B. Michael Cormier (2013)

1. Rule 1.1, 1.3, 3.4(c), and 8.4(d), by failing to take steps the administration of the estate;

2. Rule 1.5(a), by charging a clearly excessive fee; certified ractice of ased upon sional n for the to probate nd to have o complete

3. Rule 1.15(b)(2), by failing to promptly withdraw his contingency fee from his IOLTA account; and by issuing checks drawn on t for personal matters;

4. Rule 1.15(c), by failing to promptly distribute settlement e account proceeds to his clients;

S. Rule 1.15 (b), and (e), by failing to keep records for his IOLTA account, as required, issuing checks drawn on the account cash, and failing to keep client funds in a trust account; payable to

6. Rule 1.15(d), by failing to account for client funds; and

7. Rule 1.4(a) and (b), 8.4 (a), (c), and (h), by failing to infor m his clients of his dissipation of their funds, and misrepresenting the reasons for his failure to pay them the amounts that he owed them in order to conceal his negligent misuse of the funds. In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(12)(b), the court ordered that a copy of the order of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County be served on Attorney Cormier. It further ordered that Attorney Cormier and the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) inform the court if either contended that the imposition of identical or substantially similar discipline would be

p. 2 unwarranted. Both Attorney Cormier and the PCC notified the court that the imposition of a two-year suspension was warranted. Rule 37(12)(d) provides for the imposition of reciprocal discipline by the court unless the respondent attorney or the PCC demonstrates, or the court finds, based upon the face of the record from which the discipline is predicated, that: (1) the procedure followed by the jurisdiction imposing discipline was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process; (2) the imposition of the same or substantially similar discipline by the court would result in grave injustice; or (3) the misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. : | Having reviewed the order of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, the court concludes that none of these factors are present. [It appears from the material filed that Attorney Cormier participated in the Massachusetts disciplinary proceedings. In light of Attorney Cormier’s numerous rule violations and the seriousness of his misconduct, the court does not find that the imposition of a two-year suspension would result in grave injustice or that his misconduct would warrant substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. Accordingly, the court concludes that a reciprocal two-year suspension should be imposed. Therefore, the court orders that Attorney B. Michael Cormier be suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of two years. The suspension shall become effective on November 5, 2013, unlessja motion for reconsideration is filed before that date. Any motion for reinstatement will be governed by Rule 37(14)(b). Attorney Cormier is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. See Rule 37(19). | | On or before November 25, 2013, the Attorney Discipline Office shall advise the court whether the appointment of an attorney is necessary to take possession of any client files or trust accounts. | i DATE: October 24, 2013 [ ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk i

B. Michael Cormier, Esq. File