Peter A. Lagorio (2013)

misconduct would warrant substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. does not find that disbarment would result in grave injustice or that his him. In light of the seriousness of Attorney Lagorio's misconduct, the court that he chose to submit his resignation rather than contest the charges against an opportunity to be heard in the Massachusetts disciplinary proceedings and 37(12)(d) have been met. It appears from the order that Attorney Lagorio 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 Lagorio 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 Lagorio 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

Overseers that the resignation be accepted. Attorney Lagorio, and the recommendation of the Massachusetts Board of Bar the matter came before the court on an affidavit of resignation submitted by judgment of disbarment issued by the Supreme Judicial Court indicates that IOLTA account was determined to be short by approximately $450,000. The settlements and used the funds to pay obligations from earlier cases. His behalf. Attorney Lagorio intentionally misappropriated funds from the plaintiffs in class action lawsuits and collected settlement funds on their summary filed with the judgment states that Attorney Lagorio represented County (Massachusetts), disbarring Attorney Peter Anthony Lagorio. A of the October 16, 2012 judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk On November 1, 2012, the Attorney Discipline Office filed a certified copy

LD-2012-0012, In the Matter of Peter A. Lagorio

File Thomas V. Trevethick, Esq. Peter A. Lagorio, Esq. Professional Conduct Committee Distribution:

DATE: January 30, p. 2 2013

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, 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 Lagorio is Therefore, the court orders that Attorney Peter Anthony Lagorio be