Lisa Biron (2015)

she was convicted we re not “serious crimes” as defined in Rule 37(9). Although In her response, the respondent does not contend that the crimes of which

denied. convictions. The respondent’s request for a continued stay of this proceeding is she filed a motion in accordance with 28 U.S.C.§2255 to collaterally attac k her filed a response in which she asked that this matter remain stayed until after the respondent to show cause why she should not be disbarred. The respondent affirmed, the court issued an order, in accordance with Rule 37(9)(d), requiring After receiving notification that the respondent’s convictions h ad been

imposed until all appeals from the conviction are concluded. appropriate. . . . Provided, however, that final discipline will not be an order of disbar ment, or such other discipline as the court shall deem determines that no such good cause has been shown, the court shall issue attorney should not be disbarred as result of the conviction. If the court proceeding by issuing an order to the attorney to show cause why the pursuant to subsection (a) above, institute a formal disciplinary “serious crime,” the court may, and shall if suspension has been ordered Upon the receipt of a certificate of conviction of an attorney for a

Rule 37(9)(d) provides in part:

p etition for writ of certiorari. and that the Supreme Court of the United States had denied the respondent’s the United States Court of Appeals had affirmed the respondent’s convictions, Appeals on the respondent’s appeal. In April 2015, the court was notified that present disciplinary matter pending a decision by the Un ited States Court of Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In August 2013, the court stayed the pornography. The respondent appealed her convictions to the United States Exploitation of Children, and 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)(B), Possession of child to engage in criminal sexual activity, 18 U.S.C. §2251(a) and §2256, Sexual convicted of violati ng 18 U.S.C. §2423(a) and §2427, Transportation with intent Ha mpshire showing that the respondent, Attorney Lisa A. Biron, had been the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New In June 2013, the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) filed certified copies of

LD - 2012 - 0013, In the Matter of Lisa A. Biron

File Lisa A. Biron, Esquire Janet F. DeVito, Esquire Professional Conduct Committee Attorney Discipline Office Distribution:

DATE: May p. 2 28, 2015

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

and prosecution of this matter. expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation practice of law in New Hamps hire. Attorney Biron is hereby assessed all THEREFORE, the court orders that Lisa A. Biron be disbarred from the

concludes that the appropriate sanction is disbarment. 37(9)(d). In light of the seriousness of the respondent’s conduct, the court these conclusory allegations to constitute “goo d cause” for purposes of Rule government used perjured testimony against her, the court does not consider the respondent claims that her tr ia l was “unconstitutional” and that the