This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Brandon D. Ross (2016)
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
ORDER LD-2016-0013, In the Matter of Brandon D. Ross, Esquire On June 30, 2016, the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) filed a “Stipulation to Disbarment” entered into by Attorney Brandon D. Ross and the ADO disciplinary counsel. In the stipulation, Attorney Ross agreed that he had violated several Rules of Professional Conduct in his handling of a special needs trust. Specifically, Attorney Ross conceded that he had misappropriated a significant sum of money that he was holding in a special needs trust. In the stipulation, Attorney Ross also conceded that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for his misconduct. Supreme Court Rule 37(16)(f) provides: The court may suspend attorneys . . . upon such terms and conditions as the court deems necessary for the protection of the public and the preservation of the integrity of the legal profession. Based on the information contained in the stipulation, the court finds that Attorney Ross’s immediate suspension from the practice of law is necessary to protect the public and to preserve the integrity of the legal profession. See Rule 37(16)(d) and (f). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: (1) In accordance with Rule 37(16)(d) and (f), Attorney Brandon D. Ross is immediately suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire pending resolution of this disciplinary matter and further order of this court. (2) Copies of the Stipulation for Disbarment and of this order shall be served on Attorney Ross by first class mail and certified mail at the latest address that Attorney Ross provided to the New Hampshire Bar Association. (3) Within 15 days from the date of this order, Attorney Ross may request a hearing on the issue of whether the interim suspension should be lifted, which will be promptly scheduled. See Reiner’s Case, 152 N.H. 163 (2005).
(4) Attorney Ross is enjoined from transferring, assigning, hypothecating, or in any manner disposing of or conveying any assets of clients, whether real, personal, beneficial or mixed. In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 16(b), the “professional conduct committee shall initiate disciplinary proceedings requesting a discipline of greater than six (6) months in this court by filing the professional conduct committee’s recommendation and the record of the proceedings with this court.” It appears that the “Stipulation for Disbarment” has not been reviewed by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC). On or before August 1, 2016, the PCC shall review the “Stipulation to Disbarment” and submit its recommendation for discipline to the court. Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred. DATE: June 30, 2016 ~ ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk
Distribution: Sara S. Greene, Esquire Brandon D. Ross, Esquire Professional Conduct Committee File