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 July 19, 2016, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) filed a recommendation that Attorney Brandon D. Ross be disbarred. The PCC’s recommendation was based on a stipulation signed by Attorney Ross and Disciplinary Counsel, in which Attorney Ross admitted that he had violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct and conceded that disbarment is the appropriate sanction for his misconduct. Because the PCC’s recommendation was based on the stipulation agreed to by both Attorney Ross and Disciplinary Counsel as to Attorney Ross’s violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the appropriate discipline for the violations, the court concludes that it is unnecessary to serve Attorney Ross with the PCC’s recommendation or to provide an opportunity for further review. Accordingly, the requirements of Rule 37(16)(c) are deemed to have been waived. In the “Stipulation to Disbarment” filed with the PCC, Attorney Ross admitted that he misappropriated funds from a special needs trust, failed to account for client funds in his possession, filed false trust accounting certificates, and failed to respond to the ADO’s lawful demand for information. He conceded that his conduct violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:
1. Rule 1.1 and 1.3, which requires a lawyer to act competently and diligently;
2. Rule 1.4, which requires a lawyer to keep a client informed of the status of a matter;
3. Rule 1.15, which requires a lawyer to safeguard the property of a client, and Supreme Court Rule 50, which imposes certain requirements on lawyers regarding trust accounts;
4. Rule 3.3, which prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement to a tribunal; 5 S. Rule 8.1(b), which prohibits a lawyer from making false statements in connection with a disciplinary matter;
6. Rule 8.4(c), which makes it professional misconduct to engage in conduct involving dishonesty; and 7.. Rule 8.4(a), which makes it professional misconduct to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court has reviewed the “Stipulation for Disbarment” and the PCC’s recommendation that Attorney Ross be disbarred. After considering the
nature, seriousness, and extent of Attorney Ross’s misconduct, the court concludes that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this case. THEREFORE, the court orders that Brandon D. Ross be disbarred from the practice of law in New Hampshire. He is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the Professional Conduct Committee in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred. < Eileen Fox, pve DATE: September 19, 2016 ATTEST:
Distribution: Attorney Discipline Office, 15-042 Sara S. Greene, Esquire Janet F. De Vito, Esquire Brandon D. Ross, Esquire David M. Rothstein, Esquire Judith L. Bomster, Esquire File