This page is an unofficial mirror and is not legal advice. Verify the document against the official source before relying on it.

John F. Gallant (2017)

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

ORDER LD-2017-0010, In the Matter of John F. Gallant, Esquire The court received a filing from the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) on September 11, 2017, enclosing a certified copy of an indictment obtained from the Hillsborough County Superior Court, Southern District, stating that John F. Gallant, of Chelms ford, Massachusetts, has been indicted by a Hillsborough County Grand Jury on a felony charge of witness tampering. See RSA 641: 5. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(9)(i), “[wlhenever an attorney is indicted or bound over for any felony, the court shall take such actions as it deems necessary, including but not limited to the suspension of the attorney.” This court has stated that it may impose an interim suspension pending the resolution of criminal charges in accordance with this provision when it is deemed necessary: (1) for the protection of the public; and (2) for the preservation of the integrity of the legal profession. See Rule 37(16)(f); Reiner’s Case, 152 N.H.163, 168 (2005). The court finds that, considering the nature of the alleged felony, Attorney Gallant’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(9)(i), 37(16)(d), (f). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered: (1) In accordance with Rule 37(9)(i) and (16)(f), Attorney John F. Gallant is immediately suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire on a temporary basis pending further order of this court, (2) A copy of this order and of the ADO’s filing shall be served on Attorney Gallant by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested. A copy of this order shall also be sent to the ADO by first class mail. (8) Within 15 days from the date of this order, Attorney Gallant 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). Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ., concurred. DATE: September 13, 2017 N Eileen Fox, Clerk ATTEST:

Distribution: Janet F. De Vito, Esquire John F. Gallant, Esquire File

Extraction diagnostics

Related law links

RSAs mentioned by this document