Jeremey A. Miller (2014)

deprivation of due process; or so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a (1) The procedure [followed by the jurisdiction imposing discipline] \Ya\J

which the discipline is predicated, that: PCC demonstrates, or the court finds, based on the face of the record from similar discipline by the Supreme Court unless the respondent attorney or the Rule 37(12)(d) provides for the imposition of the same or substantially

was warranted. Attorney Miller filed no response. court that it believed that a three-month suspension, conditionally suspended, substantially similar discipline would be unwarranted. The PCC notified the inform the court if either contended that the imposition of identical or ordered Attorney Miller and the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) to Supreme Judicial Court's order be served on Attorney Miller. The court discipline, the court issued an order requiring that a copy of the Maine In accordance'Aith Supreme Court Rule 37(12), which governs reciprocal

comply with certain conditions. that the suspension itself be suspended on the condition that Attorney Miller Miller be suspended from the practice of law in Maine for three months, but Professional Conduct 1.3, 3.3(a), and 8.4(a) and (d). It ordered that Attorney that Attorney Miller's conduct, though unintentional, violated Maine Rules of not contain an original signature of the client, as required. The court found electrC'mic case filing system despite the fact that the supporting documents did he filed a bankruptcy petition and supporting documents using the court's the rules of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maine when The Maine Supreme Judicial Court found that Attorney Miller violated

conditionally suspended from implementation. law in Maine for a period of three months, with the entire suspension period Professional Conduct and ordered that he be suspended from the practice of determined that Attorney J~emey A. Miller violated the Maine Rules of copy of an order of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, in which the court On October 1, 2014, the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) filed a certified

LD"2014-0009, In the Matter of Jeremey A. Miller, Esquire

File Jeremey A. Miller, Esquire Sara S. Greene, Esquire Janet F. DeVito, Esquire Professional Conduct Committee Distribution:

DATE: November p. 2 21, 2014

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, and Lynn, JJ., concurred.

to impose the three-month suspension. action should be taken, which may include the filing of a request with the court Court, the PCC shall hold further proceedings to determine what additional has not met the conditions set forth in the order of the Maine Supreme Judicial If the ADO and/ or the PCC determines at any time that Attorney Miller

Judicial Court. comply with all of the terms set forth in the order of the Maine Supreme entire suspension period be suspended on the condition that Attorney Miller Hampshire for a period of three months, and that the implementation of the that Attomey Jeremey A. Miller be suspended from the practice of law in New concludes that the imposition of the same discipline is warranted. It orders substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. Accordingly, the court in grave injustice or that Attorney Miller's misconduct would warrant imposition of a three-month suspension, conditionally suspended, would result the Maine disciplinary proceedings. The court does not find that the that Attomey Miller had an opportunity to participate, and did participate, in substantially different discipline. See Rule 37(1 p. 2 2)(d). It is clear from the record court is unable to find on the face of the record any basis for imposing Having reviewed the order of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the

in New Hampshire. (3) The misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline

court would result in grave injustice; or ( p. 2 2) The imposition of the same or substantially similar discipline by the