Joseph S. Mangano (2012)

discipline in New Hampshire. grave injustice or that his misconduct would warrant substantially different Mangano's misconduct, the court does not find that disbarment would result in that he consented to the disbarment. In light of the seriousness of Attorney an opportunity to be heard in the Massachusetts disciplinary proceedings and 37(12)(d) have been met. It appears from the order that Attorney Mangano had County, the court does not find that any of the conditions set forth in Rule Having reviewed the order of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk

response to the order. County (Massachusetts) would be unwarranted. Attorney Mangano filed no substantially similar to that imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk the opportunity to show why the imposition of discipline identical or with this provision, the court issued an order providing Attorney Mangano with warrants substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. In accordance 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

consent to disbarment. Judicial Court states that Attorney Mangano filed a waiver of hearing and with a disciplinary matter. The judgment of disbarment issued by the Supreme false statements of material fact to Massachusetts bar counsel in connection behalf, converting fees that he was paid by clients for his own use, and making representation to clients and failing to act with reasonable diligence on their represent them in bankruptcy matters, failing to provide competent rules of the jurisdiction, failing to notify clients that he was not authorized to by Attorney Mangano, including practicing bankruptcy law in violation of the summary filed with the judgment describes numerous instances of misconduct County (Massachusetts), disbarring Attorney Joseph Santo Mangano. A the March 20, 2012 judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk On Aprilll, 2012, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a certified copy of

LD-2011-0008, In the Matter of Joseph Santo Mangano

/ / p. 2 2

File Thomas V. Trevethick, Esq. Mr. JosephS. Mangano Professional Conduct Committee Distribution:

DATE: June p. 2 20, 2012

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy and Lynn, 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 Mangano is Therefore, the court orders that Attorney Joseph Santo Mangano be