Evan A. Greene (2017)

Massachusetts cases. It concluded that it was “compelled by the facts and the also compared the recommended sanction to those issued in numerous oth er reviewed the committee’s decision in a 17 - page memorandum, in which the BBO Greene appealed the hearing committee ’ s recommendation. T he BBO

months before he would otherwise be entitled to do so. his prior suspension in this matter by being permitted to seek reinstatement 19 Greene be indefinitely suspended from the practice of law and be given credit for num erous prior Massachusetts cases before reaching its recommendation that admitted. In its 45 - page report, the committee compared the facts of this case to witnesses, including a number of homeowne rs, testified and 293 exhibits were of Bar Overseers (BBO) held five days of evidentiary hearings, at which 12 review of Massachusetts law. A hearing committee of the Massachusetts Board However, the SJC reached its decision on sanctions after extensive process and guidance in other cases. See, e.g., O’ Meara's Case, 164 N.H. 170, 179 (2012). Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005), which we have used for The PCC argues that disbarring Greene i s consistent with the ABA

in New Hampshire. warranted sub stantially different discipline; it recommended that he be disbarred PCC, however, stated that, pursuant to New Hampshire law, Greene’s actions Greene represented that substantially similar discipline was appropriate. The imposition of identical or s ubstantially similar discipline would be unwarranted. Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) an op portunity to address whether the After receiving the SJC opinion, we issued an order giving Greene and the

37(12)(d)(3). established warrants substantially different discipline in this State.” Sup. Ct. R. discipline unless we determ ine, among other things, that “[t]he misconduct reciprocal discipline cases, calls for us to impose identical or substantia lly similar Supreme Court Rule 37(12), which sets forth the procedure to be followed in Gre ene from the practice of law in Massachusetts indefinitely. New Hampshire Eva n A. Greene, affirming an order of a single justice of the court suspending Judicial Court (SJC) issued in the disciplinar y proceeding involving Attorney certified copy of the December 2, 2016 opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme On December 14, 2016, the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) filed a

order: Esquire, the court on September 29, 2017, issued the following In Case No. LD - 2015 - 0013, In the Matter of Evan A. Greene,

the date of this order. proceeding, of his suspension and consequent inability to act as an attorney after and the attorney or attorneys for each adverse party in such matter or involved in litigated matters or admini strative proceedings in New Hampshire, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, each client who is Greene shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 37(13)(b) and shall notify,

practice law in Massachusetts. Greene’s readmission is conditioned upon p roof that he has been reinstated to Hampshire in connection with case numbers LD - p. 2 2011 - 0009 and LD - 2015 - 0013. period of five years with credit for all time that he has been suspended in New Evan A. Greene i s suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire for a “substantially similar” to an indefinite suspension. Accordingly, we order that during oral argument, the parties agreed that a suspension for five years is Although New Hampshire does not provide for an indefinite suspension,

sanction than Massachusetts found appropriate in this case. Massachusetts. As a matter of comity, we decline to impose a more sever e Massachusetts and involved Massachusetts real estate owned by citizens of Furthermore, the transactions for which Greene was sanctioned took place in background and there is no New Hampshire case law directly on point.” However, the PCC acknowledges that this “case presents a unique factual The PCC argues that New Hampshire case law supports disbarring Greene.

deter other attorneys.” Id. (quotation omitted). indefinite suspension is appropriate and necessary to protect the public and interest.” Id. at 1119. It held that, “[c] onsidering all the circumstances, an firm’ s clients out of a self - interested motive, and engaged in repeated conflicts of Federal law, concealed the nature of the transaction s from his lenders and his of vulnerable homeowners in precarious financial positions, but he also violated only did [Greene] use his professional training and experience to take advantage 63 N.E.3d 1113, 1116 (Mass. p. 2 2016) (quotation omitted). It concluded that “[n] ot ordinarily entered by the various single justices in similar cases.” In re Greene, justice de novo, to determine whether it [was] markedly disparate from those The SJC then “review [ed] the disciplinary sanction imposed by the single

suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case.” Massachusetts case law, the justice concluded, “I am satisfied that an indefinite page memorandum of decision. After comparing the recommended sanction to SJC, who examined the hearing committee ’s find ings and conclusions in a 1 p. 2 2 - The BBO’s recommendation was then reviewed by a single justice of the

findings, conclusions and recommendations of the hearing committee.” case law to recommend a severe sanction” and voted u nanimously to “adopt the p. 3 3

HICKS, LYNN, and BASSETT, JJ., concurred.

investigation and prosecution of this matter. See Sup. Ct. R. p. 3 37(19). 37(14)(a) - (e). Greene is hereby assessed all expenses incurred by the PCC in the Any motion for reinstatement will be governed by Supreme Court Rule

Rule p. 3 37(13); and (2) served a copy of such affidavit upon the PCC. has: (1) fully complied with the provision s of this order and with Supreme Court the court, within 30 days of the date of this order, an affidavit showing that he Greene shall comply with Supreme Court Rule 37(13)(d) and shall file with