This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Michael M. Burke (2015)
misrepresentation; and misconduct to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or (5) Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), which makes it professional
compatible with professional obligations of the lawyer. efforts to ensure that the conduct of the non - lawyers assistants is supervisory authority over non - lawyer assistants to make rea sonable (4) Rule of Professional Conduct 5.3, which requires a lawyer with direct
of interest; representing a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict (3) Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, which prohibits a lawyer from
comply with reasonable requests for information; clients reasonably informed about the status of matters and to promptly (2) Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.4, which requires a lawyer to keep
diligence and pro mptness in representing a client; provide competent representation to a client and to act with reasonable (1) Rule of Professional Conduct 1. 1 and 1.3, which require a lawyer to
found that Attorney Burke violated the following rules: Disciplinary Counsel and Attorney Burke. Based on the stipulation, the PCC PCC on a stipulation of facts, violation s and sanctions that had been agreed to by Th e misconduct complaint against Attorney Burke was submitted to the
this matter. retroactive to the date that he closed his practice in anticipation of a resolution of an eighteen month suspension. He asked the court to impose the suspension the evidence, and stating that he did not contest the PCC’s recommend ation for conceding that the PCC’s findings of fact and rulings of law were supported by t o file an answer to the petition. Attorney Burke filed an answer to the petition, the petition was served upon Attorney Burke, along with an order requiring him the practice of law. In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37 (16), a copy of petition for a n eighteen month suspension of Attorney Michael M. Burke fro m On March 11, 2015, t he Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) filed a
LD - 201 5 - 00 0 2, In the Matter of Michael M. Burke, Esquire
O R D E R
SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 2
File Janet F. DeVito, Esquire Michael M. Burke, Esquire David M. Rothstein, Esquire Elizabeth M. Murphy, Esquire Sara S. Greene, Esquire Attorney Discipline Office, 11 - 060 Distribution:
Eileen Fox, Clerk _ _ ___________________ _
ATTEST:
DATE: May 21, 2015
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Discipline Office. of Rule 37(13). A copy of the affidavit shall be sent to the Attorney complied with the provisions of this order and with the requirements Burke shall file with the court an affidavit showing that he has fully (4) Within 30 days after the effective date of the suspension, Att orney
Court Rule 37(13). (3) Attorney Burke is ordered to comply with the provisions of Supreme
PCC’s recommendation of March 5, 2015. in th e investigation and prosecution of this matter, as outline d in the for all costs and expenses incurred by the attorney discipline system (2) Attorney Burke is ordered to reimburse the Attorney Discipline Office
recommendation. effective retroactively from March 5, 2015, the date of the PCC’s New Hampshire for a period of eighteen months, with the suspension (1) Attorney Michael M. Burke is suspended from the practice of law in
eighteen months. Accordingly, the court orders as follows: Burke be suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for a period of Burke’s response, t he court accepts the PCC’s recommendation that Attorney After reviewing the petition, the PCC’s recommendation, and Attorney
of a n eighteen month suspension. The PCC also approved the parties’ stipulation as to the recommended sanction
of Professional Conduc t. (6) Rule 8.4(a), which makes it professional misconduct to violate the Rules