 13, 2010, Mr. Larkowich sent Ms. Chicoine an email stating that he had p. 7 Page 7 of31

the field of loan modification and mortgage debt re-structuring, and he has Since 2009, he has devoted all of his experience, expertise and energy in

every aspect of the law. He then spent thirty years representing individuals and corporations in

School. Peter is a graduate of Providence College and Suffolk University Law

much experience in loan re-structuring as anyone in the country. evelY case is in the hands of a licensed attorney who has as MOST IMPORTANTLY, at NewEnglandForec1osureRescue.com,

42. On October 7, 2010, NEFR's website displayed the following relevant information:

restructuring cases.

41. The NEFR website solicited clients for representation by licensed attorneys in loan-

NEFR's principal office address is in Pembroke, NH.

40. VCorp, LLC, of Manchester, New Hampshire, is listed as NEFR's registered agent.

restructuring."

39. NEFR's Certificate of Formation describes its primary business purpose as"debt

2011, NEFR is"Not in Good Standing."

38. According to the records of the New Hampshire Secretary of State, as of October 24,

37. NEFR is a limited liability company created in New Hampshire on August 30, 2010.

that Mr. Larkowich was now working for NewEnglandForec1osureRescue.Com LLC

36. The ADO's initial investigation into Ms. Chicoine's grievance in the fall of2010 revealed

51. Mr. Larkowich was in attendance and asked to speak with Ms. DeVito during a break.

Department hearing relating to Dargon Law Firm.

50. On December 2, 2010, ADO Assistant General Counsel Janet DeVito was at a Banking

49. As of December 2, 2010, Mr. Larkowich had not responded to the ADO.

informing him that the November 12,2010, deadline for his reply had passed.

48. On November 15,2010, the ADO sent Mr. Larkowich an"immediate reply" letter,

10 Feny Street, Suite 311, Concord, NH 03301.

47. The letter was addressed to Mr. Peter Larkowich, NewEnglandForeclosureRescue.com,

letterhead.

of the letter. This letter listed the ADO's address both in the reply requirement and in its

Rule 37A(II)(a)(5)(C), he must submit a reply to the complaint within 30 days ofthe date

docketed the Chicoine complaint and that, pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court

46. The ADO sent a letter to Mr. Larkowich on October 12, 2010, informing him that it had

45. Mr. Simensen had previously been employed at Dargon Law Firm.

clients from all over the country."

Mr. Simensen had"worked for many months with Attorney Larkowich representing

2010, Mr. Simensen was also described as a founding attorney and his profile stated that

44. The NEFR website also included a profile for Attorney Erik Simensen. As of October 7,

accomplish by trying to represent themselves."

43. Mr. Larkowich's profile ends,"he is an expert who accomplishes what individuals cannot

every mortgage lender in the business ... successfully secured life-saving modifications for clients from virtually p. 9 Page 9 of31

Ct. R. 37 A(III)(b )(3)(A).

allegations set forth in the Notice of Charges shall be deemed to be admitted." N.H. Sup.

5. Because of Mr. Larkowich's failure to file an Answer, the same Rule requires that"the

service (November 9, 2011) to file an Answer to the Notice of Charges.

4. Pursuant to Rule 37 A(III)(b )(3)(A), Mr. Larkowich had thiliy (30) days from the date of

Chat·ges.

3. To date, the Attorney Discipline Office has not received an Answer to the Notice of

meeting with Disciplinary Counsel.

2. That satne day, Peter Larkowich accepted in-hand service of the Notice of Charges while

the Attorney Discipline Office issued a Notice of Charges in this matter.

1. On November 9, 2011, pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme Court Rule 37A(III)(b)(2),

Larkowich, Peter advs. Brenda L. McKelvey #10-061

PCC Record Tab 8, pp. 1-10.

November 11,2010.

2010, the ADO received Mr. Larkowich's response, which was signed and dated

53. Mr. Larkowich said he would deliver his response on December 6, 2010. On December 7,

address for the ADO was 4 Chenell Drive.

where the Banking Depat1ment is located Ms. DeVito said no, and explained that the . He then asked Ms. De Vito if she worked in the building, meaning 53 Regional Drive,

answered the first one. Ms. DeVito informed him that the ADO did not receive his reply.

52. Mr. Larkowich confirmed that he had received the ADO's letters and he said he had p. 10 Page 10 of31 paragraph appears as it had in the Notice of Charges. 2 The ADO later learned of a more recent address for Mr. Larkowich. See Certificate of Service, below. This

federal courts."

licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in both the state and

Peter Larkowich" had been with the firm since January 2010, and that Mr. Larkowich"is

14. When accessed on April 18, 2010, the Dargon Law Film website indicated that"Attomey

State describes its primary business purpose as"attomey services to the public."

13. Dargon Law Firm's Certificate of Formation filed with the New Hampshire Secretary of

12. Attomey Daniel P. Dargon was the registered agent and principal of Dargon Law Firm.

principal office was located in Concord, New Hampshire.

II. Dargon Law Film PLLC was created in New Hampshire on November 14,2008. Its

10. In 2010, Mr. Larkowich worked at Dargon Law Firm.

9. Mr. Larkowich's last known residential address is 216C Kearsarge Drive, Pembroke,

8. Mr. Larkowich is not admitted to the practice of law in New Hampshire.

payment of registration fee). He has not been reinstated.

Massachusetts for failure to comply with Massachusetts S.J.C. Rule 4:02(1) (non-

1974. In July 2005, Mr. Larkowich was suspended from the practice oflaw in

7. Peter Larkowich ("Respondent") has been a member of the Massachusetts bar since June

alleged facts and rule violations contained in the Notice of Charges.

6. By operation of Rule 37A(III)(b)(3)(A), this pleading incorporates as admissions the p. 11 Page 11 of31 negotiations for all aspects of the below client's (loans and debts)."

any of its representatives authorization to discuss, negotiate, and accept or reject

Services on March 26,2010. The authorization"grants the Dargon Law Finn PLLC and

23. The McKelveys also signed a Client Authorization for Credit Report and Attorney

22. The Agreement called for a fixed, flat fee payment of $3,200.00.

services reasonably required to fulfill Client's goals."

21. Further, the Agreement states that"Dargon Law will provide legal and/or law-related

through affiliate attorney(s) licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction of the Client."

20. The Agreement also indicates that"Dargon Law, where necessary, will retain and act

Client what steps need to be taken to settle, reduce or discharge debts. [Xl Client's request to settle debts with creditors. An attorney will advise

residential real propetiy. [Xl Client's request for negotiation of a loan modification on Client's

following matters: Client is hiring Dargon Law to represent Client in one or more of the

19. The Agreement described the scope of services as follows:

services," which the McKelveys signed on March 26, 2010.

18. One of those documents was a Client Flat Fee Agreement (Agreement) for"law-related

faxed documents to Ms. McKelvey with inshuctions to"Sign + fill out + fax back ...."

17. On or about March 26, 2010, Mr. C. B. Hart of the Dargon Law Finn (Salem Office)

Bank of America mortgage loan. The McKelveys live in Illinois.

16. Ms. McKelvey and her husband, Coy McKelvey, were hoping to modifY the tenns ofa

representation in a home mOligage loan modification.

15. In March of 2010, Brenda L. McKelvey sought out Dargon Law Finn for legal p. 12 Page 12 of31

for our clients. and debt settlement. We are formally requesting a mortgage modification a law firm which represents clients in bankruptcy, mortgage modifications The Dargon Law Firm now represents Coy and Brenda McKelvey. We are

To Whom it May Concern,

Hampshire. The letter reads as follows:

Department, using Dargon Law Firm letterhead indicating its location in Concord, New

29. On May 10, 2010, Mr. Larkowich wrote a letter to Bank of America, Loan Modification

regarding the negotiation of the loan modification.

28. No other person associated with Dargon Law Film ever initiated a call to Ms. McKelvey

mortgage loan modified.

Firm, Ms. McKelvey spoke with Mr. Larkowich who told her that he was going to get her

27. Sometime after forwarding the documents required to retain the services of Dargon Law

2010; May 14,2010; and June 4, 2010.

26. Three additional payments of $320.00 were made using bank checks dated April 30,

payment service.

The payments were made to Dargon Law Firm, PLLC, bye-check using an electronic

25. Ms. McKelvey made two initial installment payments of$320.00 each on April 2, 2010.

attorney ofthe findings.

"auditor" to make an assessment of the allegations of fraud and notify the client's

engaged in fraud. That fmm also includes an"Internal Use Only" section that requires the

undated form, Ms. McKelvey indicated that she believed that her lender or broker had

24. The McKelveys also completed a Mortgage Forensic Audit Analysis form. On the p. 13 Page 13 of31

had been given was no longer in service.

34. The next week, Ms. McKelvey called Mr. Larkowich again, but the phone number she

Dargon Law Firm had ceased operations.

McKelvey called Mr. Larkowich. Mr. Larkowich did not tell Ms. McKelvey that the

33. On September 24,2010, after hearing nothing as to the progress of her case, Ms.

32. In September 2010, Dargon Law Firm had ceased operations.

never heard that the modification was complete.

loan modification. She received reassurances that the matter was progressing, but she

31. Ms. McKelvey called the Dargon Law Firm routinely to inquire as to the status of her

30. A copy of this letter was sent to the McKelveys.

Dargon Law Firm PLLC Peter Larkowich, Esq.

(signature)

Sincerely,

additional documentation you may require. contact me in order to verify the receipt of this package and to request any Enclosed please find our client's loan modification package. Please

McKelvey's financial situation, including the RAMP Program. internally-generated mortgage modification programs appropriate to the activity in this matter until you have evaluated the available federal and contact. We formally request that you place on hold any foreclosure mortgage loan. An authorization form has been sent to the appropriate We are authorized to discuss the terms of any modifications of our client's

company. they would need to modify the terms oftheir mortgage loan with your to retain their home and avoid foreclosure. In order to accomplish this, affidavit and supporting documentation make clear. They are determined Mr. and Mrs. McKelvey's financial status has changed, as their hardship p. 14 Page 14 of31

45. The NEFR website listed its business address as 10 Feny Street, Suite 311, Concord, NH.

restmcturing cases.

44. The NEFR website solicited clients for representation by licensed attorneys in loan­

NEFR's principal office address is in Pembroke, NH.

43. VCorp, LLC, of Manchester, New Hampshire, is listed as NEFR's registered agent.

2011, NEFR is"Not in Good Standing."

42. According to the records of the New Hampshire Secretary of State, as of October 24,

41. Charles Hart is the individual that formed NEFR.

restmcturing."

40. NEFR's Certificate of Formation describes its primary business purpose as"debt

39. NEFR is a limited liability company created in New Hampshire on August 30, 2010.

Larkowich was now working for NewEnglandForeclosureRescue.Com LLC (NEFR).

38. The ADO's investigation into the complaint against Mr. Larkowich revealed that Mr.

Discipline Office (ADO).

37. The Consumer Protection Bureau forwarded Ms. McKelvey'S complaint to the Attorney

attorney."

Protection Bureau. The Addendum to her complaint stated,"Peter Larkowich was our

Dargon Law Film with the New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General, Consumer

36. On October 18,2010, Ms. McKelvey filed a Consumer Complaint Form regarding the

any course of action she could take in order to secure new legal counsel.

35. Mr. Larkowich never discussed with Ms. McKelvey or cOlTesponded with her regarding p. 15 Page 15 of3l

Mr. Larkowich on the same day infonning him that pursuant to New Hampshire Supreme

50. The ADO docketed Ms. McKelvey'S complaint on November 2,2010, and sent a letter to

49. Mr. Simensen had previously been employed at Dargon Law Firm.

clients from all over the country."

Mr. Simensen had"worked for many months with Attorney Larkowich representing

2010, Mr. Simensen was also described as a founding attorney and his profile stated that

48. The NEFR website also included a profile for Attorney Erik Simensen. As of October 7,

accomplish by trying to represent themselves."

47. Mr. Larkowich's profile ends,"he is an expert who accomplishes what individuals cannot

every mortgage lender in the business ... successfully secured life-saving modifications for clients from virtually the field of loan modification and mortgage debt re-structuring, and he has Since 2009, he has devoted all of his experience, expertise and energy in

every aspect of the law. He then spent thirty years representing individuals and corporations in

School. Peter is a graduate of Providence College and Suffolk University Law

much experience in loan re-structuring as anyone in the country. every case is in the hands of a licensed attorney who has as MOST IMPORTANTLY, at NewEnglandForeclosureRescue.com,

46. On October 7, 2010, the NEFR website displayed the following relevant infonnation: p. 16 Page 16 of31

PCC Record Tab 8, pp. 1-10.

# 1 0-055, but to date, Mr. Larkowich has failed to respond to the complaint in this matter.

56. On December 7, 2010, Mr. Larkowich delivered a response to the complaint in ADO

off his reply on December 6.

address was 4 Chenell Drive. Mr. Larkowich seemed surprised but said he would drop

where the Banking Department is located. Ms. DeVito said no, and explained that the

55. He then asked Ms. DeVito if she worked in the building, meaning 53 Regional Drive,

# I 0-055. Ms. De Vito told Mr. Larkowich that the ADO did not receive that response.

responded to the first one. See Larkowich, Peter advs. Attorney Discipline Office ADO

54. Mr. Larkowich told Ms. DeVito that he had received the ADO's letters and had

Larkowich was also in attendance, and asked to speak with Ms. De Vito during a break.

the New Hampshire Banking Department regarding the Dargon Law Firm. Mr.

53. On December 2,2010, Assistant General Counsel Janet DeVito was at a hearing before

of a Notice of Charges.

that his failure to immediately file response to the complaint could result in the issuance

not received his reply which was due on November 12, 2010, and further informed him

52. On November 15, 2010, the ADO sent an additional letter to Mr. Larkowich stating it had

10 Ferry Street, Suite 311, Concord, NH 03301.

51. The letter was addressed to Mr. Peter Larkowich, NewEnglandForeclosureRescue.com,

letter listed the ADO's address both in the reply requirement and in its letterhead.

Court Rule 37A(II)(a)(5)(c), he was required to submit his reply within 10 days. This p. 17 Page 17 of31 unlicensed in New Hampshire, constitutes a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5 (a).

negotiation ofa modification of the tenns ofthe clients' residential mortgage loan while

conduct with respect to his communications with his clients and to third parties, and his

5. There exists clear and convincing evidence, as detailed above, that Mr. Larkowich's

Torres-Landa's mortgage loan.

took the initial steps necessary to negotiate a modification of Ms. Chicoine's and Ms.

Larkowich presented himself as an attomey to Ms. Chicoine and Bank of America, and

4. Mr. Larkowich is not a member of the New Hampshire bar, and in this case, Mr.

violation of the regulation of the legal profession of that jurisdiction.

3. Under N.H.R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(a), a lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in

the Practice of Law).

Id. (citing N.H. HB 1420, Chapter 218:1, Laws of2002, Task Force on the Definition of

to"negotiation of legal rights or responsibilities on behalf of another entity or person( s)."

Court stated that, for the purposes of that case, law practice included but was not limited

of law by representing a client. N.H. Super. Merr. Co. 2001-E-0386, (Jan. 30,2003). The

that someone who was not a licensed attomey was engaging in the unauthorized practice

2. In Kamasinski v. McLaughlin, the New Hampshire Superior Court (Fitzgerald, J.) held

law. 7 C.J.S. § 26.

1. The practice of law includes all actions taken for a client in matters connected with the

The Committee finds the following violations by clear and convincing evidence:

III. RULINGS OF LAW p. 18 Page 18 of31

years of experience representing individuals and corporations in every aspect ofthe law.

II. Mr. Larkowich was identified on the NEFR website as a"founding attorney" who had

restructuring cases.

the NEFR website solicited clients for representation by licensed attorneys in loan­

10. Mr. Larkowich is not a member of the New Hampshire bar, and as of October 7,2010,

2010, until the firm ceased operations in August 2010.

law and provided law related services to clients of the Dargon Law Firm from January

9. Mr. Larkowich is not a member of the New Hampshire bar, and Mr. Larkowich practiced

for the practice of law.

jurisdiction shall not establish a systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction

8. Under N.H.R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(b)(I), a lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this

the Practice of Law).

Id. (citing N.H. HB 1420, Chapter 218:1, Laws of2002, Task Force on the Definition of

to"negotiation of legal rights or responsibilities on behalf of another entity or person(s)."

Court stated that, for the purposes of that case, law practice included but was not limited

of law by representing a client. N.H. Super. Men. Co. 2001-E-0386, (Jan. 30, 2003). The

that someone who was not a licensed attorney was engaging in the unauthorized practice

7. In Kamasinski v. McLaughlin, the New Hampshire Superior Court (Fitzgerald, J.) held

law. 7 C.J.S. § 26.

6. The practice oflaw includes all actions taken for a client in matters connected with the

note his administrative suspension in order to prevent those communications from being

practice in Massachusetts, it was necessary in these additional communications for him to

16. Although the Dargon Law Firm's website indicated that Mr. Larkowich was licensed to.

created a misleading impression that he was an attorney member of the firm.

use of the tenn"we," in conjunction with his identification of himself as an attorney,

stated that the Dargon Law Firm represented Ms. Chicoine and Ms. Torres-Landa. His

IS. Furthennore, Mr. Larkowich's letter to Bank of America on Dargon Law Firm letterhead

himself.

clients on August 13 and 19,2010, Mr. Larkowich used the title"Esq." when identifying

14. In Mr. Larkowich's letter to Bank of America and in his email correspondence to his

N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1 (a).

circumstances, not materially misleading .... necessary to make the statement, considered in light of all of the (a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact

or misleading if it: Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a communication is false

false or misleading communication about himself or his services.

13. Under the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer shall not make any

constitutes a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(b)(1).

solicitation of clients for representation by NewEnglandForeclosureRescue.com,

conduct with respect to his representation of clients at the Dargon Law Finn and his

12. There exists clear and convincing evidence, as detailed above, that Mr. Larkowich's p. 20 Page 20 of31

because he was not licensed in New Hampshire where the firm was located.

had a duty to indicate, under all appropriate circumstances, his jurisdictional limitations

22. As Mr. Larkowich represented himself to be part of the Dargon Law Finn, he therefore

Larkowich has never been licensed to practice in New Hampshire.

21. Here, the Dargon Law Finn office was located in the state of New Hampshire and Mr.

working at Dargon Law Finn.

20. Mr. Larkowich had an affinnative duty to identify his jurisdictional limitations while

N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.5(c).

limitations on those not licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the office is located.

19. Rule 7.5(c) requires lawyers in an office of a law firm to indicate the jurisdictional

7.5(c): Firm Name and Letterheads: Lawyer Identification

jurisdiction constitutes a violation ofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1 (a).

failure to infonn the public and his clients of his inability to practice law in any

18. There exists clear and convincing evidence, as detailed above, that Mr. Larkowich's

cUlTently suspended from the practice of law.

the bar in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts nor is there any statement that he was

in every aspect of the law." There is no statement clarifying that he was only admitted to

Founding AttolTIey who had spent"thirty years representing individuals and corporations

17. The NewEnglandForeclosureRescue.com website clearly listed Mr. Larkowich as a

jurisdiction.

materially misleading as to his status as a lawyer not currently licensed to practice in any p. 21 Page 21 of31 violation of the regulation of the legal profession of that jurisdiction.

3. Under N.H.R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(a), a lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in

the Practice of Law).

1d. (citing N.H. HB 1420, Chapter 218:1, Laws of2002, Task Force on the Definition of

to"negotiation oflegal rights 01' responsibilities on behalf of another entity or person(s)."

Court stated that, for the purposes of that case, law practice included but was not limited

of law by representing a client. N.H. Super. Merr. Co. 2001-E-0386, (Jan. 30, 2003). The

that someone who was not a licensed attorney was engaging in the unauthorized practice

2. In Kamasinski v. McLaughlin, the New Hampshire Superior Court (Fitzgerald, J.) held

law. 7 C.J.S. § 26.

1. The practice of law includes all actions taken for a client in matters connected with the

PCC Record Tab 8, pp. 11-16.

25. There is clear and convincing evidence of a violation ofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a).

constitutes a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.5(c).

indicate his jurisdictional limitations in his communications with clients and third parties

24. There is clear and convincing evidence, as detailed above, that Mr. Larkowich's failure to

did not indicate the jurisdictional limitations on his ability to practice.

courts. However, in correspondence to the Bank of America issued by Mr. Larkowich, he

website, indicating that he was licensed to practice in Massachusetts state and Federal

23. Mr. Larkowich pennitted Dargon Law Finn to list him as an attorney on the finn's p. 22 Page 22 of31

for the practice oflaw.

jurisdiction shall not establish a systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction

8. Under N.H.R. Prof. Conduct 5.5(b)(1), a lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this

the Practice of Law).

Id. (citing N.H. HB 1420, Chapter 218:1, Laws of2002, Task Force on the Definition of

to"negotiation of legal rights or responsibilities on behalf of another entity or person(s)."

Court stated that, for the purposes of that case, law practice included but was not limited

of law by representing a client. N.H. Super. Merr. Co. 2001-E-0386, (Jan. 30,2003). The

that someone who was not a licensed attorney was engaging in the unauthorized practice

7. In Kamasinski v. McLaughlin, the New Hampshire Superior Court (Fitzgerald, J.) held

law. 7 C.J.S. § 26.

6. The practice of law includes all actions taken for a client in matters connected with the

5.5(a), by clear and convincing evidence.

mortgage loan while unlicensed in New Hampshire, is a violation N.H. R. Prof. Conduct

parties, and his negotiation of a modification of the terms of the McKelveys' residential

5. Mr. Larkowich's conduct with respect to his communications with his clients and to third

authorization to discuss the terms of any modification of the mortgage.

to the McKelveys' property, and informed the bank that Dargon Law Firm had

and took the initial steps necessary to place on hold any foreclosure activity with respect

Larkowich represented himself as an attorney to Ms. McKelvey and Bank of America,

4. Mr. Larkowich is not a member of the New Hampshire bar, and in this case, Mr. p. 23 Page 23 of31 Larkowich stated that the Dargon Law Film represented the McKelveys. His use of the

15. The letter to Bank of America was created on Dargon Law Firm letterhead. In it, Mr.

identifying himself.

14. In Mr. Larkowich's letter to Bank of America, Mr. Larkowich used the title"Esq." in

circumstances, not materially misleading ... N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.1 (a). necessary to make the statement, considered in light of all of the (a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact

or misleading if it: Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a communication is false

false or misleading communication about himself or his services.

13. Under the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer shall not make any

Prof. Conduct 5.5(b )(1).

representation by NewEnglandForeclosureRescue.com, constitutes a violation of N.H. R.

representation of clients at the Dargon Law Firm and his solicitation of clients for

12. There is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Larkowich's conduct with respect to his

years of experience representing individuals and corporations in every aspect of the law.

11. Mr. Larkowich was identified on the NEFR website as a"founding attorney" who had

restructuring cases.

the NEFR website solicited clients for representation by licensed attorneys in loan-

10. Mr. Larkowich is not a member of the New Hampshire bar, and as of October 7, 2010,

2010, until the firm ceased operations in August 2010.

law and provided law related services to clients of the Dargon Law Firm from January

9. Mr. Larkowich is not a member of the New Hampshire bar, and Mr. Larkowichpracticed p. 24 Page 24 of3l

relating to the client to the extent petmitted by law. that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which such as giving reasonable notice of (sic) the client, allowing time for steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, (d) As a condition to tennination of representation, a lawyer shall take

19. N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.16(d) requires:

N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 7.l(a).

and his clients of his inability to practice law in any jurisdiction constitutes a violation of

18. There is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Larkowich's failure to infonn the public

statement that he was currently suspended from the practice of law.

only admitted to the bar in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts nor is there any

corporations in evety aspect of the law." There is no statement clarifying that he was

"Founding Attorney" who had spent"thirty years representing individuals and

17. The NewEnglandForeclosureRescue.com website clearly listed Mr. Larkowich as a

jurisdiction.

misleading as to his status as a lawyer not cun'ently licensed to practice in any

note his lack of licensure in order to prevent the communication from being materially

practice in Massachusetts, it was necessary in this additional communication for him to

16. Although the Dargon Law Finn's website indicated that Mr. Larkowich was licensed to

misleading impression that he was an attorney member of the finn.

tenn"we," in conjunction with his identification of himself as an attorney, created a p. 25 Page 25 of31

26. There is clear and convincing evidence of a violation of N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a).

Prof. Conduct 8.1(b).

November 2,2010, and November 15,2010, letters constitutes a violation of N.H. R.

25. There is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Larkowich's failure to respond to the

upon Ms. McKelvey's grievance and required him to respond.

24. The ADO informed Mr. Larkowich that it had docketed a complaint against him based

authority.

from knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary

23. N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1 (b) prohibits a lawyer in connection with a disciplimuy matter

entitled, constitutes a violation ofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1.l6( d).

employment of other counsel, and surrendering papers and property to which the client is

representation, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for

extent reasonably practicable to protect the McKelveys' interests upon the termination of

22. There is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Larkowich's failure to take steps to the

Firm were retUlned to her when the firm closed.

working on the case. None of the documents Ms. McKelvey submitted to Dargon Law

failed to take any steps to inform the McKelveys that there was no longer any counsel

21. Mr. Larkowich failed to mention to the McKelveys that Dargon Law Firm had closed and

clients. The law firm's closing was therefore a termination of representation.

20. When Dargon Law Firm closed, Mr. Larkowich was no longer representing the firm's p. 26 Page 26 of31

The second prong requires an analysis of Mr. Larkowich's mental state. In #10-055, the

duty to the public. Standards, II -Theoretical Framework.

In #10-061, Mr. Larkowich's misconduct violated hisduties as a professional and his

his duty as a professional. Standards, II -Theoretical Framework.

Under the first prong of the analysis, in #10-055, Mr. Larkowich's misconduct violated

sanction. Id.

the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors and whether they affect the baseline

baseline sanction is determined, the Court then looks to the fourth and final part of the analysis,

misconduct and determining a baseline sanction. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303. Once the

The first three parts of the analysis create the fi'amework for characterizing the

'613,621 (2007»; Standards § 3.0.

and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." Id. (quoting Douglas' Case, 155 N.H.

the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct

forth a foUt' part analysis for courts to consider in imposing sanctions:"(a) the duty violated; (b)

("Standards"), it looks to them for guidance. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303. The Standards set

the Supreme Court has not adopted the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions

account the severity of the misconduct. See Coffey'S Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005). Although

in the futme." E.g., Conner's Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). Any sanction should take into

confidence in the bar, preserve the integrity of the legal profession, and prevent similar conduct

The purpose of the Court's disciplinary process is"to protect the public, maintain public

PCC Record Tab 8, pp. 11-16. p. 27 Page 27 of31

injury the McKelveys suffered was the result ofthe misconduct and mismanagement of Dargon

In #10-061, Mr. Larkowich's actions did not cause direct injury to Ms. McKelvey. Any

and misleading advertising.

profession by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and facilitating the production of false

Law Firm. Clearly, Mr. Larkowich caused injury to the reputation and integrity of the legal

Landa. Any injury they suffered was the result of the misconduct and mismanagement of Dargon

#10-055, Mr. Larkowich's actions did not cause direct injury to Ms. Chicoine and Ms. Torres­

Larkowich's misconduct. See Kersey's Case, 842 A.2d at 123-24 (citing Standards § 3.0). In

Under the third prong of analysis of the actual or potential injury caused by Mr.

complaint in this case.

Professional Conduct. Finally, Mr. Larkowich knew that he had failed to file a response to the

closing and should have had their interests protected as required by the New Hampshire Rules of

Dargon Law Finn, including the McKelveys, should have been given proper notice of the finn's

as to his status as an attorney. Mr. Larkowich knew, or should have known, that all clients of the

have known that the websites created and maintained by his employers made misrepresentations

presented himself as an attorney to Ms. McKelvey and her lender. Mr. Larkowich knew or should

knowingly with respect to the loan modification work that he was doing, and he knew he

In #10-061, the facts of this case support the conclusion that Mr. Larkowich acted

created and maintained by his employers made misrepresentations as to his status as an attorney.

Ms. Chicoine and her lender. Mr. Larkowich knew or should have known that the websites

loan modification work that he was doing, and he knew he presented himself as an attorney to

facts of this case support the conclusion that Mr. Larkowich acted knowingly with respect to the p. 28 Page 28 of3!

held himself out to both the client and the bank as a lawyer, and it was reasonable for both parties

modification services may be undertaken on behalf of a client by a non-lawyer, Mr. Larkowich

Hampshire attorney representing clients in loan modification negotiations. Although loan

Mr. Larkowich worked at Dargon Law Firm under the direction of a licensed New

law was not the result of professional misconduct.

to establish a small business unrelated to the practice of law. His suspension from the practice of

Massachusetts bar for failing to pay administrative fees owed after relocating to New Hampshire

of discipline to be imposed. Standards § 9.31. Mr. Larkowich was suspended from the

There are a number of mitigating circumstances that may justifY a reduction in the degree

misconduct here warrant a baseline sanction of Suspension.

In #10-055, the duty violated, the accompanying mental state, and hatm caused by the

714 (2005)).

aggravating or mitigating factors on the ultimate sanction." Wolterbeek's Case, 152 N.H. 710 at

baseline sanction. ("After determining the sanction, [the Court] considers the effect of any

the analysis: the existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors and whether they affect the

Under the fourth prong of the analysis, the Court then looks to the fourth and final step in

when he failed to respond to the ADO.

when tenninating a relationship with a client. Mr. Larkowich caused potential injury to the public

production of false and misleading advertising, and failing to adhere to professional standards

integrity of the legal profession by engaging in the unauthorized practice oflaw, facilitating the

adverse impact on the McKelveys. Clearly, Mr. Larkowich caused injury to the reputation and

Law Finn. However, Mr. Larkowich could have taken steps in an attempt to avoid any potential p. 29 Page 29 of31

held himself out to both the client and the bank as a lawyer, and it was reasonable for both parties

modification services may be undertaken on behalf of a client by a non· lawyer, Mr. Larkowich

Hampshire attorney representing clients in loan modification negotiations. Although loan

Mr. Larkowich worked at Dargon Law Finn under the direction of a licensed New

law was not the result of professional misconduct.

to establish a small business umelated to the practice of law. His suspension from the practice of

Massachusetts bar for failing to pay administrative fees owed after relocating to New Hampshire

degree of discipline to be imposed. Standards § 9.31. Mr. Larkowich was suspended from the

determined, there are a number of mitigating circumstances that may justify a reduction in the

misconduct here wan'ant a baseline sanction of Suspension. Once the baseline sanction is

In #10·061, the duty violated, the accompanying mental state, and halm caused by the

that Mr. Larkowich has substantial experience in the practice oflaw. Standards § 9.22.

9.32. Aggravating factors to be considered include the presence of multiple offenses and the fact

good faith effort to rectify consequences of misconduct (misleading advertising). Standards §

Additional mitigating factors include absence of a prior disciplinary record and timely

150 N.H. at 587·88 (citing Standards §§ 3.0 and 8.0).

Larkowich's state of mind is a relevant inquiry on the question of sanction. See Kersey's Case,

Rule 5.5(a) is no defense on the question of whether the Rule was violated in this case, Mr.

without violating Rule 5.5(a). Although Mr. Larkowich's lack of awareness of the breadth of

Mr. Larkowich thought that he could represent clients in loan modification matters

those of a non·lawyer acting in the same capacity.

to believe that Mr. Larkowich was acting as a lawyer possessing skills and authority beyond p. 30 Page 30 of31

severity of Mr. Larkowich's misconduct, accords appropriate weight to the mitigating and

misconduct (misleading advertising). Standards § 9.32. A Public Censure takes into account the

finally, Mr. Lm'kowich made a timely and good faith effort to rectifY consequences of his

sanction,. Kersey's Case, 150 N.H. at 587; MI'. Lat'kowich has no prior disciplinaty record; and

without violating Rule 5.5(a) and his state of mind is a relevant inquiry on the question of

misconduct; Mr. Larkowich thought that he could represent clients in loan modification matters

Massachusetts bar for failing to pay administrative fees and not the result of professional

render the imposition of a Public Censure appropriate: Mr. Larkowich was suspended from the

Significant mitigating factors exist, however, which when considered in the sanction analysis

misconduct and detennining a baseline sanction of Suspension. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303.

analysis of the Standards without question creates the framework for characterizing the

Public Censure appears to be the appropriate sanction. Applying the first three patis of the

Standards, New Hampshire case law, and the purpose of attorney discipline in New Hampshire, a

In summary, taking into consideration the four-part analysis recommended by the

fact that Mr. Larkowich has substantial experience in the practice oflaw. Standards § 9.22.

Aggravating factors to be considered include the presence of multiple offenses and the

sanction. See Kersey's Case, 150 N.H. at 587-88 (citing Standards §§ 3.0 and 8.0).

was violated in this case, Mr. Larkowich's state of mind is a relevant inquiry on the question of

lack of awareness of the breadth of Rule 5.5(a) is no defense on the question of whether the Rule

clients in loan modification matters without violating Rule 5.5(a). Although Mr. Larkowich's

those of a non-lawyer acting in the same capacity. Mr. Larkowich thought that he could represent

to believe that Mr. Larkowich was acting as a lawyer possessing skills and authority beyond p. 31 Page 31 of31

File Peter Larkowich Julie A. Introcaso, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

May~,2012 aD 40· ,.;{2). () +. (yvl) ILt~ /'

37(3)(c). appeal this decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. See also Supreme Court Rule Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(A)(III)(d)(2)(D)(4)(A), the parties have the right to VIII. RIGHT TO APPEAL

Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters, and 8.4(a): Misconduct. Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services, 7.5(c): Firm Name and Letterheads, 8.1 (b): 5.5(b)(1): Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law, 7.1(a): violating N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 1J6(d): Declining or Tenninating Representation, 5.5(a) and For the above reasons, the Committee issues a Public Censure to Peter Larkowich for VII. CONCLUSION

The Respondent shall pay all costs ofthe investigation and prosecution of this matter.

For all the reasons stated above, the Committee hereby imposes a Public Censure.

of conduct for lawyers in our state.

aggravating factors in the case, and serves a goal of attorney discipline by establishing a standard