Vaughn Tamzarian (2016)

Accordingly,the Panel's factualfindingsincludeallfactsalleged in the Amended Noticeof that the allegations set forth in the AmendedNotice of Charges were deemed admitted. NoticeofCharges,and by operation ofSupremeCourt Rule37A(III)(b)(3)(A),the Panel found 3. By virtueofthe fact that theRespondentwas duly notifiedofthe Amended

findingsof the Panel are supportedby clear andconvincingevidence in theRecord. actualnoticeof theallegationsandchargescontainedin theAmended Notice ofCharges.These ChargesandtheoriginalNoticeofCharges.The Panelfurtherfoundthat theRespondenthad Office("ADO") made extensiveeffortstonotifytheRespondentof both theAmended Noticeof 2. Based on the Service Summary, the Panel found that the Attorney Discipline

incorporatedhereinby reference. 1. The Amended NoticeofCharges was filed on October13,2015 and is

the Hearing Panel ("the Panel") by clear and convincing evidence: The Committee has determined that the Record supports the following factual findings of

Committee makes factual findings and rulings as detailed below. ofCharges,Answer,Hearing PanelReport,andTranscriptof the March 3,2016 hearing,the Having reviewed the Record consistingof thirteen tabbed entries, including the Notice were absent. theabove matter.Susan R. Chollet,RichardH. Darling,ScottH. Harrisand Georges J. Roy On May 17,2016,the Professional Conduct Committee (the"Committee")deliberated in

Tamzarian Vaughn advs.AttorneyDiscipline Office -#14-018

ScottH. Harris BarbaraJ. Guay, LegalAssistant Richard H. Darling* * non attorneymember Susan R. Chollet* Martha Van Oot PeterG. Beeson Richard D. Sager ElaineHolden,* Vice Chair 603-224-5828 ♦ Fax 228-9511 Georges J. Roy* Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mona T. Movafaghi David M. Rothstein,Chair 4 Chenell Drive,Suite102 Margaret R. Kerouac

failing toperformany substantivework on his behalf. 2. Mr. Tamzarian failed to competentlyrepresentMr. Silver in his guardianship matter by

representation. possesses the skill and knowledge required to assure competent including,whereappropriate,associatingwith another lawyer who (4) undertake actions on the client's behalf in a timely and effective manner problemsofthe client; and (3) develop a strategy, inconsultationwith the client, for solving the legal alternativelegalresponses; (2)formulatethematerialissuesraised,determineapplicablelaw andidentify from otherrelevantsources; (1) gather sufficient facts regardingthe client's problem from the client, and (c) In the performanceofclient service, a lawyer shall at a minimum: undertakeniscompletedwith no avoidable harm to the client's interest. (5)attentionto details and schedules necessary to assure that the matter (4)properpreparation;and areasto the client'sattention; (3)identificationofareas beyond the lawyer'scompetence and bringingthose (2)performance ofthetechniquesofpracticewith skill; (1)specificknowledge aboutthe fieldsoflaw inwhich thelawyer practices; b. Legalcompetence requires at a minimum: a. A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.

1. Rule 1.1 statesas follows:

Rule 1.1:Competence

ofProfessionalConduct: thatthereis clearandconvincingevidencethatMr. TamzarianhasviolatedthefollowingRules beenadmittedby operationofSupremeCourtRule37A(III)(b)(3)(A),theCommitteeconcludes Followingreviewof thefactsallegedin theAmended NoticeofCharges,whichhave

Charges. See RecordTab 2,whichisincorporatedhereinby reference. p. 3 Page 3 of14 formerclientor a third person or by a personalinterestofthe lawyer. be materially limited by the lawyer'sresponsibilitiesto anotherclient,a (2) there is asignificantrisk thattherepresentationof one or more clientswill

or (1) therepresentationof one clientwill bedirectlyadverseto anotherclient; ofinterestexistsif: representationinvolvesa concurrentconflictofinterest.A concurrentconflict (a) Exceptasprovidedinparagraph(b), alawyershall notrepresenta client if the

12. Rule 1.7 statesas follows:

Rule 1.7:ConflictsofInterest

Record Tab 2 HH 102-106.

11. Mr. Tamzarian's conduct constitutesa violationofRule ofProfesssionalConduct 1.3.

10. Mr. Tamzarianperformedno work for Ms. Brock.

to hissocialsecuritybenefits. 9. Mr. Tamzarian performed no work for Mr. Silver regarding any appealofmatters relating

failing toperform any substantivework on his behalf. 8. Mr. Tamzarian failed to diligently represent Mr. Silver in hisguardianshipmatter by

representinga client. A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in

7. Rule 1.3 statesas follows:

Rule 1.3:Diligence

Record Tab 2ffl95-100.

6. Mr. Tamzarian'sconduct constitutesa violationofRule ofProfessionalConduct 1.1

5. Mr. Tamzarian performed no work for Ms. Brock.

to hissocialsecuritybenefits. 4. Mr. Tamzarianperformedno workforMr. Silverregardingany appeal ofmattersrelating

guardianship. consultationwith him, orundertakeactionon Mr. Silver's behalf to defend against the 3. Mr. Tamzariandid not gathersufficientfactsfrom Mr. Silver,developany strategyin p. 4 Page 4 of14

receipt, and safeguarded. propertyshall beidentifiedaspropertyof the client, promptlyupon provisionsofthe NewHampshireSupremeCourt Rules. All other or more clearly designated trust accounts in accordance with the separatefrom thelawyer'sown property.Fundsshall bedepositedin one lawyer'spossession inconnectionwith arepresentationshall be held (a)Propertyof clientsor thirdpersonswhicha lawyer is holdingin the

19. Rule 1.15 statesas follows:

Rule 1.15: SafekeepingProperty

Record Tab 2 ffl108-114.

18. Mr. Tamzarian'sconduct constitutesa violationofRule ofProfessionalConduct 1.7.

confirmed in writing, from Mr. Silver and Ms. Brock. 17. Even iftheconflictwas waivable,Mr. Tamzarian did notobtaininformedconsent,

16. This conflictwas not waivable.

misappropriating funds from Mr. Silver and abusing him in other ways. allegationsin theguardianshipincludedallegationsthat Ms. Brock was essentially be materially limited by Mr.Tamzarian'sresponsibilities to Ms. Brock because 15. In the alternative, there was a significant risk that the representationofMr. Silver would

Silver. 14. The representationofMs. Brock was directlyadverseto therepresentationofReginald

ina concurrentconflictofinterest. Mr. Silver, while at the same time representing Mr. Silver, Mr. Tamzarian was engaged 13. By agreeing torepresentJune Brock regarding potential claimsbroughtagainst her by

(4)each affectedclientgivesinformedconsent,confirmed inwriting. otherproceedingbeforea tribunal;and againstanotherclientrepresentedby the lawyer in the samelitigationor (3) therepresentationdoes not involve the assertionofa claim by one client (2) therepresentationis not prohibited by law; competentand diligentrepresentationto eachaffectedclient; (1) the lawyerreasonablybelievesthat thelawyerwill be able to provide paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: (b)Notwithstandingtheexistenceofa concurrentconflictofinterestunder p. 5 Page 5 of14

account prior to having actually earned allofthose funds. Reginald Silver by depositing the funds paid to him by his clients into a non-IOLTA 21. Mr. Tamzarian failed to properly safeguard the propertyofhis clients June Brock and

representation into a clearly designated trust account. ReginaldSilverwhen hefailedtodepositany of thefundspaid to him for theirlegal 20. Mr. Tamzarianfailedtoproperlysafeguardthepropertyof hisclientsJuneBrockand

the property as to which the interests are not in dispute. disputeisresolved.The lawyershallpromptlydistributeallportionsof claim interests, the property shall be kept separate by the lawyer until the property in which two or more persons (oneofwhom may be the lawyer) (g) When in the course ofrepresentationa lawyer is in possessionof promptly render a full accounting regarding such property. entitled to receive and upon request by the client or third person, shall third person any funds or other property that the client or third person is agreement with the client, a lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or Except as stated in this rule or otherwisepermittedby law or by has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. (f) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person institution. availabilityofsuch funds to the lawyer from the receiving financial any otherform ofdepositby such receiving financialinstitution,and (B) funds at least equal to the sumofsuch disbursements,or (ii)clearanceof ofcash,bank cashier'scheck, certifiedcheck, or electronictransferof receiptofwhich isacknowledged by thereceivingfinancialinstitution, (e)Funds may be disbursedfrom lawyertrustaccountsupon (A) (i)deposit, fees areearnedor expensesincurred. thathave been paidinadvance,to bewithdrawn by thelawyer only as (d) A lawyer shall deposit into a client trust account legal fees andexpenses in anamount appropriate for that purpose. the sole purposeofpaying bank service charges on that account, but only (c) A lawyer may deposit the lawyer's own funds in a client trust account for aspectofthoseRules. New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules and shall comply with every other lawyer shall maintain the minimumfinancialrecords specified in the distributionofsuch funds or other property or any portion thereof. The distribution and shall be preserved for a periodofsix years after final the lawyer's possessionfrom the time of receipt to the timeoffinal anddispositionof allfundsand otherpropertyof the client at any time in (b) Records shall bemaintainedby the lawyerof the handling,maintenance p. 6 Page 6 of14

hisIOLTA Accounts were never out oftrust. coveringthe periodsJune 1,2011 to May31,2014 in whichhe falselyrepresentedthat 30. Mr. Tamzarian breached that duty when he filed Trust Account Compliance Certificates

1.15 oftheRules ofProfessionalConduct. maintained hisIOLTA Accounts in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 50 and Rule coveringtheperiodJune1,2011 toMay 31,2014 inwhichhefalselyrepresentedthathe 29. Mr. Tamzarianbreachedthat dutywhen hefiledTrustAccountComplianceCertificates

28. Mr. Tamzarianhad adutynottoknowinglymake falsestatementsof factto atribunal.

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward theTribunal

Record Tab 2 UK 121-125.

1.16(a)(1). 27. Mr. Tamzarian's conduct constitutesa violationofRule ofProfessionalConduct

unauthorized practiceoflaw in violationofthe ethical rules. ofMr. Silver and Ms. Brock because to continue torepresentthem would result in 26. Once he was suspended, Mr. Tamzarianwas required to withdraw from his representation

representing her would have resulted in an unwaivable conflictofinterest. 25. Mr. Tamzarian should never have accepted representationofMs. Brock because

24. Mr. Tamzarian had a conflictofinterest in representing both Mr. Silver and Ms. Brock.

conduct orotherlaw; (1) therepresentationwillresultinviolationofthe rulesofprofessional representationofa clientif: where representationhas commenced, shallwithdraw from the (a)Except as statedinparagraph(c), alawyershallnot representa clientor,

23. Rule 1.16(a)(1)statesas follows:

Rule 1.16(a)(1):Decliningor Terminating Representation

Record Tab 2UK 116-119

22. Mr. Tamzarian'sconduct constitutesa violationofRule ofProfessionalConduct 1.15. p. 7 Page 7of14

in thisjurisdictionthat: orsuspendedfrom practicein anyjurisdiction,may providelegalservices (d) A lawyer admitted in anotherUnitedStatesjurisdiction, and not disbarred thelawyer isadmittedto practice. reasonably related to the lawyer's practice in a jurisdiction in which (4) are not within paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3) and arise outofor are pro hac viceadmission;or admitted to practiceand are notservicesfor which the forum requires related to the lawyer's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is another jurisdiction, if the services arise outofor are reasonably mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in this or (3) are in or reasonably related to a pending or potential arbitration, proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized; lawyer isassisting,isauthorizedby law or order to appear in such a tribunal in this or anotherjurisdiction, if the lawyer, or a person the (2) are in or reasonablyrelatedto apendingor potential proceedingbefore in thisjurisdictionand who activelyparticipatesin the matter; (1) are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice on atemporarybasis in thisjurisdictionthat: or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services (c) A lawyer admitted in another United Statesjurisdiction,and not disbarred admittedtopracticelaw in thisjurisdiction. (2) hold out to thepublicor otherwiserepresentthat thelawyeris practiceoflaw; or othersystematicand continuouspresencein thisjurisdictionfor the (1)exceptas authorizedby these Rules orotherlaw,establishan officeor (b) Alawyerwho is notadmittedto practice in thisjurisdictionshall not: doing so. regulationofthe legalprofessionin thatjurisdiction,orassistanotherin (a) Alawyer shallnotpracticelaw in ajurisdictioninviolationofthe

33. Rule 5.5 statesas follows:

Rule 5.5:Unauthorized PracticeofLaw: MultijurisdictionalPracticeofLaw

Record Tab 2IK 127-131.

32. Mr. Tamzarian's conduct constitutesa violationofRule ofProfessionalConduct 3.3.

31. The foregoingfalsestatementswereofmaterialfactsandweremade knowingly. p. 8 Page 8 of14

createdor reinforcedand which he didnot believeto betrue,or which he knew was believe to be true, or he failed to correct a false impression which he previously had 42. Mr. Tamzarian created or reinforced an impressionwhich was false and which he did not

and with a purpose to deprive himthereof. 41. Mr.Tamzarianobtainedorexercisedcontrolover thepropertyof Mr. Silver bydeception

unauthorized taking or transfer in violationofRSA 637:3. 40. Mr. Tamzarian'sconduct as described in Paragraphs 38-40 constitutes theft by

Brockandperformedno legalwork tobenefitMs. Brockor earn thosefees. Brockwithapurposetodepriveherthereofwhen heaccepted$8,000torepresentMs. 39. Mr. Tamzarian obtained or exercised unauthorized control over thepropertyofMs.

andperformedlittle or no legal workto benefitMr. Silver or earn those fees. with apurposetodeprivehim thereofwhenheaccepted$98,000torepresentMr. Silver 38. Mr. Tamzarian obtainedor exercised unauthorized control over the propertyofMr. Silver

trustworthinessor fitnessas alawyerinotherrespects; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, It isprofessionalmisconduct for alawyerto:

37. Rule 8.4(b) statesas follows:

Rule 8.4(b):Commission ofa Criminal Act

Record Tab 2Iffl133-136.

36. Mr. Tamzarian'sconduct constitutesa violationofRule ofProfessionalConduct 5.5.

35. Mr. Tamzarian representedMs. Brock while he wassuspendedfrom thepracticeoflaw.

34. Mr. Tamzarian representedMr. Silver while he wassuspendedfrom thepracticeoflaw.

otherlaw ofthisjurisdiction. (2) areservicesthat the lawyer isauthorizedtoprovideby federal law or admission;or and are not services for which the forum requires pro hac vice (1) are provided to thelawyer'semployer or its organizational affiliates p. 9 Page 9of14

kept the $8,000. 51. Contraryto thatrepresentation,Mr. Tamzarianperformedno workforMs. Brock and

Mr. Silveror hisstep-daughter. againstwhichMr. Tamzarianwouldbill inrepresentingherin anyclaimsagainstherby 50. Mr. Tamzariantold Ms. Brock that her paymentof$8,000 would serve as aretainer

relationship. influencingMs. Brock,to whomMr. Tamzarianstoodin afiduciaryorconfidential created orreinforcedand which he did notbelieveto be true, orwhich he knew was believeto betrue,or hefailedtocorrecta falseimpressionwhich hepreviouslyhad 49. Mr. Tamzariancreatedorreinforcedanimpressionwhich wasfalseandwhich he did not

and witha purpose to deprive her thereof. 48. Mr. Tamzarian obtained or exercised control over the propertyofMs. Brock by deception

fees. 47. Despitenotearning$98,000,Mr. TamzarianneverreturnedtoMr. Silver theunearned

46. Mr. Tamzarian told Mr. Silverhe would return any unearned fees.

appealofany socialsecuritymatters. 45. Contrary to his statements to Mr. Silver, Mr. Tamzarianperformedno work relating to an

himself. consultants or paidthem any money, but ratherkept all funds paid by Mr. Silver for 44. Contrary to his statements to Mr. Silver, Mr. Tamzarian never hired any outside

socialsecuritypayments. e. appeal certainactionsby the SocialSecurityAdministrationrelativeto Mr.Silver's

d. hire and paymedicalexpert(s)in the guardianship matter;

c. hire and pay a private investigator in theguardianshipmatter;

b. hire and payforensicaccountant(s)in theguardianshipmatter;

and socialsecuritymatters; a. billagainst,in theformofa retainer,as herepresentedMr. Silver in hisguardianship

43. Mr. TamzariantoldMr. Silverthathewouldusethe$98,000thatMr. Silvergavehimto:

relationship. influencingMr. Silver,to whomMr. Tamzarianstoodin afiduciaryorconfidential p. 10 Page 10of14

or hisstep-daughter;and a. That he wouldrepresentMs. Brockin anyactionsbroughtagainst her by Mr. Silver

affirmative misrepresentations to Ms. Brock with an intent to deceive her: 58. Mr. Tamzarianengagedinfraudand deceitwhenheintentionallymade thefollowing

suspendedfrom thepracticeof lawtwiceduringthe timeherepresentedMr. Silver. failedon twoseparateoccasionstoinformMr. Silverthat Mr.Tamzarianhad been 57. Mr. Tamzarianengagedinfraudanddeceitwhen he, with an intenttodeceivehisclient,

unearned feesto Mr. Silver. d. That Mr. Tamzarian would bill against all amounts paid to him and return any

medical expert(s), and a private investigator; and c. That Mr.Tamzarian would use Mr.Silver'smoney to hire forensic accountant(s),

by the SocialSecurityAdministration; b. That Mr. Tamzarian would representMr. Silver in an appealofcertain decisions

a. That Mr. Tamzarian would represent Mr. Silver in hisguardianshipaction;

affirmativemisrepresentationsto Mr. Silver with an intent todeceivehim: 56. Mr. Tamzarian engaged in fraud and deceit when he intentionally made the following

(c) engage inconductinvolving dishonesty, fraud, deceit ormisrepresentation; It isprofessionalmisconductfor a lawyer to:

55. Rule 8.4(c)statesas follows:

Rule 8.4(c):Deceit

Record Tab 2ffl138-155.

8.4(b). 54. By committing felonytheft, Mr.Tamzarian has violatedRules ofProfessionalConduct

both Ms. Brock and Mr. Silver was over $1,500. RSA 637:1l(I)(a). 53. Mr. Tamzarian's thefts are felonies becausethe valueofthe property in question as to

Deceptionunder RSA 637:4. 52. Mr. Tamzarian's conductasdescribedinParagraphs41-51constitutesTheft by p. 11 Page 11of14

baselinesanction. aggravatingandmitigatingfactorsmay resultinan upwardordownward adjustmentofthe establishmentofa baseline sanction. Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. at 303. Considerationof Analysisof thelawyer'smisconductunderthefirstthreeprongsresultsinthe

mitigatingfactors." Id. (quoting Douglas'Case, 155 N.H. 613,621 (2007;,- seeStandards, §3.0. oractualinjurycausedbythelawyer'smisconduct;and (d)theexistenceofaggravatingor imposedinaparticularcase:"(a)thedutyviolated;(b)thelawyer'smentalstate;(c)thepotential setforthafour-pronganalysisas aframeworkfordeterminingtheappropriatesanctionto be guidanceindeterminingappropriatesanctions. Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. at303. The Standards StandardsforImposingLawyer Sanctions("Standards"), itdoeslooktothe Standards for 365 (2007).AlthoughtheCourthasnotformallyadoptedtheAmericanBarAssociation's inihQfuture."Conner'sCase, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009); see also, Grew'sCase, 156 N.H. 361, confidencein the bar,preservetheintegrityof thelegalprofession,andpreventsimilarconduct The purposeof the Court'sdisciplinarypower"is toprotectthepublic,maintainpublic

Record Tab21)164.

Conduct 8.4(a). convincing evidence, this necessarily constitutes a violationofRule ofProfessional 62. Because allofthe ruleviolationsset forth above havebeen proven by clearand

Rule 8.4(a): General Rule

Record Tab 2fl157-163.

61. Mr. Tamzarian'sconduct constitutesa violationofRule ofProfessionalConduct 8.4(c).

was performinglittle or no legal work on their behalf. that he was representing them in exchange for a totalof$106,000 in fees, when in fact he Reginald Silver, during an approximately15-monthperiod in which he stated to them 60. Mr. Tamzarian engaged in a patternofdeceit by lying to his clients, June Brock and

Brock that Mr. Tamzarian had been suspended during the time he represented Ms. Brock. 59. Mr. Tamzarian engaged in fraud and deceit when he intentionally failed to inform Ms.

fees. b. That he would bill against the$8,000she paid him and return to her anyunearned p. 12 Page 12 of14

byMr. Tamzarian'smisconduct.Inthiscase,substantialand actualinjurywas causedtoMr. The thirdprongof theanalysisrequiresareviewof theactualorpotentialinjurycaused

Prong III:Injuryor PotentialInjury

convincing evidence in the record. The Committeefinds that the Panel'sfindingson mentalstate aresupportedby clear and

funds rather than returning them to his clients. expert;and thenprovidedno significantlegalservices,retainedno forensicexperts,and keptthe servicesandtheservicesofexperts—includingamedicalexpert,anaccountingand forensic receivedfundsfrom Mr. Silver and Ms.Brockthat theybelievedwere to be used to pay for legal thatMr. Tamzarianactedintentionally,and inviolationofRule8.4(c),when hesolicitedand anyofthefundstohisclients;allinviolationofRule 1.15.Additionally,thePanelconcluded returnedtoyou";failedtodepositany oftheseretainersintotrustaccounts;and did notreturn retainers;told his clientsthat"iftheentirepaymentis notearned,theunearnedportionwill be intentionallywhen heacceptedfundsfrom bothclientsthatheacknowledgedwerepaidas practiceoflaw,inviolationofRule5.5.Additionally,thePanelfoundthatMr. Tamzarianacted continuedtorepresentboth Mr. SilverandMs. Brockafterhe had beensuspendedfromthe More specifically,the PanelfoundthatMr. Tamzarianactedintentionallywhen he

1.16(a)(1), 5.5 and8.4(c). state had been proved by clear and convincingevidencewith respect to violationsof Rules1.15, or purposeto accomplish a particular result." The Panel found that this most culpable mental intentional stateofmind is defined by the ABA Standards as acting with "a conscious objective Panel found, as tosome ofthe ruleviolations,thatMr. Tamzarian actedintentionally.An question. Aperson'sknowledge may be inferred fromcircumstances."In addition, the Hearing above. Rule 1.0(f)defines"knowingly" as"denoting]actualknowledge ofthe fact[s] in actionsdemonstratethat he acted at least knowingly as to eachofthe ruleviolationsset forth The Standards requireconsiderationofthelawyer'smental state. TheRespondent's

Prong II:Mental State

compliance certificates). integrityof theprofession);and hisdutiesto thelegalsystem(byfilingfalsetrustaccount deceitfulbehavior,engagingintheunauthorizedpracticeoflawand failingtomaintainthe profession(byfailingtowithdrawundermandatorycircumstances,engagingindishonestand competence,failingtosafeguardclientpropertyand engagingindeceit);hisdutiesto the The Respondentviolatedhisdutiestohisclients(byviolatinghisdutiesofdiligenceand

Prong I:Duty Violated p. 13 Page 13of14

Committee recommends thissanctionto theCourt. andcitationomitted).In this case,disbarmentisessentialtoaccomplishthese goals and the profession,andpreventsimilarconductin thefuture." Grew's Case, 156 N.H. at365 (quotation toprotectthepublic,maintainpublicconfidenceinthebar,preservetheintegrityof thelegal Standards. The purposeof theCourt'sdisciplinarypower"is nottoinflictpunishmentbutrather Richmond'sCase, 152N.H. 155,159-60(2005).Thissanctionis also in accord with the accordwiththepurposesofattorneydiscipline. See e.g.,Conner'sCase 158 N.H. at303; appropriatedisciplineinthismatterisdisbarment.The Committee'srecommendedsanctionis in Havingmade theaforementionedfindingsand rulings,theCommitteeconcludesthatthe

records for a four-year period. clients; as well as the fact that there have been no entries in Mr.Tamzarian'strust account Tamzarian'spersistentrulesviolations,whichshow anegregiousand recklessdisregardforhis additional victims that have not yet been identified. That concern was based upon Mr. evidenceofsuch in the Record, the Panel was understandablyconcernedthat there may be damaged as a resultofMr. Tamzarian'sbehavior. Additionally, while there was no concrete effort to restore thepublic'sconfidence in the legalprofession—confidencethat was necessarily the public know that the profession does not accept this behavior from its members; and in an vulnerableofour citizens. In addition, it is important to impose the sanctionofdisbarment to let clients in this matter were elderly, suffered from limited mental capacity and are among the most The Panel found theRespondent'sactions to beparticularlytroublinggiventhathis

Tamzarian's criminalconduct. offenses, thevulnerabilityofthe victims, substantial experience in thepracticeoflaw, and Mr. record. Aggravating factors in this matter include his dishonest and selfish motive, multiple mitigatingfactor identified by the Panel would be the Respondent's lackofany prior disciplinary orderto determine whether the baseline sanction should be increased or lessened. The only Finally, the analysis must take into account any aggravating and mitigating factors in

Prong IV: Aggravating and MitigatingFactors

disbarment. Basedon theforegoingthreeprongs,thebaselinesanctionfor Mr. Tamzarian is

substantialsums from hisclients. deceitfulconduct,filingfalseIOLTA compliancecertificateswiththeCourt,and stealing thelegalprofession,thejusticesystemand thepublic'sconfidenceinlawyersby engagingin virtuallynothinginreturn.Inaddition,Mr. Tamzarian'sconducthascausedprofoundharm to Silverand Ms. Brock.Bothclientspaidlargesums ofmoney toMr. Tamzarianand received p. 14 Page 14 of14

File Vaughan Tamzarian ce: Sara S. Greene, DisciplinaryCounsel

June 16, 2016

pay all costsassociatedwith theinvestigationand prosecutionofthis matter. for violating RulesofProfessional Conduct and 8.4(a); and that the Court order Respondent to For allofthe above reasons, the Committee recommends thatRespondentbe disbarred

associated with theinvestigationand prosecutionofthis matter. The Committee also recommends that the Respondent be held responsible for all costs