This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.
Laird James Heal (2017)
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
ORDER LD-2017-0002, In the Matter of Laird James Heal, Esquire By letter dated January 4, 2017, the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) notified the court that Attorney Laird James Heal was disbarred by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County. The Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) requests that Attorney Heal be immediately suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pending a final decision by this court on reciprocal discipline. The court has reviewed the order of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the summary of the case prepared by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers. Based on this information, the court finds that Attorney Heal’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 Laird James Heal is immediately suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire pending a decision about the imposition of reciprocal discipline in accordance with Rule 37(12) and further order of this court. Attorney Heal is enjoined from transferring, assigning, hypothecating, or in any manner disposing of or conveying any assets of New Hampshire clients, whether real, personal, beneficial, or mixed. (2) A copy of the order of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and of this order shall be served upon Attorney Heal by first-class and certified mail at the latest address he has provided to the New Hampshire Bar Association. (3) Within 15 days from the date of this order, Attorney Heal 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) Rule 37(12) governs reciprocal discipline. Paragraph (d) of this section authorizes the court to impose final discipline identical or similar to the discipline imposed by another jurisdiction unless the
disciplined attorney or the PCC demonstrates, or the court finds, based upon one of the grounds as set forth in Rule 37(12)(d), that the imposition of identical or substantially similar discipline would be unwarranted. (5) Within 30 days of service of this order, Attorney Heal shall inform the court if he contends that the imposition of discipline substantially similar to that imposed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would be unwarranted, and if he so contends, of the reasons for his contention. Hicks, Conboy, and Lynn, JJ., concurred. DATE: January 26, 2017 ATTEST: Eileen Fox, Clerk
Distribution: Brian R. Moushegian, Esquire Laird James Heal, Esquire David M. Rothstein, Esquire File