This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
William L. Shaine (2015)
court would result in grave injustice; or (2) The imposition of the same or substantially similar discipline by the
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] was
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
warranted. Attorney Shaine filed no response. unwarranted. The PCC notified the court that it believed that disbarment was imposition of identical or substantially similar discipline would be Conduct Committee (PCC) to inform the court if either contended that the Attorney Shaine. The court ordered Attorney Shaine and the Professional order requiring that a copy of the Supreme Judicial Court's order be served on In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(12), this court issued an
Supreme Judicial Court issued an order of disbarment on March 26, 2015 . Attorney Shaine's resignation be accepted and that he be disbarred. The Board of Bar Overseers recommended to the Supreme Judicial Court that Conduct, including Rule 1.1S(b), (d) and (f), and 8.4(h). The Massachusetts conceded that his conduct violated the Massachusetts Rules of Professional assets of at least $123,000 while he served as a co-trustee of two trusts. He Overseers in which he admitted that he failed to safeguard and account for submitted an affidavit of resignation to the Massachusetts Board of Bar The record of the Supreme Judicial Court indicates that Attorney Shaine
Professional Conduct. ordering that he be disbarred for violating the Massachusetts Rules of Massachusetts, accepting the resignation of Attorney William L. Shaine and copy of an order of the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, On April29, 2015, the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) filed a certified
LD-2015-0006, In the Matter of William L Shaine, Esquire
ORDER
SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 2
File David M. Rothstein, Esquire William L . Shaine, Esquire Janet F. DeVito, Esquire Distribution:
Eileen Fox, Clerk ~~
ATIEST:
DATE:June 22,2015
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and B assett, JJ., concurred.
legal counsel. inability to act as an attorney, and shall advise the clients to seek new administrative proceedings, of his disbarment and consequent to notify clients in all pending matters, including litigated matters and (4) In accordance with Rule 37(13)(a) and (b), Attorney Shaine is ordered
other requirements of Rule 37(14). the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination and meet the he shall be required to take the New Hampshire Bar Examination and (3) If Attorney Shaine should seek readmission to the bar in the future,
this matter. costs and expenses incurred in the investigation and prosecution of ( 2) Attorney Shaine shall reimburse the Attorney Discipline Office for all
New Hampshire. (1) Attorney William L. Shaine is disbarred from the practice of law in
as follows: Attorney William L. Shaine should be disbarred. Accordingly, the court orders concludes that the imposition of the same discipline is warranted and that warrant substantially different discipline in New Hampshire. The court disbarment would result in grave injustice or that his misconduct would seriousness of Attorney Shaine's misconduct, the court does not find that Massachusetts disciplinary proceeding. Considering the nature and It is clear from the record that Attorney Shaine participated in the unable to fmd any basis for imposing different discipline. See Rule 37(1 2)(d). Having reviewed the order of the Supreme Judicial Court, the court is
in New Hampshire . (3) The misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline