Drake David Dargon Sr. (2017)

Margaret R. Kerouac were absent. PeterG. Beeson was recused. Sagerand Martha Van Oot. Elaine Holden,ViceChair,Susan R. Chollet,and Darling,David W. McGrath, Mona T. Movafaghi,Georges J.Roy, Richard D. includedDavid M. Rothstein,Chair,Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair,Richard H. Costs ofDisciplinaryMatter (collectively,the "Record"). Members present Facts,Violationsand Sanction (the"Stipulation")and theAgreement to Pay "Committee")deliberatedthe Request to ConsolidateGlobal Stipulationas to On September 20, 2016, the ProfessionalConduct Committee (the

Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Janice S.Weatherspoon-Williams-#11-029 Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Darlene L. Kohanski -#10-080 Dargon, DanielP. advs.Terry & GloriaMikkelsen - #10-069 Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Michael F.Baumgatner -#10-067 Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Brenda L. McKelvey - #10-060 Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Arthur L.Normand -#10-059 Dargon Daniel P. advs. Attorney DisciplineOffice-#10-056

Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Darlene P. Raymond -#10-051 Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Karen Minnifield- # 10-050 Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Kenny W. & PatriciaL. Roberts - # 10-036 Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Attorney DisciplineOffice - # 10-025 Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Megan Douglass -#09-064

Dargon, Sr.,Drake David f/k/aDaniel P. Dargon

MargaretR. Kerouac 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,Suite 102 David W. McGrath

of the Dargon firm ("clientcomplaints" or "clientcomplainants"). All Larkowich. The remaining mattersarisefrom grievancesfiledby clients Dargon's employment of asuspended Massachusetts attorney,Peter an ADO generatedmatterarisingout ofa clientgrievanceconcerning Mr. outof referralsfiledby former employees of the Dargon law firm. One is ADO between December 28, 2009 and November 29, 2010. Two arise 6. The above-captioned mattersariseout of twelvegrievancesfiledwith the

based on ordersissuedon February 22, 2016. 96786. Mr. Dargon iscurrentlystationedatSchofieldBrks, Hawaii, 5. Mr. Dargon's currentaddressis 134-101 Abbott Street,Wahiwaa, HI

jurisdiction. 4. Mr. Dargon has not been admitted to practicelaw in any other

changed hisstatusto "inactivemilitary." trainingin the United States.On March 23, 2016, Mr. Dargon again hisstatusto "inactive"because he was engaged in furtherarmy related Associationto "inactivemilitary."On April 1, 2014, Mr. Dargon changed 3. On August 18, 2011, Mr. Dargon changed hisstatuswith Bar

or "thefirm"),from November 14, 2008 through September 2010. 2. Mr. Dargon operatedDargon Law Firm, PLLC (herein"Dargon law firm"

practiceon November 5, 2008. licensedto practicelaw in New Hampshire. Mr. Dargon was admitted to 1. Respondent Drake David Dargon, Sr. ("Mr. Dargon") isan attorney

findingsby clearand convincing evidence: The Committee determined thatthe Record supportsthe followingfactual

investigationand prosecutionof thismatter. and voted to approve the agreement to reimburse the Committee forallcostsof the New Hampshire Rules ofProfessionalConduct (the "Rules")as stipulated, convincingevidence. The Committee then approved the findingsofviolationsof Record,the Committee approved the factsas stipulatedby clearand The Committee grantedthe Request toConsolidate.Having reviewedthe p. 3 Page 3of45

opening in otherstatesatthattime. Dargon's practicewas likemany loan modification-typelaw firms volume ofMr. Dargon's loan modificationpracticeescalatedrapidly. Mr. nationwide housing/financialcrisiswhich began inlate2008, the practiceareasofloan modificationand debt adjustment. During the Within months, Mr. Dargon developed a businessmodel thatincluded 14. When Mr. Dargon opened the firm,he offeredgenerallegalservices.

servicesto the public." Secretaryof Statedescribesitsprimary businesspurpose as "attorney 13. The firm'sCertificateofFormation filedwith the New Hampshire

12. Mr. Dargon was the registeredagent and principal.

Conway. 11. A satelliteofficerun by Donald P. Lader, Esq. was opened in Gorham and

principalofficewas in Concord. 10. Dargon Law Firm, PLLC was createdon November 14, 2008. Its

C. Summary ofDargon Law Firm's Practice

the Committee granted the ADO's requestforconsolidation. financialreview has been performed by Nancy M. Cavalieri,CFE BSC, practicemodel, the abruptclosureofthe firm,and thata detailed month time-frame,thatmany ofthe issuesrelateto the overalllaw firm 9. Given thatallgrievanceswere filedwith theADO during an eleven-

alreadybeen disciplinedor the matterswere dismissed. who handled those individualclientmatters,and those attorneyshave 8. In most cases,companion matterswere docketed againstthe attorneys

sought refundsofthe legalfees they had paid to the Dargon firm. unhappy with the natureof thework performed, and in some cases reachingthe attorneysassignedto theircases,in some caseswere the complaints were filedon September 10, 2010. Clientshad trouble 7. The Dargon firmabruptlyclosedon orabout September 1,2010. Most of

supervisoryauthorityover all firmattorneysand staff. handled by employees ofthe Dargon firm,but Mr. Dargon had modificationmatters. Allclientcomplaints arisefrom mattersthatwere clientcomplaintspertaintothe Dargon firm'shandling ofloan p. 4 Page 4 of45 obligationto provide any service,untilClientreturnsa neitherDargon Law nor itsattorneyaffiliateswillhave any CONDITIONS. This agreement willnot take effect,and jurisdictionwhen necessary,atno extracharge to Client. use ofoutsideaffiliateattorneyslicensedin Client's to practicelaw in certainstates,and may retainand make below. Clientacknowledges thatDargon Law isonly licensed provide law-relatedservicesto Clienton the terms setforth Name) (Client)hereby agree thatDargon Law will THE DARGON LAW FIRM PLLC (Dargon Law) and (Print

19. The standardClientFlatFee Agreement provided,in relevantpart:

some combination of the two or threeservices. the clientrequiredloan modification,bankruptcy,debt settlement,or lender. Clientfeesranged from $1,500 to $3,000, depending on whether upon the firm'ssubmission ofthe completed applicationpacket to the necessaryfor the mortgage modificationapplication,and the final1/3 processingofthe client,1/3 upon receivingthe requesteddocuments earningschedule,wherein 1/3 ofthe fee was earned upon intakeand 18. Allclientcomplainants enteredintoa contractthatsetfortha fee-

Massachusetts licensedattorneys. licensedattorney,and Mr. Larkowich and Sara Dimitriades, Hampshire, includingPatriciaEllis,a New York and Massachusetts New Hampshire. Some were not licensedto practicelaw in New he and most otherfirm attorneyswere only licensedto practicelaw in 17. Although Mr. Dargon advertisedhisfirm throughout the United States,

website,and televisioncommercials. Dargon alsoutilizedadvertisingthatincludedmailings,a law firm New Hampshire, many leadspertainedto New Hampshire property. Mr. foreclosure.While some leadsinvolved propertythatwas not locatedin modificationleadsand/orreferrals.Leads targetedthose facing 16. As earlyas February 2010, Mr. Dargon alsobegan to purchase loan

commissions, generallysupervisedthe consultants. Kevin Hurley, to whom Mr. Dargon paid marketing fees and executed. Itwas theconsultants'roleto obtainclientsfor the firm. modificationapplicationsafterthe clientfeeagreement with the firm was consultantsto screenand engage the clients.Lawyers handled the loan paralegals.Mr. Dargon alsoutilizedindependent contractorsas 15. At the peak of hisbusiness,Mr. Dargon employed severalattorneysand p. 5 Page 5of45

payments to Dargon Law laterin thisAgreement. This fee unlessClientisspecificallyauthorizedto make planned fee payment, which must be paid in advance by Client, servicesrendered under thisagreement. This isa fixed,flat- LEGAL FEES. Dargon Law willbe paid the sum of for foreclosure.A good faithattemptisnot a guarantee. or the abilityofClientto retaina home in the face of interestrates,bankruptcy discharge,the settlementofdebts, makes no promises regardingvoluntaryloan modification, successin any legalor law-relatedventure,and Dargon Law endeavors on behalfof Client. Itisimpossible to guarantee been, nor willbe made as to the successof Dargon Law's and to respond to Client'sinquiries.No guaranteeshave take reasonablestepsto keep Clientinformed ofprogress reasonablyrequiredto fulfillClient'sgoals. Dargon Law will Dargon Law willprovide legaland/orlaw-relatedservices Dargon Law's affiliatesas itowes to Dargon Law. Clientagrees thatClientowes the same responsibilitiesto licensedto practicelaw in thejurisdictionofthe Client, necessary,willretainand actthrough affiliateattorney(s) whereabouts. Clientacknowledges thatDargon Law, where Law advised ofClient'saddress,telephonenumber and attention,to abide by thisAgreement, and to keep Dargon informationor developments which may come to Client's modificationrequest,to keep Dargon Law informed ofany the preparationand presentationofClient'sloan to cooperatefullywith Dargon Law in allmattersrelatedto informationto Dargon Law, to be truthfulwith Dargon Law, requestedby Dargon Law, to fullydiscloseallrelevant promptly provide allinformationand documentation CLIENT-ATTORNEY RESPONSIBILITIES. Clientagrees to [ ]Other, pleasespecify: .... taken to settle,reduce or dischargedebts. attorneywilladvise Clientwhat legalstepsneed to be [ ]Client'srequestto settledebts with creditors.An Client'sresidentialrealproperty. [ ] Client'srequestfornegotiationofa loan modificationon representClientin one or more of the followingmatters: SCOPE OF SERVICES. ClientishiringDargon Law to signedcopy ofthisAgreement and pays the requisitefee. p. 6 Page 6of45 terms ofthe trialperiod agreement, and a permanent 3. However, ifthe clienthas complied with allofthe intothe trialperiod ofthatprogram. modificationprogram such thatthe clientisaccepted 2. The Lender and clienthave agreed to a particularloan fee. fee willbe appliedagainstthe attorney'sbankruptcy Dargon Law, $995 ofthe originalloan modification to fileChapter 7 bankruptcy utilizingthe servicesof occurrence,and in the event thatthe Clientchooses the clientas verifiedby Dargon Law. Given such an modificationprograms are availableor applicableto primary mortgage loan due to the factthatno 1. The Lender denies the modificationofclient's representationwillconclude inthe eventthat: othercourt proceeding. The loan modification representtheClientinany mediation,foreclosure,or lender. Dargon Law willnot enteran appearance or representingClientina negotiationcapacitywith the statelaw to the factsofClient'scase,and isonly with Lender. Please note thatDargon Law isnot applying Law agree thatDargon Law willlitigateany issueforClient must negotiatea separateagreement ifClientand Dargon reasonableterms ofmodification. Dargon Law and Client behalfofClientand ifaccepted by Lender, negotiate loan modificationrequestto Client'sMortgagee (Lender) on provided by Client,Dargon Law willprepareand submit a For Loan ModificationClients: Using the information law. jurisdictionsin which Dargon Law isnot licensedto practice fee with affiliateattorney(s)to perform legalwork in Clientagrees thatDargon Law may reasonablysplitClient's organizationsotherthan Dargon Law. fees,creditcounselingfees,or otherfees due to prosecuteClient'scase. This fee does not includecourtfiling Law believesthatitwilltake to review,prepare,and upon the average amount ofhours and work thatDargon servicesnecessaryin theview ofDargon Law, and isbased attorney(s)in thejurisdictionofthe Client,and other settlement,the retainerofin-housecounsel or affiliate information,preparingany loan modificationrequestor debt includesthe intakeand consultation,processingClient's p. 7 Page 7of45 Dargon Law accordingtothe above schedule. Time is ofthe DEFAULT. Clientisresponsiblefortenderingpayment to refunds must be made in writingto Dargon Law. time,not to exceed 30 days from the demand. Demands for by Dargon Law withina commerciallyreasonableamount of unearned portionofthe retainer,such a refund will bemade Client'sretainer.Should Clientdemand a refund ofthe ClientIS entitledto a refund of any unearned portionof ofClient'sretainerthathas been earned by Dargon Law. REFUNDS. Clientisnot entitledto a refund for any portion PAYMENT SCHEDULE Submission to Creditor(s)ofProposal 1/3 AnalysisofClient'sDocuments 1/3 ClientIntakeand Processing 1/3 Work Performed (Debt Settlement) Amount ofFee Earned Submission ofLender of Proposal 1/3 Analysis of Debt 1/3 ClientIntakeand Processing 1/3 Work Performed (Loan Modification) Amount ofFee Earned Filingof Bankruptcy 1/3 Analysis ofDebt 1/3 ClientIntakeand Processing 1/3 Work Performed (Bankruptcy) Amount of Fee Earned Law earns thatfee according the followingschedule: affiliateattorney(s)perform work on Client'scase,Dargon reasonableperiod oftime. However, as Dargon Law or its portionofthe Client'sflatfee returnedin a commercially itsaffiliateattorney(s)atany pointand have the unearned FEE SCHEDULE. Clienthas the rightto fireDargon Law or outcome ofthe matterare expressionsofopinion only. . . . promises or guarantees. Dargon Law's comments about the the outcome ofthe matter. Dargon Law makes no such to Clientwillbe construedas a promise or guaranteeabout in thisAgreement and nothing in Dargon Law's statements DISCLAIMER OF GUARANTEE AND ESTIMATES. Nothing Representationwillthen conclude. . . . an alternativemedication with the Lender. willmake reasonable,good faitheffortsto negotiate modificationisnot offeredby the Lender, Dargon Law p. 8 Page 8of45 additionalcharge and offeringthem the opportunityto transfertheir activeclientswho were "fully-paid,"offeringthem representationatno firm'sclients.Mr. Lader sentlettersdated September 10, 2010 to all contractwith Mr. Lader for hisfirm to offerlegalservicesto the Dargon

26. As partof the winding down of thefirm,Mr. Dargon alsonegotiateda

Dargon, Lader Legal Services, 6Jonathan Drive,Concord, NH 03303. 25. In September 2010, Mr. Dargon began to utilizean addressof Daniel

voicemail. eitherdisconnected,or went unanswered without a message machine or eitherleftthe firm or were laidoff.The firm'stelephone numbers were By thatdate,almostall ofMr. Dargon's employeesand attorneyshad 24. On or about September 1,2010, the law firmabruptlyceased operations.

Paul Dargon, Esq., Case No. 10-004. ("Bankingmatter") and Dargon Law Firm P.L.L.C(a/k/awww.dargonlaw.com), and Daniel re theMatterof:StateofNew Hampshire Banking Department,Petitioner adjudicativeproceedingunder the provisionsof RSA 397-A and 541-A. In Dargon Law Firm and Daniel Paul Dargon, Esq.,commencing an issuedan Order to Show Cause and Cease and DesistOrder against 23. On April 1, 2010, the Stateof New Hampshire Banking Department

was unaware ofthe passage oftheselaws. 22. Thereafter,in 2009, New Hampshire enacted RSA 397-A. Mr. Dargon

establishingand maintaininga licensingsystem for loan originators. met the minimum standardsspecifiedin the SAFE Act, in lieuofHUD adopt licensingand registrationrequirementsforloan originatorsthat Housing and Economic Recovery Act of2008. The law directedStatesto Act")was enacted intofederallaw on July30, 2008, as partofthe 21. The Secure and FairEnforcement Mortgage LicensingAct of2008 ("SAFE

allaspectsofthe below client's[loansand debts]." authorizationto discuss,negotiate,and acceptor rejectnegotiationsfor "grantsthe Dargon Law Firm PLLC and any ofitsrepresentatives AuthorizationforCreditReport and Attorney Services. The authorization 20. Loan modificationclientswere alsorequiredto complete a Client

withdraw from representationofClient.. . . payments, Dargon Law may hold Clientin defaultand payments, or otherwisebe unwillingto continuemaking essence forpayments. Should Clientfail tomake timely p. 9 Page 9 of45 As you may know, the Dargon Law Firm PLLC is

ofthe clientcomplainants,stating: 29. On October 15, 2010 ("October closingletter"),Mr. Dargon wrote to most

Dargon Law Firm PLLC for disposition. isbeing closedby Lader LegalServicesand returnedto continueyour case. This is a formalnoticethatyou[r]case As ofthisdate,you have failedto returna contractto

depending on the date ofyour notification. by eitherSeptember 17,2010 or September 24, 2010 continued representation,a new contracthad to bein place ServicesPLLC. You were informed thatifyou desired Donald L. Lader, Jr.or it's[sic]successor,Lader Legal contractand authorizationfrom eitherThe Law Office or Dargon Law Firm PLLC. You were alsoprovided a new You were provided a noticeregardingthewinding down of

complainants,stating: 28. On September 24, 2010, Mr. Lader wrote again to some client

Dargon Law Firm. to transfer,or who did not respond by the deadline,remained with the and to transferupon payment. Those clientswho refusedto pay, refused 27. Clientswho were not fully-paidwere requestedto pay the restoftheirfee

to transferto hisfirm. Mr. Lader seta deadlinein September for clientsto respond to the offer

$3000.00 willbe refunded to the client. under the Dargon Law Firm PLLC contractin excess of should a Bankruptcy be desired. Any fees paid by the client responsiblefor obtainingtheirown localBankruptcy counsel serviceswillnot be provided and the clientwillbe analysisas describedin paragraph 2 (1)above. Bankruptcy provide Home Loan Modificationservicesand a Bankruptcy New Hampshire, then Lader Legal ServicesPLLC will only Home Loan Modificationand Bankruptcy outsidethe stateof Ifthe Dargon Law Firm PLLC contractwas fora combination

provided,in relevantpart: contractto hisoffice.An addendum to the contractsentto clientsalso p. 10 Page 10of45

October 26, 2010. 30. At leastone clientcomplainant statedthattheirletterwas post-marked

has been a pleasureto serve the publictheselastfew years. and consultwith a localbankruptcy attorneyifnecessary. It trialor regularpayments due in the event of amodification, followup with your lenderas soon as possible,make any Ifyou were a loan modificationclient,pleasebe sure to details. earned by the firm. Please see your firm Agreement for 4131, Concord, NH 03302. No refundswillbe given for fees requestinwritingand send it to:Dargon Law Firm, P.O. Box you would likeyour clientfilesentto you, pleasemake a All former clientsare entitledto theirclientfiles.If Lader directlyat603-466-5820. Ifyou believethatthiswas in error,pleasecontactAttorney transferhas now passed,and your fileisnow being closed. September, 2010. The cut-offdate for acceptingthat Legal ServicesPLLC atno extracharge inAugust or the opportunityto transfertheirrepresentationto Lader According to our records,we provided allclientswith clients. or to continue paying attorneysand paralegalsto represent some time. This had led to the firm being unable to operate Department, but the law on thismatterwillnot be clearfor Bar and the Real EstateSectionofthe Bar oppose the attorneysto stophelpingtheirclients.The New Hampshire speciallicensingfrom the Department, and had ordered theirclientswith mortgage modificationeffortswithout The Department holds thatattorneysmay not assist alreadybeen contactedseparately. of RSA 371-A. Ifyou are a bankruptcy client,you have to the New Hampshire Banking Department's interpretation continueany furtherrepresentation.This isdue to primarily representmortgage modificationclients,and thuswe cannot attorneysor paralegalsare leftin the firm to actively unfortunatelywinding down, and isnow out ofbusiness. No p. 11 Page 11of45

issuedJune 30, 2011, be suspended pending furtherconsiderationof 37. On August 30, 2011, the PresidingOfficerorderedthatthe FinalOrder,

forRehearing and filedadditionalinformationregardingrestitution. thatsame date,the Petitionerfiledan Objection to Respondent's Motion 36. On August 1,2011, Mr. Dargon filed a timely Motion forRehearing. On

thatthe respondentshad been unaware ofthe laws they violated. collectingadvance fees for loan modifications. The FinalOrder noted thatMr. Dargon and hisfirmhad violatedRSA 397-A14, IV (m) for foractingas an unlicensedloan originator, thePresidingOfficer found orderedto pay $129,500.00 in administrativefines. Inadditionto fines restitutionto New Hampshire clientsofthe firm.The firmwas also found Mr.Dargon and the law firmresponsiblefor$147,196.99 in 35. A finalorderwas issuedon June 30, 2011, wherein the PresidingOfficer

attorneys.Allotherclaims were denied. or should have known thatthey were not licensedNew Hampshire Larkowich and Ms. EllisviolatedRSA 399-D and thatMr. Dargon knew fileswere kept within the firm);and 6) thatthe activitiesofMr. originator;5)violatingthe Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (pertainingto how besteffortscontracts;4) doing actualwork as an unlicensedloan licensureunder RSA 397-A; 2) collectingadvance fees,3) enteringinto Mr. Dargon: 1)actingas a loan originatorwho was not exempt from February 14, 2011. In relevantpart,claims were grantedwith respectto 34. The PresidingOfficerissuedan adjudicativehearingdecisionon

Mr. Dargon. with the otherlaw firm employees and attorneys,with the exceptionof 33. After the hearing,the Banking Department enteredintoconsent orders

representedhimself. Dargon was held on December 2, 3, and 6, 2010. Mr. Dargon 32. An adjudicativehearingpertainingto the Dargon law firm and Mr.

Dargon firm employees and attorneys. October 21, 2010 adding,as respondentsin the Banking matter,several 31. An Amended Order to Show Cause Notice ofOrder was issuedon

Banking Department Matter and Stay Due to Mr. Dargon's Military p. 12 Page 12of45 December 10, 2010, theADO filedan Expedited Petitionfor Production 42. Based on severalof the complaints filedagainstMr. Dargon, on

returnedto New Hampshire. He alsohas not practicedlaw. 41. Since Mr. Dargon leftNew Hampshire forservicein theArmy, he has not

Mr. Dargon's MilitaryService,Procedural Historyand ADO Audit

findingsand/ora resolutionof the Banking Department matter. only and should not be construedin any way to becontraryto future agreethatthisStipulationresolvesthe matterspending beforetheADO 40. The Banking Department has not issuedany furtherorders. The parties

FinalOrder. . . . hisfirm have no assetsto satisfythe award containedin the Based on evidence submitted in thiscase,Mr. Dargon and law. evidence thateitherof them isactivein any areaunder the activitiesregardingN.H. RSA 397-A. Moreover, thereisno NeitherDargon Law Firm nor Mr. Dargon are engaged in any case isa questionnotyetdecided. Whether the Act limitsthe PresidingOfficer'sabilityin this duty with the military. tribunalor courtto take actionwhile a partyison active Under certaincircumstances,theAct limitsthe abilityofa November 6, 2012 thatMr. Dargon remains on activeduty. (the"Act"). Counsel for Mr. Dargon confirmed in writingon Dargon declinedto waive the Servicemembers CivilReliefAct United StatesArmy. In the same correspondence,Mr. writingon July 11, 2012 thathe ison activeduty with the trainingwith the United StatesArmy. Mr. Dargon statedin Officeron October 24, 2011 thathe was leavingfor basic Mr. Dargon informed the Department and the Presiding

statusofproceeding was describedas follows: the StatusofProceedingin theBanking matter. In relevantpart,the 39. On November 16, 2012, the PresidingOfficerissuedan orderregarding

trainingwith the United StatesArmy. 38. On or about October 24, 2011, Mr. Dargon left NewHampshire forbasic

the Parties'outstandingmotions. p. 13 Page 13of45

operatingaccount when the payment should have come from the trust (e)A client,Bertha Wilson, was paid $8,500 for asettlementfrom a firm firm employee. of$3,080 and a check issuedin the amount of$892.78 payable to a December 31, 2009 resultingfrom a transferto the operatingaccount (d)CitizensTrust3124 was overdrawn in theamount of-$888.10on 2010. (c)A negativebalance of-$58.33 in CitizensTrust3116 on September 7, 12,2010. (b)A negativebalance of -$1,054.11 in CitizensTrust3116 on February balance. 24, 2009 and January 5, 2010 brought the account back to apositive thatwere processed on December 23, 2009. Deposits on December have primarilyresultedfrom thirtyindividualcreditcard transactions 3116 was overdrawn with a negativebalance. The issueappears to (a)From December 23, 2009 through January 4, 2010, CitizensTrust

47. The reportdemonstrates:

firm'soperatingaccounts and otherfinancialrecordswere reviewed. May 2009 untilthe firm closed in 2010. In addition,bank recordsfor the (CitizensTrust3116 and CitizensTrust3124) utilizedby the firm from 2009 (BOA Trust2689) and two CitizensBank IOLTA Trustaccounts Trustaccount utilizedby the firm from November 2008 through October through November 2015. The review includeda Bank ofAmerica IOLTA 46. Ms. Cavalierireviewed firm financialrecordsfrom November 14, 2008

45. Mr. Dargon admits to allmaterialfactsthe financialreport.

D. Facts Relatingto Financial Report Issued

procedures. Her reportwas issuedon June 2, 2016. financialreview ofMr. Dargon's and the law firm'strustaccounting 44. On February 3, 2016, theADO retainedMs. Cavalierito conduct a

the investigativehold on thismatterin December 2015. After Mr. Dargon retainedcounsel in October 2015, the ADO removed on hold. The partiesbegan settlementnegotiationsin the fall of2015. and the statusof the Banking Department's matter,the auditwas placed 43. Given Mr. Dargon's statuswith the Bar Association,hisunavailability,

Appointment ofAuditor. The petitionwas granted. ofRecords,Audit ofTrustAccounts and Operating Accounts and p. 14 Page 14of45

operatingaccount,as follows: account. In both matters,the refundswere made from a firm client'spersonalbank account and depositedintothe firm clienttrust (e)In twoinstances,duplicatepayments were withdrawn from the from the clienttrustaccount. [Report,pp. 10-11] ii.ClientDarlene Raymond received a$510 refund on May 7, 2010 June 1, 2010 from the clienttrustaccount, i. ClientsKenny and PatriciaRobertsreceived a$500 refundon to clientsas follows: (d)In twoinstances,clientrefundswere made from CitizensTrust3116 transferwas made to CitizensOperating 3140. $16,182 transferwas made to CitizensOperating3132 and a $10,000 CitizensTrust3116 to operatingaccounts, i.e., on April23, 2010, a (c)There were unidentifiedtransfersofrelativelylargesums from operatingaccounts. individualclienttransfersfrom the CitizensTrust3116 to the firm's (b)Ms. Cavalieridid not have enough informationavailableto trace CitizensTrust3116 upon receipt. (a) In allten cases,the clients'payments were properlydepositedinto

thatwere filedwith theADO. The reportdemonstrated that: 48. The reportalsoaddressed transactionsrelatingto the clientcomplaints

trustaccount. account was an operatingaccount,when itwas actuallya client ii. A depositstamp used for CitizensTrust3116 statedthatthe the bank; was received,ratherthan on the date itwas actuallydepositedat i. A clientledgerlistinga clientpayment as depositedon the date it (j) Clericalissuesincluding: thatwas open from November 2008 untilOctober 2009. 2009, wherein he failedto listBOA Trust2689, a clienttrustaccount Compliance Certificateforthe periodJune 1, 2008 through May 31, (i) Mr. Dargon signed a Supreme Court Annual TrustAccounting accounts on March 13, 2009 and March 30, 2009. (h)Lack ofidentificationfortransfersfrom clienttrusttooperating Trust3116. (g)A lackofmonthly reconciliationsforJuly-October2009 forCitizens April2009, or a failureto correctlyperform the reconciliations. (f) A lackofmonthly reconciliationsfor BOA Trust2689 forMarch and i.e., lessthan a day. account,resultingin commingling ofclientfunds for aminimal time, p. 15 Page 15of45

Mr. Hurley or hiscompany was paidapproximately$156,817.08. independent contractorwith the firm. Between May 2009 and May 2010, as "SeniorVice Presidentof Marketing" for the firm,although he was an 54. By the summer of2009, Mr. Kevin Hurley, anon-lawyer,was identified

lawyers. 53. Ms. Douglass advised thatMr. Dargon shared legalfeeswith non-

2009 untilshe resignedon November 13, 2009. firm. Ms.Douglass worked as an attorneywith the firm from August complaint focused on her concerns with the businesspracticesofthe Dargon firm, filed agrievance/referralwith the ADO. Ms. Douglass' 52. On December 21, 2009, Megan Douglass, Esq.,a former employee of the

Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Megan Douglass, #09-064

complaints thatsupportthe Rule violationscitedherein. 51. The followingisa briefsummary ofthe factsregardingthe individual

E. Facts Arisingfrom IndividualComplaints

payments were designatedas commissions. and/orhiscompany, Legal ConsultantsofAmerica. Severalofthe accounts,totaling$156,817.08, thatwere made to Mr.Kevin D. Hurley, 50. The reportalsoidentifiedpayments from threelaw firm operating

were stolenfrom CitizensOperating 3140. were stolenfrom CitizensOperating 3132. Checks totaling$19,505.54 from two of the firm'soperatingaccounts. Checks totaling$10,138.37 againstthe firm. Funds totalingapproximately $29,643.91 were stolen thatthe firm'sformer bookkeeper, Ms. BrittanyBoggs, perpetrated 49. In addition,the reportidentifiedevidence ofan embezzlement scheme

April 30, 2010. $320 was made toMs. McKelvey from CitizenOperating3132 on intoCitizensTrust3116 on April 19,2010. A refund payment of withdrawn from her personalchecking account and deposited ii.ClientBrenda McKelvey had a $320 duplicatepayment April 30, 2010 from CitizensOperating 3132. Trust3116 on April 19, 2010. She receiveda $3,000 refund on from her personalbank account and depositedintoCitizens i. Darlene Raymond had a duplicatepayment of$3,000 withdrawn p. 16 Page 16 of45

thattotaledlessthan $10,000. and serviceswith the law firm debitcard,tiedto the operatingaccount, operatingaccount and paid herself$30,000. She also purchased goods through March, 2010, Ms. Boggs forged 30-40 checks from the law firm 62. Mr. Conrad concluded thatbeginning in December 2009 and continuing

the time,agreed to auditthe firm'sfinancialrecords. ." Mr. JustinConrad (Mr. Conrad), an accountantpursuing hisCPA at roleofbookkeeper. She discovered thatthe firm recordswere "a mess . . 61. Ms. StephanieVangjel, a paralegalin the Dargon law firm,took over the

Mr. Dargon terminatedMs. Boggs' employment in lateApril 2010. 60. Although Ms. Boggs initiallydenied stealingfrom the Dargon Law Firm,

was a convictedfelon. first,she eventuallyadmitted thatshe was the same BrittanyBoggs that confrontedMs. Boggs again,and although she denied the allegationat 59. After hearingfrom AssistantAttorney General Gorham, Mr. Dargon

furtherinquiry. she denied thatshe was the same BrittanyBoggs. Mr. Dargon made no againsther and her pleabargain. Mr. Dargon confronted Ms. Boggs but 58. A month prior,Mr. Dargon had found an articledescribingthe charges

was a convictedfelonwho was on parolefor theftand embezzlement. prosecutingthe Banking matter,informed Mr. Dargon thatMs. Boggs 57. In lateApril 2010, AssistantAttorney General Karen Gorham, who was

bookkeeper. 56. From late2009 through April 2010, Ms. Boggs was the firm's

20, 2010. mismanagement ofclientfunds. The ADO docketed the matteron May the Dargon Law Firm and itsbookkeeper had engaged in the February 1, 2010 untilshe resignedon May 17, 2010. She allegedthat Firm, fileda referralwith theADO. Ms. Dimitriadeswas employed from 55. On May 18, 2010, Ms. Dimitriades,a former employee of the Dargon Law

Dargon, Daniel P. advs. AttorneyDisciplineOffice,#10-025

Severalof the payments were designatedas commissions. p. 17 Page 17 of45

73. This isthe only clientcomplaint filedbefore the firm closed.

The $500 refund was paid from CitizensTrustAccount #3116. check in the amount of $500.00 "due to your specificcircumstances." between March 15, 2010 and May 11, 2010. Ms. Preve enclosed a refund 2010, outliningin detailthework thathad been performed on the file 72. Ms. Michelle Preve, Office Manager, wrote to the Roberts on June 1,

savings. No loan modificationwas ever completed. "modification"of theirmortgage loan would yield,atbest,minimal 71. The Roberts paid $1,500.00 to the firm beforebeing toldthata

been diligentin handling the Roberts'matter. 70. Mr. Simensen and Mr. Russell,along with paralegals,appeared to have

pay $2,500.00 in fiveinstallments. otherclients,the Roberts signed a ClientFee Agreement and agreed to Hampshire and worked on the Roberts'loan modificationmatter.Like Joseph R. Russell,Esq. Both attorneysare only licensedin New 69. Erik J.Simensen, Esq. was initiallyassigned to the file,followed by

2010. The matterwas docketed in July2010. 68. The Roberts fileda grievance thatwas receivedby the ADO on July6,

Carolina. loan modificationrequestto theirlender. The Roberts livein North 67. In March 2010, the Roberts retainedthe Dargon Law Firm to submit a

Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Kenny W. and PatriciaL. Roberts,#10-036

embezzlement to theADO. 66. Ms. Cavelieri'sreview corroboratedMr. Dargon's descriptionof the

TrustAccount Compliance Certificate. 65. Mr. Dargon reportedthatthe firm had been out oftruston his2010

64. Plans for repayment were worked out with Ms. Boggs' family.

reporther ifshe returnedallofthe stolenfunds within 30 days. her paroleofficer/authorities.Mr. Dargon agreed thathe would not sometime in May 2010, Ms. Boggs begged Mr. Dargon not to reporther to 63. When Mr. Dargon confrontedMs. Boggs about the theftand fraud p. 18 Page 18of45

CitizensBank operatingaccount #3132. 81. The law firm refunded the duplicate$3,000.00 withdrawal from its

depositedintothe CitizensBank IOLTA account #3116. second time in the amount of$3,000.00. That payment was also 80. On April 20,2010, Ms. Raymond's checkingaccount was debiteda

2010, and depositeditintoCitizensBank IOLTA account #3116. firm on March 30, 2010. The firm processed the payment on March 31, authorizeda $3,000.00 debitfrom her personalchecking account to the 79. Ms. Raymond enteredintothe ClientFee Agreement. Ms. Raymond

Island. Ms. Ellishandled the matterin a reasonablydiligentmanner. assignedto PatriciaEllis,Esq.,who was not licensedto practicein Rhode March 2010. Ms. Raymond residesin Rhode Island. Her matterwas 27, 2010. Ms. Raymond hiredthe Dargon Law Firm to representher in ADO on September 23, 2010. The matterwas docketed on September 78. Ms. Darlene P. Raymond (Ms. Raymond) submitted a grievance to the

Dargon, Daniel P. adv. Darlene P. Raymond, #10-051

closingor take stepsto protecther interests. 77. Mr. Dargon did not contactMs. Minnifieldto advise thathisfirm was

did not agree to the transfer. company createdin New Hampshire on August 30, 2010. Ms. Minnifield NewEnglandForeclosureRescue.Com LLC (NEFR), a limitedliability Hart,offeredto transferher case to theirnew company, Mr. Larkowich and one ofthe Dargon firm'sconsultants,Mr. Charles performed on her fileby the time the firm closed. After the firm closed, assignedto Mr. Larkowich. Littlein the way of substantivework was 76. Ms. Minnifieldresidesin Harrisburg,Pennsylvania. Her matterwas

Firm to negotiatea loan modification. 75. On July23, 2010, Ms. Minnifieldpaid $1,000.00 forthe Dargon Law

2010. That matterwas docketed on September 20, 2010. 74. Ms. Karen Minnifieldfiled agrievancewith theADO on September 20,

Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Karen Minnifield,#10-050 p. 19 Page 19 of45 returnedto Dargon Law Firm PLLC for disposition. your case is being closed by Lader LegalServicesand a contractto continueyour case. This is aformal noticethat ServicesPLLC. ...As ofthisdate,you have failedto return of Donald L. Lader or it's(sic)successor,Lader Legal contractand authorizationform from eitherThe Law Office Dargon Law Firm PLLC. You were alsoprovideda new You were provideda noticeregardingthe winding down of

87. On September 24, 2010, Mr. Lader wrote to Ms.Raymond advising:

emailed Ms. Raymond regardinga new clientagreement. 86. On September 15,2010, Ms. Amber Meissner of Lader Legal Services

CreditReport and Attorney Services. Debt ServicesContract,Addendum to Contract,ClientAuthorizationfor activeclientlist."Included with thisletterwere enclosuresincludinga wish to transferto thisfirm and your case will beremoved from out [sic] response by September 17,then it will bedetermined thatyou do not processed beforewe can continueon your case. If we donot have a have the new authorizationform sentto your mortgage company and concluded "Pleasedo not delay in making your decision. We need to to transferher matterto Lader Legal Services,PLLC. The letter 85. On September 10, 2010, Mr. Lader senta letterto Ms. Raymond offering

Firm and discovered the phone lineshad been disconnected. 84. On or about September 8, 2010, Ms. Raymond calledthe Dargon Law

IOLTA #3116 on May 7, 2010. 83. Ms. Raymond was refunded an additional$510.00 from CitizensBank

system to avoid any futureproblems. . . . have now moved to abank check/money orderpayment with them as soon as we discoveredwhat they had done. We number of our clients,but we terminatedour relationship account. We are unsure why Green, Inc.overcharged a thatour firm did not authorizethisdeduction from your payable to the Dargon Law Firm PLLC. Please be assured processingservice,overcharged your account forfunds made Recently a vendor of ours named Green, Inc.,a check

part: 82. On April26, 2010,Mr. Dargon wrote toMs. Raymond stating,in relevant p. 20 Page 20 of45 Dargon. Misconduct. The Rule8.1(b)violation was specific toMr. Larkowichand does not apply to Mr. 7.5(c):FirmName and Letterheads,8.1(b):Bar Admissionand DisciplinaryMatters, and8.4(a): Multijurisdictional Practice ofLaw, 7.1(a):Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services, TerminatingRepresentation,5.5(a)and 5.5(b)(1):Unauthorized Practiceof Law; Larkowichwas disciplinedwith a publiccensureforviolationsofRules 1.16(d);Decliningor Office, #10-055 and Larkowich,Peteradvs.BrendaL. McKelvey #10-061 (May 15, 2012).(Mr. these Dargon firm clientsand clients atNEFR. SeeLarkowich,Peteradvs.AttorneyDiscipline 1A companionmatter was brought againstMr. Larkowicharising out of his representation of

January 2010, and thatMr. Larkowich "islicensedtopracticelaw in the indicatedthat"AttorneyPeterLarkowich"had been with the firmsince 93. When accessed on April 18,2010, the Dargon Law Firm website

law firm in 2010. admittedtothe practiceof law inNew Hampshire when he worked atthe reinstatedatthe time he worked for the law firm. Mr. Larkowich was not Rule 4:02 (1)(non-payment ofregistrationfee).He had not been law in Massachusetts forfailureto comply with Massachusetts S.J.C. 1974. InJuly2005, Mr. Larkowich wassuspended from the practiceof 92. Mr. Larkowich had been a member ofthe Massachusetts bar sinceJune,

Chicoine and Ms. Torres-Landa'smatters. Kinsbury, overwhom Mr. Dargon had supervisoryauthority,handled Ms. 91. Mr. Dargon's employees, includingMr. Larkowich and Ms. Lacie

was docketed as #10-056. administrativelysuspended from practicein Massachusetts. That matter Firm. Mr. Larkowich was not licensedin New Hampshire and had been Larkowich had representedthathe was a lawyer atthe Dargon Law the materialsprovided by Ms. Chicoine and Ms. Torres-Landa in thatMr. 90. Also on October 7, 2010, the ADO docketed a second matterarisingfrom

and Ms. Torres-Landa were residentsofWashington. ADO. The matterwas docketed on October 7, 2010.J Both Ms. Chicoine Landa fileda consumer complaint form with a signed oath form with the 89. On September 25, 2010, Ms. ElizabethChicoine and Ms. GloriaTorres-

Dargon. Daniel P. advs. AttorneyDisciplineOffice,#10-056

Dargon. Daniel P. advs. ElizabethChicoine and Gloria Torres-Landa.

October closingletter. 88. On October 15, 2010, Mr. Dargon sentMs. Raymond the standard p. 21 Page 21of45 under the Dargon Law Firm PLLC contractin excessof should a Bankruptcy be desired.Any feespaid by the client responsibleforobtainingtheir own localBankruptcy counsel serviceswillnot be provided and the clientwillbe analysisas describedinparagraph 2(1) above. Bankruptcy provide Home LoanModificationservicesand a Bankruptcy New Hampshire,then LaderLegalServicesPLLC will only Home Loan Modificationand Bankruptcy outsidethe stateof If the Dargon Law FirmPLLC contractwas for acombination

would have been applicabletotheseclients,provided: transfertheircontractto hisoffice.The Addendum to Contract,that Chicoine and Ms. Torres-Landa and offeredthem the opportunityto 100. As with otherclients,on September 10,2010, Mr. Lader wrote to Ms.

the new company. did not take Ms. Chicoine'sand Ms. Torres-Landa'smatterwith him to 99. In the fall of2010, Mr. Larkowich was working atNEFR. Mr. Larkowich

disconnected. inquireas to the statusofher case. The telephone linehad been 98. On September 8, 2010, Ms. Chicoine calledthe Dargon Law Firm to

reasonablydiligentmanner. modificationto the lender. He and the firm paralegalsworked in a 97. On June 17, 2010, Mr. Larkowich submitted a requestfor a loan

$900.00 each. $2,700.00. The payment scheduleprovidedforthreeinstallmentsof letteron May 14, 2010. The agreement calledfor a payment of 96. Ms. Chicoine and Ms. Torres-Landa signed the standardfee agreement

"PeterLarkowich, Esq." forms forsubmission to the lender.Mr. Larkowich signed the letteras thatthe clientsassemble the necessarydocuments and complete several Larkowich tocommence the loan modificationprocess."He requested Landa confirmingthattheirmatterhad beenassignedto "Attorney Peter 95. On May 12, 2010, Mr. Larkowich wrote to Ms. Chicoine and Ms. Torres-

seekinga possiblebankruptcy and loan modification. 94. On or aboutMay 3, 2010,Ms. ChicoinecontactedDargon Law Firm

Commonwealth ofMassachusetts in both the stateand federalcourts." p. 22 Page 22of45

Normand's behalf. 110. Dargon firmattorneyssubmitteda loan modificationrequeston the

Normands' checking account to the Dargon Law Firm. February 17, 2010, anelectronicpayment for$2,300.00 issuedfrom the 109. The Normands, likeotherclients,signedthe clientfeeagreement.On

obtaina loan modificationon theirresidencein Massachusetts. 108. In early 2010, the Normands hired the Dargon Law Firm to help them

2010. Normand and hiswife,Donna. The matterwas docketed on October 20, 107. On October 13, 2010, theADO received agrievancefrom Mr. Arthur

Daniel Dargon P. advs. Arthur L. Normand. #10-059

paralegal. suspension he requiredMr. Larkowich to tellclientsthathe was a him ofsuch in the summer of 2010. AfterlearningofMr. Larkowich's administrativelysuspended untiltheAttorneyGeneral'sOfficeadvised Mr. Dargon advised thatMr. Larkowich did not know he was 106. In an October 10, 2010 replyletterto theADO in the #10-056 matter,

returnedthe clientfiledespitetheirrequests. them on December 17, 2010. As of thatdate,Mr. Dargon had not 105. The ADO returneda copy of Ms.Chicoine'sand Ms. Torres-Landa'sfile to

modificationon November 5, 2010. 104. Ms. Chicoine'sand Ms. Torres-Landa'slenderofferedthem a loan

December 1, 2010. 103. Ms. Chicoine requestedthe returnofher fileon November 2, 2010 and

letter. 102. On October 15, 2010, Mr. Dargon sentMs. Chicoine hisOctober closing

declinedon or about October 20, 2010. Chicoine'shandwrittennotes,she learnedthe loan modificationwas closed,Ms. Chicoine followedup with her lenderherself.Per Ms. 101. The clients didnot acceptMr. Lader'sofferand afterthe Dargonfirm

$3000.00 willbe refunded to the client. p. 23 Page 23of45 statusofher loan modification. She receivedreassurancesthatthe

121. Ms. McKelvey calledthe Dargon Law Firm routinelyto inquireas to the

120. A copy ofthisletterwas sentto the McKelveys.

loan modification. 119. On May 10, 2010, Mr. Larkowich submitted the McKelveys' requestfor a

Operating #3132. refund payment of$320 was made to Ms. McKelvey from Citizens a letteradvisingofGreen Inc.'sprocessingerror. On April 30, 2010, a CitizensTrust#3116. On April26, 2010, Mr. Dargon sentMs. McKelvey withdrawn from her personalchecking account and depositedinto 118. On April 19,2010, Ms. McKelvey had a $320 duplicatepayment

electronicpayment service. payments were made to Dargon Law Firm, PLLC, by e-check using an 117. Ms. McKelvey made two payments of$320.00 each on April2, 2010. The

116. The McKelveys signed the ClientFee Agreement on March 26, 2010.

Larkowich, who was not licensedto practicelaw in Illinois. husband, Coy McKelvey, livein Illinois.Their matterwas assignedto Mr. representationin a home mortgage loan modification. She and her 115. In March of 2010, Ms. McKelvey sought out Dargon law firm for legal

ADO docketed the complaint on November 2, 2010. ProtectionBureau forwarded Ms. McKelvey's complaint to theADO. The Attorney General, Consumer ProtectionBureau. The Consumer regardingthe Dargon Law Firm with the New Hampshire Office ofthe 114. On October 18, 2010, Ms. McKelvey fileda Consumer Complaint Form

Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Brenda L. McKelvey, #10-060

13, 2010. 113. The ADO returneda copy of the Normand fileto the clientson January

disposition. them he was closingthe matterand returningit to Mr.Dargon's firm for 112. The Normands receivedMr. Lader'sSeptember 24, 2010 letteradvising

Intentionto Forecloseon theirproperty. 111. On August 16, 2010, the Normand's lendersentthem a Notice of p. 24 Page 24of45 Lader'sfirm. He receivedstandardlettersfrom Mr. Lader about anyone atthe Dargon firm after it closed and wasunableto reachMr. was filed on May 27, 2010.Mr. Baumgartner was unable toreach handled Mr. Baumgartner's matter.A requestfor aloan modification 129. Mr. Simensen and Mr. Russell,neitherofwhom were licensedin Ohio,

installmentwas due in September 2010. 2010, he paid four installment payments totaling $2,000. Afifth feeagreement, agreeing to pay $2,500.BetweenMay 5 and August11, modificationfor hishome in Ohio. He enteredintothe standardclient Baumgartner hired the DargonLaw Firm toassisthim with a loan theADO. The matterwas docketed on November 22, 2010. Mr. 128. On November 16,2010, Mr. MichaelBaumgartner filed agrievancewith

Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Michael F. Baumgartner, #10-067

acceptthe Ladercontractbecausethe legal fee wascontractuallyearned. responselettertothe ADO thather filewas closedaftershe did not 127. She did not hear furtherfrom Mr. Dargon. Mr. Dargon noted in a

pickingup." system giveshim the abilityto listentoyour message without him contactDan Dargon and callevery hour ifyou have to. His voicemail Hart,who emailed her on October 8, 2010 stating:"Pleasecontinueto McKelvey was able to reach a former consultantof the firm,Charles not sign a contractto continuewith thatfirm. At one point,Ms. McKelvey filewas transferredto Mr. Lader'sfirm but the McKelveys did 126. Mr. Larkowich did not take the McKelvey fileto hisnew firm.The

her regardingany actionshe could take to secure new counsel. 125. Mr. Larkowich never discussedwith Ms. McKelvey or corresponded with

number she had been given was no longerin service. 124. The next week, Ms. McKelvey calledMr. Larkowich again,but the phone

thatthe Dargon law firmhad ceased operations. case,Ms. McKelvey calledMr. Larkowich. He did not tell Ms. McKelvey 123. On September 24, 2010, afterhearingnothingabout the progressofher

122. InSeptember 2010, Dargon Law Firm ceased operations.

complete. matterwas progressing,but she never heard thatthe modificationwas p. 25 Page 25of45

themselves. afterthe firm had closed and, thereafter,negotiateda loan modification 135. The Kohanskis receivedMr. Dargon's October 15, 2010 closingletter

denied she followed up with anotherprogram. an impending foreclosure.When an initialloan modificationrequestwas the work on theircase includingnegotiatingcreditcard debt and halting Ms. Dimitriadesand then Mr. Larkowich. Ms. Dimitriadesdid most of and paid the firm$2,500. Theirmatterwas assignedto Mr. Lader,then modificationand creditcard debt. They signed the clientfee agreement firm on November 13, 2010 forassistancewith a possibleloan and her husband, Karl, residentsof New Hampshire, hiredthe Dargon 2010. The matterwas docketed on December 21, 2010. Ms. Kohanski 134. Ms. Darlene Kohanski filedher grievancewith theADO on November 15,

Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Darlene L. Kohanski, #10-080

firm was closed. 133. The Mikkelsens receivedMr. Dargon's October closingletterafterthe

modificationbased on the applicationthatMs. Dimitriadessubmitted. but did not. They worked with theirlenderand obtaineda loan 132. The Mikkelsens were offeredan opportunityto transferto the Lader firm

Rhode Island. modificationrequest. Neitherattorneywas licensedto practicelaw in Dimitriadesand Mr. Lader filedand followed up on the Mikkelsen'sloan clientfee agreement. The Mikkelsens residedin Rhode Island. Ms. clientcomplainants,they sought a loan modificationand signed the 23, 2010. The matterwas docketed on November 29, 2010. Like other 131. Terry and Gloria Mikkelsen fileda grievancewith theADO on November

Dargon, Daniel P. advs. Terry and Gloria Mikkelsen,#10-069

firm was alreadyclosed. 130. Mr. Dargon sentMr. Baumgartner the October closingletter,afterthe

offeringservicesforbankruptciesin New Hampshire. transferringhisfile to Mr.Lader'sfirm. However, Mr. Lader was only p. 26 Page 26 of45 (b)A lawyershallexplainthelegaland practicalaspectsof a

ProfessionalConduct or otherlaw. clientexpectsassistancenot permittedby the Rules of the lawyer'sconduct when the lawyer knows thatthe (5)consultwith the clientabout any relevantlimitationon information;and (4)promptly comply with reasonablerequestsfor of the matter. (3)keep the clientreasonablyinformed about the status which the client'sobjectivesare to be accomplished; (2)reasonablyconsultwith the clientabout the means by informed consent isrequiredby theseRules; circumstance with respectto which the client's (1)promptly inform the clientofany decisionor (a) Alawyer shall:

139. Rule 1.4 statesas follows:

Conduct by clearand convincing evidence: thatDrake David Dargon, Sr. has violatedthe followingRules ofProfessional The Committee concludes thatthereisclearand convincing evidence

she sought a loan modificationon her own. letter.She alsoreceivedMr. Dargon's October closingletter.Thereafter, thather matterwas closed because she had not responded to hisfirst 138. Ms. Weatherspoon-Williams receiveda letterfrom Mr. Lader advising

Dargon firm in the summer of 2010 and did not send a second payment. matterwas assigned to Mr. Larkowich. She had troublereachingthe payment to the firm in the amount of$590.00 on June 30, 2010. The Georgia, signed the clientfee agreement on May 3, 2010 and made a first 137. Ms. Weatherspoon-Williams and her husband, residentsofWaycross,

March 4, 2011. The matterwas docketed on March 7, 2011. 136. The ADO received Ms.JaniceWeatherspoon-Williams'sgrievanceon

Dargon. Daniel P. advs. Janice C. Weatherspoon-Williams, #11-029 p. 27 Page 27of45

amount forexpenses. . . . collectan illegalor unreasonable feeor an unreasonable (a) A lawyer shallnot enterintoan agreement for,charge,or

145. Rule 1.5 statesas follows:

firm had, in fact,been closed before thatdate. adviseclientsthatthe firmwas closinguntilOctober 15, 2010, when the 144. Mr. Dargon alsobreached hisduty under Rule 1.4when he didnot

her matterwas assigned to Mr.Larkowich on orabout May 24, 2010. 143. Ms. Weatherspoon-Williamshad troublereachingthe Dargon firmafter

matterand was not advised by Mr. Dargon thatthe firm was closing. 142. Ms. Minnifieldhad troublereachingthe firm tofindout the statusofher

Mr. Lader'sfirm afterthe Dargon firm closed. (d) Mr. Baumgartner was unable toreach eitherthe Dargon firm or closed. (c) Ms. McKelvey was unable toreach Mr. Dargon afterthe law firm disconnected. on September 8, 2010 and the telephone number was (b) Ms. Chicoine calledthe firm to inquireas to the statusof her case discoveredthe phone lineshad been disconnected. (a) On or about September 8, 2010, Ms. Raymond calledthe firm and

theirfileshad been transferredafterthe firm closed. could not reach him, and could not reach Mr. Lader, to whom some of were disconnected. Mr. Dargon alsobreached thatduty when clients during a one-week period in September 2010 because the telephonelines 141. Mr. Dargon breached thatduty when no one in hisfirm could be reached

requestsfor information. about the statusof theirmattersand to promptly comply with reasonable 140. Mr. Dargon owed hisclientsa duty to keep them reasonablyinformed

representation. clientto make informed decisionsregardingthe such explanationisreasonablynecessaryto permit the matterand alternativecourses of actionto the extentthat p. 28 Page 28of45 (e) Funds may be disbursedfrom lawyer trustaccounts upon incurred. withdrawn by the lawyer onlyas feesare earned or expenses and expenses thathave been paid in advance, to be

(d) A lawyershalldepositinto a clienttrustaccount legal fees purpose. on thataccount,but only in an amount appropriateforthat account forthe solepurpose ofpaying bank servicecharges (c) A lawyermay depositthe lawyer's ownfunds in aclienttrust shallcomply with everyotheraspectofthose Rules. specified inthe New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules and lawyer shallmaintain the minimum financialrecords such funds or otherpropertyor any portionthereof.The preservedfor aperiodof sixyearsafterfinaldistributionof time ofreceiptto the time of finaldistributionand shallbe ofthe clientatany time in the lawyer'spossessionfrom the maintenance and dispositionof allfunds and otherproperty (b) Records shallbe maintained by the lawyer ofthe handling, promptly upon receipt,and safeguarded. propertyshallbe identifiedas propertyof the client, ofthe New Hampshire Supreme Court Rules. All other designatedtrustaccounts in accordance with the provisions property. Funds shallbe depositedin one or more clearly representationshallbe held separatefrom the lawyer'sown in the lawyer'spossessionin connection with a (a) Propertyofclientsor thirdpersons which a lawyer isholding

149. Rule 1.15 statesas follows:

Rule 1.15: Safekeeping Property; and Supreme Court Rule 50:

and as such collectedillegalfees in hisloan modificationpractice. 148. Mr. Dargon had a duty to comply with applicablestatutoryrequirements,

theirloan modificationapplicationsto theirlender. calledforpayments priorto Mr.Dargon'sattorneysand staffsubmitting 147. The clientfeeagreements intowhich the clientcomplainants entered

an advanced fee fora loan modification. 146. EffectiveJuly 1,2009, RSA 397-A:14 IV(m) prohibitedthe collectionof p. 29 Page 29of45 and sufficientlyaccountsfortrustfunds may also beused. othersystem thatpreservestheabove-mentioned features disbursements and carrya running account balance. Any propertyisheld,which shallshow allreceiptsand accounting page or columns foreach clientforwhom the natureofthe disbursement,and (2) aseparate appropriateentriesidentifyingthe source of the receipts and and disbursements from the trustaccount or accounts with atthe minimum, (1)a ledger orsystem showing allreceipts shallmaintain a trustaccounting system thatshallinclude thereof. Specifically, everyattorneyor the firmorganization distributionof such funds or securitiesor any portion preservesuch records for a period of six(6)yearsafterfinal time ofreceiptto the time of finaldistributionand shall securitiesof aclientatany time in hispossessionfrom the handling,maintenance and dispositionof allfunds or

A. Every attorney shallmaintain recordsofthe (2) Attorney'sFinancial Records:

150. Supreme Court Rule 50(2) statesas follows:

propertyas to which the interestsare not in dispute. The lawyer shallpromptly distributeallportionsofthe be kept separateby the lawyeruntilthe disputeisresolved. whom may be the lawyer)claiminterests,the propertyshall possessionofpropertyinwhich two ormore persons (one of (g) When in the course of representationa lawyer isin such property. person,shallpromptly rendera fullaccounting regarding entitledto receiveand upon requestby the clientor third any funds or otherpropertythatthe clientor thirdperson is lawyer shallpromptly deliverto the clientor thirdperson otherwise permittedby law or by agreement with the client,a the clientor thirdperson. Except as statedin thisruleor thirdperson has an interest,a lawyer shallpromptly notify (f) Upon receivingfunds or otherpropertyinwhich a clientor receivingfinancialinstitution. and (B)availabilityofsuch funds to the lawyer from the otherform ofdepositby such receivingfinancialinstitution, to the sum of such disbursements,or (ii)clearanceofany certifiedcheck, or electronictransferof funds atleastequal receivingfinancialinstitution,ofcash,bank cashier'scheck, (A) (i)deposit,receiptofwhich isacknowledged by the p. 30 Page 30of45 between items (b)and (d); reconciliationdate;and (e)a detailedlistingofalldifferences a listingof allclients'funds in the accounts as of the detailedlistingof alldifferencesbetween items (a)and (b); (d) account according to the lawyer or law firm'srecords;(c)a according to the bank'srecords;(b)the balance ofthe reconciliationshalldisclose(a)the balance of the account by the lawyer or law firm on amonthly basis.Such those accounts excluded by Rule 50-A(3),shallbe reconciled F. Each bank account requiredby Rule 50, except Rule. from the obligationofcompliance with thisSupreme Court or a professionalassociationshallnot relievean attorney E. The practiceof law inthe form of apartnership with a fee untildistribution. trustaccount(s)requiredabove, and shallnot be charged awards on behalfof a clientshallbe depositedin gross in the D. All funds receivedas proceeds ofcollectionsor account. feesmay be depositedin the attorney'sgeneraloperating attorneyor firm organizationuntilearned. Allotherretainer above. These shallnot be withdrawn from the account ofthe client,shallbe depositedin the trustaccount(s)described not earned,and as to which the attorneyhas so informed the C. Only those retainerfees,thatare refundableif priorwrittenapproval from the Supreme Court. which the attorney'sofficeissituated,without obtaining locatedin Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts,or the statein may any attorneyuse out-of-statebanks otherthan those such out-of-stateaccount records. Under no circumstances authorizingthe Court or itsagents to examine and copy authorizationwith the Clerk ofthe Supreme Court intoan out-of-statefinancialinstitutionshallfilea written financialinstitutions.Any attorneydepositingclientfunds accounts (separatefrom the attorney'sown funds) in shallbe depositedin one or more clearlydesignatedtrust B. All cash propertyofclientsreceivedby attorneys accounts,custodialaccounts and clientagency accounts. includingspecialinterest-bearingtrustaccounts,probate singlesource foridentificationofalltrustaccounts, In additionthereshallbe maintained an index,or equivalent p. 31 Page 31of45

impairs the lawyer'sabilitytorepresentthe client;or (2)the lawyer'sphysicalor mental conditionmaterially professionalconduct or otherlaw; (1)therepresentationwillresultin violation of therulesof clientif: commenced, shallwithdraw from the representationof a representa clientor,where representationhas (a)Except as statedin paragraph (c),a lawyershallnot

153. Rule 1.16 statesas follows:

Rule 1.16: Decliningor Terminating Representation

the firm'soperatingaccounts,placingclientfunds atrisk. accounts,the firm'sbookkeeper embezzled largesums ofmoney from rapidlyconsidered"earned"and quicklytransferredintooperating h) Afterenactinga payment system,wherein clients'payments were operatingaccounts,ratherthan trustaccounts. g) Firm clients,Ms. Raymond and Ms. McKelvey,were paidrefundsfrom information. sums ofclientpayments atonce without identifyingclient Trust#3116 to the firm'soperatingaccount,oftentransferringlarge f) The firm failedto identifyindividualclienttransfersfrom Citizens operatingaccounts on March 13, 2009 and March 30, 2009. e) Mr.Dargon or hisstafffailedto identifytransfersfrom clienttrustto CitizensTrust#3116 inJulythrough October 2009. clienttrustaccounts,BOA Trust2689 in March and April 2009, and d) Mr. Dargon or hisstafffailedto perform monthly reconciliationsfor ratherthan the clienttrustaccount. paid $8,500, her portionof asettlement,from the operatingaccount c) Clientfunds were commingled when a firm client,Bertha Wilson, was and therefore"outof trust"on December 31, 2009. b) The firm'sclienttrustaccount,CitizensTrust#3124 was overdrawn, 5, 2010, on February 12, 2010 and on September 7, 2010. and therefore"outof trust"from December 23, 2009 through January a)The firm'sclienttrustaccount,CitizensTrust#3116, was overdrawn,

152. Mr. Dargon breached hisdutiesto hisclientswhen:

1.15 and Supreme Court Rule 50, to protecthisclients'interests. to safeguardtheirfunds and toensure thathisfirmcomplied with Rule 151. Mr. Dargon owed variousdutiestothe public,the Bar, and to hisclients p. 32 Page 32of45

terminateupon completion ofthe agreed representation, representationagreement under Rule 1.2(f)(1),shall appearance as authorizedby thetribunalunder a limited (e)The representationof a lawyerhavingentereda limited extentpermittedby law. lawyer may retainpapers relatingtothe clientto the fee orexpense thathas not been earned or incurred.The clientisentitledand refundingany advance payment of counsel,surrenderingpapers and propertyto which the noticeof the client,allowingtime foremployment ofother protecta client'sinterests,such as givingreasonable shalltake stepsto the extentreasonablypracticableto (d)As a conditiontoterminationofrepresentation,a lawyer good cause forterminatingthe representation. lawyer shallcontinue representationnotwithstanding representation.When orderedto do so by atribunal,a noticeto or permission of atribunalwhen terminatinga (c)A lawyer must comply with the applicablelaw requiring (7)othergood cause forwithdrawal exists. unreasonably difficultby the client;or financialburden on the lawyer or has been rendered (6)the representationwillresultin an unreasonable withdraw unlessthe obligationisfulfilled; been given reasonablewarning thatthe lawyer will the lawyer regardingthe lawyer'sservicesand has (5)the clientfailssubstantiallyto fulfillan obligationto fundamental disagreement; considersrepugnant or with which the lawyer has a (4)the clientinsistsupon takingactionthatthe lawyer a crime or fraud; (3)the clienthas used the lawyer'sservicesto perpetrate criminalor fraudulent; lawyer'sservicesthatthe lawyer reasonablybelievesis (2)the clientpersistsin a course ofactioninvolvingthe adverse effecton the interestsof the client; (1)withdrawal can be accomplished without material from representinga clientif: (b)Except as statedin paragraph (c),a lawyer may withdraw (3)the lawyer isdischarged. p. 33 Page 33of45

with reasonablenoticeof the firm'sclosing. necessarystepsto protecthisclient'sinterest,includingprovidinghim "winding down"when it was in fact closed. Mr.Dargon failed totake when he informed hisclienton October 15, 2010 thatthe firm was New Hampshire. Mr. Dargon breached hisduty to Mr.Baumgartner Lader made itclearthathe would only help clientswith bankruptciesin informationto Mr.Baumgartner to transferhisfile tothatfirm,Mr. completed atthe time the office closed.Although Mr. Lader sent firm,for aloan modificationrequestthatwas submitted,butwas not protecttheclient'sinterests.Mr. Baumgartner paid$2,000 to the law 160. In Mr. Baumgartner's case,Mr. Dargon failedto take necessarystepsto

to protecthisclient'sinterest. shortlybeforethe firm closed. Mr. Dargon failedto take necessarysteps had alsoreceiveda Notice ofIntentionto Foreclose on August 16, 2010, requestfor aloan modificationpriortothe firm'sclosure,the Normands 159. In Mr. Normand's case,although Dargon firm attorneyshad submitted a

done on her matter. initialpayment of$ 1,000 to the firm and littlesubstantivework was closingand did not take stepsto protecther interests,aftershe made an 158. In Ms. Minnifield'scase,Mr. Dargon did not advise her thathisfirm was

and the McKelveys did not sign a contractto continuewith thatfirm. 157. The McKelveys' filewas closed afteritwas transferredto Mr. Lader'sfirm

December 1, 2010. The ADO returneditto her on December 17, 2010. 156. Ms. Chicoine requestedthe returnofher fileon November 2, 2010 and

them to the requestingcomplainants in December 2010. aftertheADO took possessionofsome ofthe clientfilesand returned 155. Other clientswere not provided with theirfiles,despiterequests,until

for the transferof her fileto Mr. Lader'soffice. transferredto Mr. Lader'sfirm, i.e., Ms. Raymond did not give permission some cases,clientsdid not provide permission fortheirfilesto be 154. Mr. Dargon did not provide adequate noticeofhisfirm'sclosure. In

court. noticeofcompletion of the limitedrepresentationto the without the necessityof leave ofcourt,upon providing p. 34 Page 34 of45 (c)In an ex parte proceeding,a lawyer shallinform the tribunal measures, including,ifnecessary,disclosureto the tribunal. relatedto the proceeding shalltake reasonableremedial isengaging or has engaged in criminalor fraudulentconduct proceeding and who knows thata person intendsto engage, (b)A lawyer who representsa clientin an adjudicative thatthe lawyer reasonablybelievesisfalse. than the testimony of adefendant in a criminalmatter, tribunal.A lawyer may refuseto offerevidence,other measures, including,ifnecessary,disclosureto the ifitsfalsity,the lawyer shalltake reasonableremedial lawyer,has offeredmaterialevidenceand comes to know lawyer, the lawyer'sclient,or a witness calledby the (3)offerevidence thatthe lawyer knows to befalse.If a opposing counsel;or adverse to the positionof the clientand not disclosedby controllingjurisdictionknown to the lawyer to be directly (2)fail todiscloseto the tribunallegalauthorityin the previouslymade to the tribunalby the lawyer; to correcta falsestatementofmaterialfactor law (1)make a falsestatementof factor law to atribunalor fail (a) Alawyer shallnot knowingly:

164. Rule 3.3 statesas follows:

reasonablenoticeofthe Dargon firm'sclosing. 163. In Ms. Weatherspoon-William's case,she was not provided with

her. the representationwas being terminatedand her filewas not returnedto 162. In Ms. Kohanski's case,she was not provided with reasonablenoticethat

includingprovidingthem with reasonablenotice. Dargon failedto take necessarystepsto protecthisclients'interest, applicationthatMs. Dimitriadeshad submitted on theirbehalf. Mr. with theirlenderto obtaina loan modificationthemselves,based on the firmwas "winding down," when itwas closedby thatdate. They worked the Lader firm. They were informed on October 15, 2010 thatthe Dargon 161. The Mikkelsens were offeredan opportunityto transfertheirmatterto p. 35 Page 35of45

person,and knows of theconduct ata time when its employed, or has directsupervisoryauthorityoverthe authorityin the law firm inwhich the person is (2)the lawyer is apartneror has comparable managerial conduct, ratifiesthe conduct involved;or (1)the lawyer ordersor, withthe knowledge ofthe specific Conduct ifengaged in by a lawyer if: thatwould be a violationofthe Rules of Professional (c)a lawyershallbe responsibleforconduct ofsuch a person obligationsof the lawyer; and the person'sconduct iscompatiblewith the professional nonlawyer shallmake reasonableeffortsto ensure that (b)Each lawyer having directsupervisoryauthorityover the compatiblewith the professionalobligationsofthe lawyer; givingreasonableassurancethatthe person'sconduct is effortsto ensure thatthe firm has in effectmeasures managerial authorityin a law firmshallmake reasonable togetherwith otherlawyers possessescomparable (a)Each partner,and each lawyer who individuallyor

associatedwith a lawyer: With respectto anonlawyer employed or retainedby or

167. Rule 5.3 statesas follows:

Rule 5.3: ResponsibilitiesRegarding Nonlawver Assistants

an account thatwas open from November 2008 untilOctober 2009. 2009, wherein he failedto lista clienttrustaccount,BOA Trust#2689, Compliance Certificatefor the periodJune 1, 2008 through May 31, 166. Mr. Dargon breached thatduty when he signed a TrustAccounting

statementsoffactto a tribunal. 165. Mr. Dargon had a duty under Rule 3.3(a)not to knowingly make false Rule 1.6. requiresdisclosureofinformationotherwise protectedby conclusionofthe proceeding and apply even ifcompliance (d)The dutiesstatedin paragraphs (a)and (b)continue to the factsare adverse. tribunalto make an informed decision,whether or not the ofallmaterialfactsknown to the lawyer thatwillenable the p. 36 Page 36of45

working for him were properly licensed. Mr. Larkowichrepresentedto 174. Mr. Dargon owed a duty tohisfirm'sclientsto ensure thatattorneys

employees' poor conduct. foregoingmisconduct,Mr. Dargon knew or should have known of his 173. To theextentMr. Dargon'snon-lawyerassistantscontributedtothe

A. 157 above and furtherdetailedin the financialreportattachedas Exhibit Rules 1.15and Supreme Court Rule 50as outlinedatparagraphs 152 to maintenance ofhisclienttrustaccounts,resultingin the violationsof lawyerassistantscharged with recordkeeping,handling,and 172. Mr. Dargon failed to employ,train,and/orproperlysupervisehisnon-

clients'funds in seriouspotentialdanger oftheft. embezzlement from the firm'soperatingaccounts,which placed his or othermembers ofthe staffto have discovered Ms. Bogg's 171. Mr. Dargon failed to havemeasures in placethatwould have allowed him

not terminateher employment untillateApril 2010. Internetregardingher criminalhistorywas about her. Mr. Dargon did furtherresearchafterMs. Boggs denied thata storyfound on the suspicionsregardingMs. Boggs's criminalhistorybut failedto conduct from late2009 untillateApril 2010. As ofMarch 2010, Mr. Dargon had 170. Mr. Dargon employed Ms. Boggs, a convicted felon,as a firm bookkeeper

as follows. breached thatduty by engaging in both negligentand knowing conduct, 169. With respectto the financialmanagement of the firm, Mr. Dargon

manner compatible with Mr. Dargon's professionalobligations. retainedby Mr. Dargon or hislaw firm conducted themselves in a provided reasonableassurancethatnon-lawyer assistantsemployed or make reasonableeffortsto have measures in effectathislaw firm that 168. Mr. Dargon owed a duty to hisclients,to the public,and to the Bar to

take reasonableremedial action. consequences can be avoided or mitigatedbut failsto p. 37 Page 37of45

during administration; the stockor interestof the lawyer for areasonabletime fiduciaryrepresentativeoftheestateof alawyer may hold (1)a nonlawyer owns any interesttherein,exceptthata profit,if: corporationor associationauthorizedtopracticelaw for a (d)Alawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional such legalservices. orregulatethe lawyer's professionaljudgment inrendering or pays the lawyer torenderlegal services foranothertodirect (c)Alawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, the activitiesofthe partnershipconsistofthe practiceof law. (b)A lawyer shall notform a partnershipwith a nonlawyer if any of lawyer in the matter. thatemployed, retainedor recommended employment ofthe (4)a lawyermay sharelegal fees with anonprofitorganization and based inwhole or in parton a profit-sharingarrangement; compensation or retirementplan,even though the plan is (3)a lawyer or law firmmay includenonlawyer employees in a lawyer the agreed-upon purchase price; Rule 1.17,pay to the estateor otherrepresentativeofthat or disappearedlawyer may, pursuantto the provisionsof (2) alawyer who purchases the practiceof adeceased, disabled, lawyer'sestateor to one or more specifiedpersons; reasonableperiod of time afterthe lawyer'sdeath,to the associatemay provide for the payment ofmoney, over a (1)an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer'sfirm,partner,or except that: (a) Alawyer or law firm shallnot share legalfees with a nonlawyer,

176. Rule 5.4 statesas follows:

Rule 5.4: ProfessionalIndependence ofa Lawyer

on clientmattersas an attorney. 175. Mr. Dargon breached thatduty when he allowed Mr. Larkowich to work

firmclientsthathe was an attorneyand was held out as such to clients. p. 38 Page 38of45

arbitration,mediation,or otheralternativedispute (3)are in orreasonablyrelatedto apending or potential proceedingor reasonablyexpectsto be soauthorized; assisting,isauthorizedby law ororderto appear in such jurisdiction,ifthe lawyer, or aperson the lawyeris proceedingbeforea tribunalin thisor another (2)arein orreasonablyrelatedto apending or potential participatesin the matter; admittedtopracticeinthisjurisdictionand who actively (1)areundertaken inassociationwith a lawyer who is jurisdictionthat: may provide legal services on atemporary basisin this not disbarredor suspended from practicein any jurisdiction, (c)A lawyeradmittedinanotherUnitedStatesjurisdiction,and lawyerisadmitted topracticelaw inthisjurisdiction. (2)hold out to the publicor otherwiserepresentthatthe presence in thisjurisdictionforthe practiceof law;or establishan officeor othersystematicand continuous (1)except as authorizedby theseRules or otherlaw, shallnot: (b)A lawyer who isnot admitted to practicein thisjurisdiction assistanotherin doing so. the regulationof the legalprofessionin thatjurisdiction,or (a) Alawyer shallnot practicelaw in a jurisdictionin violationof

179. Rule 5.5 statesas follows:

"commissions," includingsignificantpayments to Mr. Hurley. 178. Mr. Dargon breached thatduty when he paid consultantsofthe law firm

177. Mr. Dargon had a duty not to sharelegalfeeswith non-attorneys.

professionaljudgment ofa lawyer. (3) anonlawyer has the rightto director controlthe associationotherthan a corporation;or occupies the positionofsimilarresponsibilityin any form of (2) anonlawyer is acorporatedirectoror officerthereofor p. 39 Page 39of45 Rhode Islandand Ms. Elliswas not licensedthere. Ms. Raymond's loan modification matter.Ms. Raymond lived in (b)Ms. Ellis,a New York and Massachusetts licensed attorney, handled licensedthere. Baumgartner, an Ohio resident,despitethe factthey were not attorneysalsohandled a loan modificationmatterfor Mr. Massachusettsatthe time theyhandled Mr. Normand's matter. Both Massachusetts. Neitherattorneywas licensedto practicelaw in modificationmatter.Mr. Normand's propertywas locatedin Carolina.Both attorneysalsoworked on Mr. Normand's loan North Carolina.Neitherattorneywas licensedtopracticelaw in North attorneys, handled the matterforMr. and Mrs. Roberts, residents of (a)Mr. Simensen and Mr. Russell,both licensedNew Hampshire

firm to engage intheunauthorizedpracticeof law,as follows: 182. Mr. Dargon breachedthis duty when heallowedattorneysworking in his

which clientleadswere generated,thisdid not occur. the natureofloan modificationpracticeand the nationaladvertisingfrom onlypracticedlaw inthejurisdictionswhere theywere licensed.Due to 181. Mr. Dargon had a duty toensurethatattorneyspracticingin his firm

ofthatjurisdiction. law in ajurisdictioninviolationofthe regulationof the legalprofession 180. Under Rule ofProfessionalConduct 5.5 (a), alawyer shallnot practice

federallaw or otherlaw ofthisjurisdiction. (2)are servicesthatthe lawyer isauthorizedto provide by requirespro hac vice admission; or affiliatesand are not servicesforwhich the forum (1)are provided to the lawyer'semployer or itsorganizational may provide legalservicesin thisjurisdictionthat: not disbarredor suspended from practicein any jurisdiction, (d) Alawyer admitted in anotherUnited Statesjurisdiction,and jurisdictionin which the lawyer isadmitted to practice. or are reasonablyrelatedto the lawyer'spracticein a (4)are not within paragraphs (c)(2)or (c)(3)and ariseout of forum requirespro hac vice admission; or admitted to practiceand are not servicesforwhich the lawyer'spracticein ajurisdictionin which the lawyer is servicesariseout ofor are reasonablyrelatedto the resolutionproceeding in thisor anotherjurisdiction,ifthe p. 40 Page 40 of45

Rule ofProfessionalConduct 8.4(a). 185. There isclearand convincingevidencethatMr.Dargon's conduct violated

Massachusetts attorneywhen he was in factsuspended. website led clientsto believethatMr. Larkowich was a licensed resultin false ormisleadingcommunications.The Dargon law firm's 184. Mr. Dargon had a duty toensurethathis law firm'sadvertisingdid not

unlessthe comparison can be factuallysubstantiated. (c)compares thelawyer's services withotherlawyers'services, professionalconduct or otherlaw; or can achieve resultsby means thatviolatethe rulesof the lawyer can achieve,or statesor impliesthatthe lawyer (b)is likely tocreatean unjustifiedexpectationabout results of allofthe circumstances,not materiallymisleading; a factnecessaryto make the statement,consideredin light (a)containsa materialmisrepresentationoffactor law, or omits

ifit: generalityofthe foregoing,a communication isfalseor misleading about the lawyer or the lawyer'sservices.Without limitingthe A lawyer shallnot make a falseor misleading communication

183. Rule 7.1 statesas follows:

Rule 7.1:Communications Concerning a Lawyer's Services

licensedto practicelaw in Rhode Island. Ms. Mikkelsen's propertywas in Rhode Island.Neitherattorneywas (d)Ms. Dimitriadesand Mr. Lader worked on Ms. Mikkelsen's matter. matter,despitethe facthe was not licensedto practicelaw in Georgia. Pennsylvania. He was alsoassigned to Ms. Weatherspoon-William's matter,despitethe facthe was not licensedto practicelaw in theirmatter. Mr. Larkowich was alsoassigned to Ms. Minnifield's He alsorepresentedthe McKelveys, who were residentsofIllinois,in residentsof the stateofWashington, in theirloan modificationmatter. Massachusetts,representedMs. Chicoine and Ms. Torres-Landa, (c)Mr. Larkowich,an attorneysuspended from the practiceof law in p. 41 Page 41of45 Conduct 1.0(f)defines"knowingly"as "denoting]actualknowledge of the fact[s] in question. A represents a less culpable mental state thanintentionalmisconduct.RuleofProfessional between a knowingstateof mind and anintentionalstateof mind. Knowingmisconduct 2 The Standards, as wellas New Hampshire'sRules ofProfessionalConduct, differentiate

furtherbelow. was knowing2or negligentwith respectto the Ruleviolationsas explained sanction analysis,the partieshave stipulatedthatMr. Dargon'smental state With respectto Mr.Dargon'smentalstateunder thesecond prong of the

Prong II:Mental State:Intent/Knowing or Negligent

professional. his firm'sclients,tothe public,and to thecourt,as wellas dutiesowed as a Under the firstprong ofthe analysis,Mr. Dargon violateddutiesowed to

Prong I:Duty Violated

sanction. See id. any aggravatingor mitigatingfactorsand whether theyaffectthe baseline Court then looks to the fourthand finalpartof the analysis:the existenceof Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at303. Once the baselinesanctionisdetermined,the characterizingthe misconduct and determining a baselinesanction. See The firstthreepartsof the analysiscreatethe framework for

3.0. factors." Id. (quoting Douglas'Case, 156 N.H. 613, 621 (2007)); Standards^ by the lawyer'smisconduct; and (d)the existenceofaggravatingor mitigating violated;(b)the lawyer'smental state;(c)the potentialor actualinjurycaused partanalysisforcourtsto considerin imposing sanctions:"(a)the duty guidance. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at303. The Standards setfortha four- Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, itlooks to them for

the misconduct." Coffey'sCase, 152 N.H. 503, 513 (2005). N.H. 299, 303 (2009). "The sanction. . .must take intoaccount the severityof profession,and preventingsimilarconduct in the future." Conner's Case, 158 maintainingpublicconfidencein the bar,preservingthe integrityofthe legal The purpose ofthe Court'sdisciplinarypower is"protectingthe public,

three-yearsuspension with conditions. ImposingLawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards") supportthe sanctionof a Both case lawand the American BarAssociation's Standardsfor

III. ANALYSIS p. 42 Page 42of45 Standards as actingwith "a conscious objectiveor purpose to accomplish a particularresult." judgment.").An intentionalstateofmind isthe most culpablestateof mind, definedin the the respondent'sacts,and not the externalpressuresthatcould potentiallyhave hindered his (discussing"knowing" misconduct and stating"[w]hat isrelevant...isthevolitionalnatureof ("Definitions"). See alsoIn Re Wyatt'sCase, 159 N.H. 285, 307, 982 A.2d 396, 413 (2009) the conscious objectiveor purpose to accomplish a particularresult." Standards, Sec. Ill as "consciousawareness of the natureor attendantcircumstancesof the conduct but without person'sknowledge may be inferredfrom circumstances."The Standards define "knowledge"

and providesfora baselinesuspension. clientproperty.Mr. Dargon's conduct implicatesSection4.12 of the Standards includingMs. Boggs, was not properlyfollowingthe rulesforsafeguarding Mr. Dargon knew or should have known thathisbookkeeping staff,

1.5 implicatesSection4.63 of the Standards and a publiccensure. modificationservicesthatviolatedRSA 397-A. Mr. Dargon's violationofRule Mr. Dargon was negligentin adopting a clientfee agreement forloan

hisclients. communication problems forhisclientscausing injuryand potentialinjuryto in thathe knew thatthe abruptclosureofhislaw firm would create Dargon's conduct implicatesSection4.42 ofthe Standards and a suspension, whose funds were put atriskofbeing stolenpriorto being earned. Mr. of theft,as the firm'sbookkeeper, could have caused seriousinjuryto clients Mr. Dargon's employment ofMs. Boggs, a person with a criminalhistory

and itoccurred only aftertheADO facilitatedthe returnof the files. themselves. In some cases,itwas severalmonths before fileswere returned they likelyneeded ifthey were going to pursue theirloan modificationsfor theirmattersfor severalweeks and were unable to obtaintheirfiles,which Dargon's firm to assistthem. In othercases,clientsdid not know the statusof foreclosureand thereforeriskedlosingtheirhome, and were depending on Mr. licensedto practice.In atleastone case,clientshad receiveda noticeof were not locatedin New Hampshire, the only statewhere Mr. Lader was offeredto transfercontractsto thatfirm, thatsolutiondid not help clientswho Dargon made some arrangements for Mr. Lader'sfirm to take on clientsand had paid hisfirm to seek loan modificationson theirbehalf. Although Mr. Mr. Dargon's conduct caused both injuryand potentialinjuryto clientswho actualor potentialinjurycaused by Mr. Dargon's misconduct. In thiscase, The thirdprong ofthe sanctionanalysisrequiresan assessment ofthe

Prong III:Injuryor PotentialInjury p. 43 Page 43of45

promoted during thatperiod. served with the United StatesArmy forseveralyears now, and has been employeda large staff tohandlethe volume ofbusiness.Mr. Dargonhas also on theirmortgage payments or werepotentiallyfacingforeclosure.He modificationsforclientsduring a periodwhen many people were fallingbehind services,in thatlawyerscould be effectiveadvocatesin negotiatingloan closedhisfirm.Mr. Dargon also believedthattherewas a need forhisfirm's Hampshire bar exam. He had been practicing law lessthan two years when he withinsixmonths ofgraduatingfrom law schooland passingthe New By way ofadditionalmitigating factors,Mr. Dargon opened his law practice imposition ofotherpenaltiesand sanctions,pursuanttotheBanking matter. of a priordisciplinaryrecord, inexperience in thepracticeof law,and the However, threemitigatingfactorsare alsopresent,includingthe absence

MitigatingFactors:

assistanceofan attorney. See Standards § 9.22. mortgage payments or could have sought the same resultwithout the firm toassistthem, when they could have been using thatmoney towards large, wereclientswho were behind on theirmortgage payments and paid the offensesand thevulnerabilityofthevictims.The clientcomplainants,by and In thiscase,two aggravatingfactorsare present: Mr. Dargon's multiple

Aggravating Factors:

See Standards § 4.32. violations)or a suspension,consideringthe analysisforeach Rule violation. Mr. Dargon's conduct iseithera disbarment (given the numerous rule the foregoing circumstances,the partiesagree thatthe baselinesanctionfor employees was knowing and implicatesSection4.32 of the Standards. Under ABA Standards. Mr. Dargon's conduct in paying commissions to nonhisclienttrustaccount. Mr. Dargon's conduct implicatesSection6.13 of the Mr. Dargon should have known ofthe failureto lista bank account on

implicatesSections7.2 and 7.3 ofthe Standards. suspended. Mr. Dargon's conduct with respectto theseruleviolations heldout toclientsand to the public as a licensedattorneywhen he was agreeing tosharefees with anon-lawyerand in allowing Mr. Larkowich to be could and didcause injury to his clients.Mr. Dargon also acted negligently in his clients.Likewise,Mr. Dargon's lack of supervision of his employees also adequate steps to protect his clients' interests could cause potential injury to Mr. Dargon knew thatthe closureofhisfirm and the failureto take p. 44 Page 44of45 investigationand prosecutionofthisdisciplinarymatter.The Committee Drake David Dargon, Sr.has signedan agreement to pay costsofthe

(quotationand citationomitted). similarconduct in the future." Grew's Case, 156 N.H. 361, 365 (2007) confidence inthe bar,preservetheintegrityofthe legalprofession,and prevent not to inflictpunishment but rathertoprotectthepublic,maintain public accordwith the Standards. The purpose ofthe Court'sdisciplinarypower "is 303; Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. 155, 159-60 (2005).This sanctionis also in withthe purposes ofattorneydiscipline. See e.g.,Conner'sCase 158 N.H. at a three-yearsuspension.The Committee's recommendedsanctionis in accord The Committee concludes thatthe appropriatedisciplinein thismatteris

conditions). Messer, 15 DHC 53 (May 4, 2016) (two year stayed suspension based on suspensionshave resulted. See, e.g.,North CarolinaStateBar v. MarlonBrent caseswhere therewas a patternofconduct similarto Mr. Dargon's, 10-O-03758-LMA (Cal.StateBar Ct. S.F. Hearing Dept, Nov 7, 2012)). In SuffolkCounty, No. BD-2015-080 (March 17, 2016) (citing Matter ofLapin, No. re:David Zak, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,Supreme JudicialCourt for in conjunctionwith non-lawyers over a substantialperiodoftime. See e.g.In repeatedviolationsinvolvingloan modificationand foreclosureclients,working loan modificationpractice.For example, disbarment resultedwhere therewere aggravatingfactors,attorneyshave been disbarredforoperatingthistype of defraud clientsand littlework was performed, in conjunctionwith other loan modifications.In some cases,particularlywhere therewas intentto guidance as to the extentto which attorneyscould assistclientsin obtaining sought to regulatethispractice.The relevantregulationsdid not provide full illegal.With the passage ofthe SAFE Act, statebanking departments also attorneys,and the collectionofadvanced fees thatwere ultimatelydeemed advertising,rapidgrowth of the firm,unauthorizedpracticeoflaw by firm law firmdevelopment. Such development includedthe practicesoflargescale modificationpracticeslike Mr.Dargon's. Many followed asimilarpatternof Between approximately 2009 and 2011, many law firms began loan

year suspension from the practiceof law isan appropriatesanction. suspensioniswarranted. Given therelevantfactors,the partiesagree athreethis case, combined with the baseline sanction analysis, indicatethatlong term The partiesagreethatthe aggravatingand mitigatingfactorsevidentin p. 45 Page 45of45

File James D. Gleason, Esquire cc: ElizabethM. Murphy, AssistantDisciplinaryCounsel

February 6, 2017

1.15; 1.16; 3.3; 5.3; 5.4; 5.5; 7.1;and 8.4(a);and Supreme Court Rule 50. suspension with conditionsforviolatingRules ofProfessionalConduct 1.4; 1.5; For alloftheabove reasons, theCommittee recommends a three-year

associatedwith the investigationand prosecutionofthismatter. approves thisagreement. Mr. Dargon shall beresponsiblefor allcosts