Christopher D. Ray (2025)

D. Ray. The PCC subsequently filed a record of the disciplinary proceeding. In accordance with Rule 37(16), the court provided notice to Attorney Ray of the PCC’s recommendation and ordered him to file a response on or before March 14, 2025, identifying any legal or factual issues relating to the PCC’s recommendation that he wished the court to review. Notice was sent to Attorney Ray at the address that he had provided to the New Hampshire Bar Association. See Rule 42 E(c). Attorney Ray did not file a response. In attorney discipline cases, the court defers to the PCC’s factual findings if supported by the record, but retains ultimate authority to determine whether, on the facts found, a violation of the rules governing attorney conduct has occurred and, if so, the sanction. Bruzga’s Case, 162 N.H. 52, 57 (2011). The court has reviewed the PCC’s record and its recommendation for disbarment. Attorney Ray received a $3,000 retainer from a client to domesticate a foreign judgment. Attorney Ray did not deposit the retainer in a client trust account, as required, and did not file the registration of the foreign judgment. He twice misrepresented to his client that he had filed the registration in circuit court and made a similar misrepresentation to counsel for another interested party. Attorney Ray then ceased communicating with his client, without having completed any work on the client’s case and without ever returning the client’s deposit. In the resulting disciplinary proceeding, he did not respond to requests by the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) for information concerning the grievance; he did not file an answer to the ADO’s notice of charges; and he did not appear before the hearing panel on the issue of sanctions. As a result of Attorney Ray’s failure to file an answer to the notice of charges, the allegations set forth therein were deemed to be admitted by him. See Rule 37 A(III)(b)(3)(A). Similarly, as a result of his failure to respond to this court’s order of notice, Attorney Ray has not contested the PCC’s factual findings, conclusions as to rules violations, or recommended sanction. In light of the seriousness of Attorney Ray’s misconduct, which includes violations of Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.15, 8.1, and 8.4(a) and (c), the court concludes that disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

p. 2 THEREFORE, the court orders that Christopher D. Ray be disbarred from the practice of law in New Hampshire. He is hereby assessed all costs and expenses incurred by the attorney discipline system in the investigation and prosecution of the matter. MacDonald, C.J., and Bassett, Donovan, and Countway, JJ., concurred. DATE: May 20, 2025

Timothy A. Gudas, Clerk