Lamya A. Forghany (2021)

Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Fax (603) 228-9511 4 Chenell Drive, Suite 102 www.nhattyreg.org (603) 224-5828

File Christopher D. Hawkins, Esquire cc: Sara S. Greene, Disciplinary Counsel

investigation and prosecution of this matter. agreement that Ms. Forghany shall reimburse the Committee for all costs of Having approved the stipulated sanction, the Committee approved the

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2005) ("Standards"). 155, 159-60 (2005). The sanction is also in accord with the ABA Standards for See, e.g., Conner's Case 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009); Richmond's Case, 152 N.H. appropriate. Its sanction is in accord with the purposes of attorney discipline. The Committee also concluded that a Public Censure With Conditions is

8.4(a), as stipulated. Ms. Forghany's conduct violated Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1(a) and The Committee approved the facts as stipulated. It further found that

Exhibit B), and it granted the request for a protective order. considered the Agreement to Pay Costs of Disciplinary Matter (attached as ("the Stipulation"), a redacted copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. It also Committee") deliberated the Stipulation as to Facts, Violations and Sanction On February 16, 2021, the Professional Conduct Committee ("the

Forghany, Lamya A. advs. Attorney Discipline Office - #20-006

Barbara J. Guay, Legal Assistant non attorney member Elaine Holden,* Vice Chair Heather E. Krans, Vice Chair David M. Rothstein, Chair

existence of those proceedings in the N.H. Petition. The OBA

Connecticut and Massachusetts. Attorney Forghany disclosed the

2. In 20 p. 2 15, Attorney Forghany was subject to disciplinary proceedings in

District of New Hampshire ("Federal Petition").

Practice submitted on May 28, 20 p. 2 19 to the U.S. District Court for the

January 22, 20 p. 2 19, and an omission in her Petition for Admission to

("the N.H. Petition"), received by the Office of Bar Admissions ("OBA") on

her Petition and Questionnaire for Admission to the New Hampshire Bar

p. 2 1. This matter involves Ms. Forghany's representations and omissions in

(ADO) stipulate as follows.

Respondent Lamya A. Forghany, Esq., and the Attorney Discipline Office SANCTION: PUBLIC CENSURE WITH CONDITIONS STIPULATION AS TO FACTS, VIOLATIONS, AND

Bar. During that meeting, Ms. Forghany first realized that her response

time, Ms. Forghany had already been admitted to the New Hampshire

Forghany on July p. 3 23, 2019 to discuss the Federal Petition, by which

Forghany immediately provided. Judge McCafferty met with Ms.

Connecticut and Massachusetts disciplinary proceedings, which Ms.

Judge McCafferty requested additional information regarding the

4. The Federal Petition was reviewed by the Honorable Landya McCafferty.

had disclosed these lawsuits in the N.H. Petition.

claims lawsuits, each of which was resolved in her favor, although she

addition, she failed to disclose she had been a plaintiff in three small

basis of the Connecticut and Massachusetts disciplinary proceedings. In

significant finding but omitted less significant findings that formed the

N.H. Petition. In her Federal Petition, Ms. Forghany disclosed the most

3. The Federal Petition seeks broader categories of information than the

condition in mitigation in a disciplinary matter.

disclose on the N.H. Petition that she had previously asserted a medical

from the Connecticut State Grievance Board. Ms. Forghany also failed to

mistakenly provided a "letter of good standing with disciplinary history"

specifically responsive to the OBA's request. Ms. Forghany instead

action against Ms. Forghany, she failed to provide information

nor the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers pursued disciplinary

proceedings. Although neither the Connecticut State Grievance Board

subsequently requested information regarding the outcome of those p. 4 3

significant financial duress.

11. Forghany Law is a high-volume practice representing individuals under

litigation.

consumer bankruptcy and foreclosure relief, with some limited civil

10. In 2012, Ms. Forghany founded Forghany Law, PC, which focuses on

Massachusetts Bar in June 2009, and the New Hampshire Bar in 2019.

9. Ms. Forghany was admitted to the Connecticut Bar in May 2008, the

8. A detailed chronology will provide context for the current issues.

to the ADO for further investigation under N.H. R. Prof. Con. 8.1.

supplementing the N.H. Petition. The OBA, in turn, referred the matter

7. On December 2 p. 4 3, 2019, Ms. Forghany wrote a letter to the OBA

2019.

address the Court's concerns. That hearing occurred on November 22,

hearing before Judge McCafferty in which she would attempt to fully

advice, elected not to supplement the N.H. Petition until after a formal

6. Shortly afterwards, Ms. Forghany retained counsel and, upon legal

closed given her admission to N.H.

to supplement her N.H. Petition, but was told that her application was

5. On August 26, 2019, Ms. Forghany informed the OBA that she intended

between Ms. Forghany and Judge McCafferty ensued.

disciplinary proceedings had been incomplete. Further correspondence

to the OBA's question regarding the Connecticut and Massachusetts p. 5 4

(formal or informal) pending against you? or are there now, any charges, complaints or grievances authority concerning your conduct or have there ever been, charges (formal or informal) submitted to any disciplinary Have there ever been any letters of complaint, grievances or

19. Question 16(c) states as follows:

referral are addressed separately below.

Hampshire Bar. The questions she answered that gave rise to the OBA's

18. On January 22, 2019, Ms. Forghany applied for admission to the New

B. New Hampshire Petition for Admission

similarly elected to close its file with no action against Ms. Forghany.

p. 5 477 On June 14, 2016, the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers ("BBO")

no action against Ms. Forghany.

16. On December 15, 2015, the Connecticut Grievance Panel elected to take

Bar Overseers investigated allegations against Attorney Forghany.

15. In 2015, the Connecticut Grievance Panel and Massachusetts Board of

A. Connecticut and Massachusetts Disciplinary Proceedings

1 p. 5 4. Ms. Forghany has never been subject to professional discipline.

13. Forghany Law's office is located in Haverhill, Massachusetts.

Connecticut and Massachusetts since 2012.

12. Ms. Forghany's office has handled between 2,000 and 3,000 cases in p. 6 5

Bars of Connecticut and Massachusetts "cleared" her of responsibility.

27. Ms. Forghany went on to state in her response to Question 16 that the

proceedings.

26. Viewed in full, her response accurately reveals there were disciplinary

conceal.

2 p. 6 5. In this regard, Ms. Forghany's response is inconsistent with any intent to

in two jurisdictions.

response clearly states that there were disciplinary proceedings initiated

accurately answer conflicting questions in the N.H. Petition: her

24. Ms. Forghany's response to Question 16(d) was a good faith effort to

the underlying conduct.

another question in the Petition and volunteered information regarding

23. Ms. Forghany's response to Question 16(d) therefore explicitly referenced

by the interplay between different questions in the N.H. Petition.

22. Ms. Forghany's response to question 16(d) reflects that she was confused

require more information about the matter I can furnish it. cleared me of any responsibility. Should the Committee incident the bar of MA and CT were notified. Both Bars There was an incident that occurred. Because of that

21. Ms. Forghany responded as follows:

information..."

states, "if you answer yes to either (b) or (c) above, provide the following

20. Ms. Forghany accurately answered "Yes" to this question. Question 1 p. 7 6(d) 6

Fitness ("C&F").

2019, in time for the next meeting of the Committee on Character and

35. That email asked Ms. Forghany to provide the information by April 30,

email requesting this information on April 25, 2019.

34. Ms. Forghany did not immediately respond, and OBA followed up by

opened by the Connecticut and Massachusetts disciplinary authorities.

33. The OBA requested records reflecting the disposition of any investigation

authorities which evidence[d] the outcomes of the proceedings.

32. The OBA specifically requested 'documentation from those disciplinary

Connecticut...." (emphasis added).

regard to the matter ... reported to the bars of Massachusetts and

31. On March 15, 2019, the OBA requested additional information'7wjith

This is evidenced by OBA's request for further information.

30. The OBA was not misled by Ms. Forghany's responses to the Questions.

Additional Information Regarding Questions 8 and 1 p. 7 6 2. Ms. Forghany's Response to OBA's March 2019 Request for

file after review and elected to take no action against her.

essentially "went nowhere' because each discipline authority closed its

29. In using this language, she meant to convey that the discipline matters

because she accepted full responsibility for her conduct.

28. She acknowledges that this choice of words was perhaps imprecise p. 8 7

Supreme Court. https: / /www.iud.ct.gov/sgc/faq certgoodstand.htm. history from the Statewide Grievance Board; and (c) from the Connecticut Hartford Superior Court; (b) a certificate of good standing with disciplinary 2 Connecticut provides three types of certificates of good standing: (a) from the Connecticut does not have a mandatory bar.

such admission that you are a member in good standing."2

original of a certificate from the Clerk of Court having jurisdiction over

initial N.H. Petition in response to Question 1 p. 8 7(b), which requests "an

Connecticut Supreme Court that Ms. Forghany had submitted with her

letter was different from, and more specific than, the certificate from the

appreciate this detail. She knew that the January 2019 Connecticut

39. At the time she submitted this letter, however, Ms. Forghany did not

admission in another jurisdiction.

that is provided upon request when a Connecticut attorney' seeks

matter; rather, it is a 'letter of good standing with disciplinary history"

April 2019 does not refer to the grievance arising from the underlying

38. The January 2019 Connecticut Letter submitted by Ms. Forghany in

Grievance Panel.

providing (among other things) a letter from the Connecticut Statewide

3 p. 8 7. On April 28, 2019, Ms. Forghany responded to the OBA's request by

posed in time for the next C&F meeting as requested by OBA.

locations in Massachusetts, but endeavored to answer the questions

36. Ms. Forghany was very busy with her practice and moving office p. 9 8

to the 2015 matter. 3 It is not clear why the January 2019 Connecticut Letter does not refer

complaint could have caused the OBA to infer, based on the specific

not fully answer the OBA's question because the reference to a "2012"

"registered with her that the January 25, 2019 Connecticut Letter did

44. Nevertheless, Ms. Forghany acknowledges that it should have

have helped her.

disciplinary charge. Put differently, she believed these letters could only

briefly describe the disciplinary agencies' decisions not to pursue any

incentive to withhold the Responsive Letters from the OBA, as they

43. Relevant to her state of mind at the time, however, Ms. Forghany had no

matter specifically arising from her conduct in the underlying matter.

documentation as to how Connecticut had disposed of the disciplinary

this letter was not in fact fully responsive to OBA's request, which sought

April response to OBA. That kind of review would have alerted her to fact

carefully reviewed the January 2019 Connecticut Letter at the time of her

deeply regrets this oversight. She recognizes that she should have more

42. In her urge to respond on time, she failed to appreciate this detail and

41. The underlying conduct, however, occurred not in 2012, but in 2015.3

her that was dismissed in 2012.

January 2019 Connecticut letter references a "complaint* filed 'against

than that which had accompanied her original Petition. For example, the

40. She thus believed she was providing to OBA a more detailed document p. 10 9

follow up question. 201 p. 10 9 Connecticut letter was sufficiently responsive to the OBA's March 2019 matter occurred in Connecticut, not Massachusetts, she believed the January BBO outcome with respect to the underlying matter. Given that the underlying 4 Ms. Forghany did not provide any documents evidencing the Massachusetts

Forghany corrected it on December 23, 201 p. 10 9.

4 p. 10 9. Ms. Forghany answered "no". This response was inaccurate, and Ms.

with aD disciplinary procedure? proceeding by an ... licensing authority, on in connection any investigation, or any administrative or judicial explanation for your conduct in the course of any inquiry, or impairment as a defense, in mitigation, or as an Within the past five years, have you asserted any condition

48. Question 13 states as follows:

3. Question 13: Conditions Asserted in Mitigation

question.4

OBA's request for information did not persist in her mind as an open

47. When she was admitted to the New Hampshire Bar on June 5, 201 p. 10 9, the

OBA's requests for information.

46. Ms. Forghany assumed the January 201 p. 10 9 Connecticut letter satisfied the

information about grievances arising from the underlying conduct.

45. In any event, the OBA did not thereafter ask Ms. Forghany for further

the underlying conduct.

complaint referenced in the January 201 p. 10 9 Connecticut letter arose from

question posed in the OBA's March 15, 201 p. 10 9 letter, that the 2012 p. 11 10

the underlying conduct, and that the matter was resolved. She believed

56. Ms. Forghany disclosed on her application the most significant part of

N.H. Petition.

55. Importantly, the Federal Petition seeks broader information than the

District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

54. On May 28, 2019, Ms. Forghany applied to the Bar of the United States

against her.

has never been sued for malpractice and has had no such claims filed

circumstances that led to the underlying matter. Finally, Ms. Forghany

altered her firm's procedures to ensure no repetition of the

management practices to ensure she serves her clients effectively. She

53. In sum, she actively manages her stress levels and instituted

manage her personal stress levels.

health status with respect to the underlying conduct and her efforts to

52. Ms. Forghany testified before Judge McCafferty regarding her mental

memory.

she did not consult records of the underlying matter and relied upon her

51. At the time Ms. Forghany completed her New Hampshire Bar application,

Connecticut grievance proceedings.

50. Ms. Forghany asserted a medical condition as a defense in the p. 12 11

regarding Ms. Forghany withdrawing her application.

64. Ms. Forghany and Judge McCafferty exchanged correspondence

supplement her N.H. Petition and withdraw her federal application.

closed. Ms. Forghany appreciated the fact that she somehow needed to

Forghany that she was already admitted and that her application was

supplement her N.H. Petition. OBA responded by informing Ms.

63. On August 26, 2019, Ms. Forghany informed the OBA she intended to

correspondence regarding the Federal Petition and the N.H. Petition.

62. Over the next few weeks, Judge McCafferty and Ms. Forghany exchanged

documents and her N.H. Petition.

61. Judge McCafferty questioned Ms. Forghany regarding the responsive

intended to be an informal discussion.

regarding her application. Ms. Forghany understood the meeting was

60. Ms. Forghany met with the court on July 23, 2019 to answer questions

the OBA's March 15, 2019 request for information.

59. Ms. Forghany did not, at that time, connect the responsive documents to

same day.

regarding the underlying conduct, which Ms. Forghany provided later the

58. On June 5, 2019, the Federal court requested additional information

Hampshire.

57. On June 5, 2019, Ms. Forghany was admitted to practice in New

conduct.

her disclosure was sufficient to put the Court on notice of the underlying p. 13 12

or been a party to a civil lawsuit as a plaintiff or defendant, censured, suspended, disciplined or disbarred by any court, convicted of a crime (except minor traffic violations), All occasions, if any, on which I have been charged with or

question: 72. Ms. Forghany's application to the Federal court includes the following

Ms. Forghany's application.

71. To date, Judge McCafferty has taken no further action with respect to

further investigation.

70. On February 13, 2020, the OBA referred the matter to the ADO for

was provided to Judge McCafferty.

her application to the New Hampshire Bar. A copy of those materials

69. On December 23, 2019, Ms. Forghany through counsel supplemented

action on Ms. Forghany's application.

68. On November 26, 2019, Judge McCafferty entered an order deferring

November 22, 2019.

67. A formal evidentiary hearing was held before Judge McCafferty on

record of the Federal proceedings.

McCafferty's concerns, and to present the OBA with a single complete

Briefly, counsel advised Ms. Forghany to prioritize responding to Judge

pending completion of the formal hearing before Judge McCafferty.

66. On advice of counsel, Ms. Forghany did not supplement her N.H. Petition

formal hearing on the Federal Petition.

65. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Forghany retained counsel and requested a p. 14 13

disciplinary matter, shall not: with a bar admission application or in connection with a An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection

81. Rule 8.1 states in relevant part as follows:

applicable to this case is Rule 8.1(a) and (b).

80. The parties agree the New Hampshire Rule of Professional Conduct most

care to ensure her application was complete.

Petition at the time she completed her Federal Petition, and taken more

79. Ms. Forghany concedes she should have reviewed her New Hampshire

application.

them, and she he disclosed the civil matters on her New Hampshire Bar

78. Ms. Forghany did not omit the civil matters with the intention to conceal

77. Ms. Forghany has never been a defendant in a civil lawsuit.

personal loans.

76. The 2005 and 20 p. 14 13 matters were small claims cases to recover small

75. The three civil matters took place in 2003, 2005, and 20 p. 14 13.

74. Ms. Forghany admits she should have disclosed the civil proceedings.

plaintiff, although she disclosed those cases on the N.H. Petition.

73. Ms. Forghany failed, to disclose three civil cases in which she had been a

circumstances). are set forth below. (Briefly state the facts and p. 15 14

underlying matter.

regarding the resolution of the disciplinary matters arising from the

the OBA; and/or (b) failed to correct a misapprehension by the OBA

evidence that (a) Ms. Forghany knowingly withheld information requested

84. The ADO's burden in this case would be to prove by clear and convincing

III (definitions).

objective or purpose to accomplish a particular result." Standards, Sec.

culpable than an intentional state of mind, which is a "conscious

N.H. 361, 366, 934 A.2d 537 (2007). A knowing state of mind is less

that could potentially have hindered his judgment." Grew's Case, 156

volitional nature of the respondent's acts, and not the external pressures

whether a Respondent's conduct is knowing, a[w]hat is relevant is the

circumstances. Standards, Sec. III (definitions). For purposes of

Standards define knowing as a conscious awareness of attendant

A person's knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. The ABA

83. Rule 1.0(f) defines "knowing' as actual knowledge of the fact in question.

element.

82. A Rule 8.1(a) violation involves a knowing state of mind as an essential

otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.... this Rule does not require disclosure of information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or (b) fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension (a) knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or p. 16 15 supra, TT 30-47. This negligent conduct notwithstanding, Mr. Forghany

response, and her thinking at the time of such response, is set forth

state of mind was negligent. The details regarding the timing of her

arising from the underlying conduct, the parties agree Ms. Forghany's

discipline authorities evidencing the outcome of discipline proceedings

follow up question of March p. 16 15, 2019 requesting documentation from the

88. As to Mr. Forghany's failure to be fully responsive regarding the OBA's

underlying conduct, but she failed to disclose this on her N.H. Petition.

in the Connecticut disciplinary proceedings that arose from the

circumstances about the fact that she had asserted ADHD in mitigation

on her N.H. Petition). Likewise, she had awareness of attendant

that she failed to disclose on the Federal Petition (but that she included

awareness of attendant circumstances regarding the three civil lawsuits

87. Ms. Forghany admits that she violated Rule 8.1(a) because she had an

state of mind are set forth further herein.

mind was both negligent and knowing. Additional details regarding her

86. Mr. Forghany admits that she violated Rule 8.1(a), and that her state of

McCafferty on July 23, 2019.

reasonably timely way following the airing of issues with Judge

process of correcting and supplementing her N.H. Petition in a

Ms. Forghany violated Rule 8.1(b), because Ms. Forghany began the

85. As set forth further below, there is no clear and convincing evidence that p. 17 16

This sanction would serve the purposes of attorney discipline.

public censure with conditions is the appropriate sanction in this matter.

93. The Attorney Discipline Office and Ms. Forghany jointly agree that a

violated N.H. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(a).

support a finding that Ms. Forghany's conduct, as described herein,

92. Having found the foregoing violation, there is sufficient evidence to

of a misapprehension and failed to take steps to correct it.

not present clear and convincing evidence of an applicant that was aware

any concerns of the Federal Court at the hearing. This chronology does

information to OBA in piecemeal fashion, but rather first fully address

91. Ms. Forghany's counsel thereafter advised that she no longer submit

around the same time she hired counsel to assist her.

"closed." She followed up by phone with OBA in early September at

90. She =ailed OBA on August 26, 2019, but was told her application was

during her July 23, 2019 meeting with Judge McCafferty.

Responsive Letters rather than the January 2019 Connecticut Letter

89. Ms. Forghany only came to appreciate that she should have provided the

B. Rule 8.1114: Failing to Correct a Misapprehension by the OBA

violation.

agrees that there is clear and convincing evidence of a Rule 8.1(a) p. 18 17

existence of any aggravating or mitigating factors, and whether they

the Court then looks to the fourth and final part of the analysis: the

the appropriate sanction"). Once the baseline sanction is determined,

the first step is to categorize the respondent's misconduct and identify

Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303 (stating that "[i]n applying these factors,

characterizing the misconduct and determining a baseline sanction. See

97. The first three parts of the analysis create the framework for

613, 621 (2007)); Standards § 3.0.

aggravating or mitigating factors." Id. (quoting Douglas' Case, 156 N.H.

injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of

duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the potential or actual

four part analysis for courts to consider in imposing sanctions: "(a) the

guidance. Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303. The Standards set forth a

96. Although the Court has not adopted the Standards, it looks to them for

(2005).

the severity of the misconduct." Coffey's Case, 152 N.H. 503, 513

Case, 158 N.H. 299, 303 (2009). "The sanction—must take into account

legal profession, and preventing similar conduct in the future." Conner's

maintaining public confidence in the bar, preserving the integrity of the

95. The purpose of the Court's disciplinary power is "protecting the public,

sanction.

Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (2d ed. 2019) r Standards, support this

94. Both case law and the American Bar Association's Standards for p. 19 18

suspension. See Standards § 7.2.

102. The parties agree that the baseline sanction in this matter is a

resources of the Federal Court.

her Federal Petition caused actual injury in that it required the time and

charges based on the underlying conduct. Ms. Forghany's omission in

they confirmed that both state discipline agencies declined to pursue

Forghany provided them, would likely have assisted her admission, as

notwithstanding, and as noted herein, the Responsive Letters, had Ms.

was made in the absence of all relevant information. That

lacked full and complete information, and thus an admission decision

101. Ms. Forghany's conduct caused potential injury in that her N.H. Petition

actual or potential injury caused by Ms. Forghany's misconduct.

100. The third prong of the sanction analysis requires an assessment of the

was both knowing and negligent, as set forth herein.

the sanction analysis, the parties agree that Ms. Forghany's mental state

99. With respect to Ms. Forghany's mental state under the second prong of

noting Rule 8.1 as among those duties owed to the profession).

to the legal profession. See Standards Sec. II (theoretical framework,

98. Under the first prong of the analysis, Ms. Forghany violated a duty owed

mitigating factors on the ultimate sanction").

sanction, [the Court] consider[s] the effect of any aggravating or

affect the baseline sanction. See id. (stating that lalfter determining the p. 20 19

mitigating factors. E.g., Conner's Case, 158 N.H. at 303.

105. The baseline sanction must be considered in light of any aggravating and

7.2, would call for a baseline sanction of a suspension.

104. Ms. Forghany's conduct in this matter, when considered under Standard

(emphasis added). the public, or the legal system. and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a client, the lawyer's conduct violates a duty owed as a professional, in an isolated instance of negligence in determining whether 7.4 Admonition is generally appropriate when a lawyer engages to a client, the public, or the legal system. owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury negligently engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty 7.3 Reprimand is generally appropriate when a lawyer injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. duty as a professional and causes injury or potential knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a 7.2 Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal system. the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially owed as a professional with the intent to obtain a benefit for knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty 7.1 Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer misconduct. withdrawal from representation, or failure to report professional or improper fees, unauthorized practice of law, improper professional employment from a prospective client, unreasonable communication of fields of practice, improper solicitation of communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services, improper generally appropriate in cases involving false or misleading of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, upon application

That Section provides:

103. Ms. Forghany's 8.1 rule violation implicates Section 7.0 of the Standards. p. 21 20

Stipulation:

begin on the date the Professional Conduct Committee accepts this

109. Ms. Forghany agrees to comply with the following conditions, which shall

V. Conditions of Imposed Discipline and Procedures

information from the admissions authorities").

of something less than a conscious, premeditated plan to keep certain

an arrest for public intoxication; lawyer's nondisclosure "was the product

three civil lawsuits in which he was a defendant, a speeding ticket, and

intent by lawyer to deceive admission authorities, but lawyer omitted

Lucas, 672 N.E.2d 934, 936 (Ind. 1996) (public reprimand where no

discipline and is an appropriate sanction in this case. See, e.g., In re

departure to a public censure with conditions serves the purposes of

mitigating factors outweigh the single aggravating factor, a downward

108. The parties agree that given the baseline sanction, and because

with the ADO, and remorse. See Standards § 9.32.

of her misconduct, full and free disclosure to and cooperative attitude

dishonest or selfish motive, good faith effort to rectify the consequences

107. Mitigating factors include the absence of a disciplinary record, lack of

substantial experience in the practice of law. See Standards § 9.22.

106. In this case there is one aggravating factor present: Ms. Forghany's p. 22 21

of this condition. 5 Given the covid pandemic, a virtual meeting shall suffice for purposes

invoice from the PCC.

form of payment plan with the PCC within 60 days of receiving an

prosecution, and if unable to pay in lump sum, shall agree to some

Conduct Committee in connection with this investigation and

c. Respondent shall pay the expenses incurred by the Professional

practice mentor.

reports shall be submitted directly to Disciplinary Counsel by the

existence of any client or court complaints or concerns. The quarterly

meetings, as well as details of Ms. Forghany's caseload or the

shall set forth in detail the matters discussed during the monthly

quarterly intervals/deadlines as set forth by the ADO. The reports

accepts the Stipulation, and subsequent reports thereafter at

within 60 days of the date that the Professional Conduct Committee

year, with the first report to be provided to Disciplinary Counsel

The practice mentor shall submit quarterly reports to the ADO for one

Hampshire, as bankruptcy is Ms. Forghany's primary area of practice.

mentor shall be experienced in practicing bankruptcy law in New

practice mentor acceptable to the ADO, at her own expense. The

b. For a period of one year, Ms. Forghany shall meets monthly with a law

misconduct.

a. For a period of two years, Ms. Forghany will engage in no professional p. 23 22

The PCC shall review the decision of the Hearing Panel.

Stipulation shall continue in force and effect pursuant to its terms.

determines that no condition of the Stipulation has been violated, the

Panel shall impose a one-year suspension. If the Hearing Panel

iii. If a Hearing Panel determines that a condition has been violated, the

Paragraph 127(b) has been violated.

demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that a condition listed in

such hearing, it shall be the burden of Disciplinary Counsel to

under Paragraph 127(b) of this Stipulation has been violated. During

may be appointed to decide the sole issue of whether a condition

remand the matter to the Hearings Committee so that a Hearing Panel

ii. Respondent may request that the Professional Conduct Committee

and effect pursuant to its terms.

Stipulation has been violated, the Stipulation shall continue in force

suspension. If the Committee determines that no condition of this

condition has been violated, the Committee shall impose a one year

at Paragraph 127(b) have been violated. If it determines that a

Committee may determine whether any of the conditions enumerated

i. Upon motion by Disciplinary Counsel, the Professional Conduct

enumerated at Paragraphs 127(b) above, the following shall apply:

110. If it is alleged that Ms. Forghany violated any of the conditions p. 24 23

within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice of the grievance or referral,

Ms. Forghany shall provide written notice to Disciplinary Counsel

f. If a grievance or referral is filed within the two-year period of the stay,

during the two year period.

grievance or referral involving conduct of Respondent occurring

e. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit prosecution of any new

enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation.

d. The Respondent shall bear all costs associated with compliance and

subsequent proceeding is pending.

will not have to continue to comply with those provisions while the

c. If the conditions of Paragraph 127(b) have been met, Ms. Forghany

underlying this Stipulation shall not be closed.

b. Pending the final resolution of the subsequent proceeding, the matter

finding occurs beyond the two-year period.

finding of misconduct in the subsequent proceeding, even if such

one year suspension shall be imposed at such time as there is a

misconduct occurred, at least in part, during the two-year period, the

forth herein (°'the subsequent proceeding"), and the alleged

a. So long as a grievance or referral is filed within the two-year period set

127(a), the following procedure shall apply:

two-year period of the stay, thus implicating the condition at Paragraph

111. If a new grievance or referral is filed against Ms. Forghany during the p. 25 24

116. Ms. Forghany knowingly and intelligently waives her right to a hearing.

Stipulation and she is fully aware of the consequences of the Stipulation.

115. Ms. Forghany has been represented by counsel in reaching this

inducements not set forth in the Stipulation

result of any threats, coercion, or duress, or of any promises or

and voluntarily submitted; that she is not entering this Stipulation as a

proposed disposition contained in this Stipulation are freely, knowingly,

114. Ms. Forghany acknowledges that the admissions of misconduct and the

conditionally accept the Stipulation pursuant to Rule 37A(Ill)(aa)(1).

recommended disposition, and that the PCC may accept, reject, or

113. Ms. Forghany understands that this Stipulation represents a

is the subject of a separate agreement signed by Ms. Forghany.

Court Rule 37(19). Her agreement to pay the costs incurred by the ADO

investigation and enforcement of this disciplinary matter. See Supreme

Forghany agrees to pay the costs incurred by the ADO in the

112. Subject to the PCC's approval of Ms. Forghany's Stipulation, Ms.

documentation.

time being of the essence, along with supporting information or p. 26 25

p. 27 understand that the Committee will bill me for these costs. If I dispute the

4. Should further costs accrue in this disposition of this matter, I

invoice until the final disposition in this matter.

3. I am aware that the Professional Conduct Committee will not issue an

sanction, there could be publication costs added to the above amount.

approximately $11.95. I understand that if the matter results in a

2. As of January 25, 2021, I have been informed that the costs are

transcripts, copying, inventory, audit expenses and publication.

Costs can include, but are not limited to: mileage, stenographers,

and enforcement of this disciplinary matter. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(b).

agree to pay the expenses incurred by the Committee in the investigation

Stipulation of Facts, Rule Violations, and Sanction in the above matter, I

1. Subject to the Professional Conduct Committee's approval of the

Attorney Discipline Office's collection efforts.

8. I also agree to be responsible for all costs incurred as a result of the

enforcement remedies and procedures. See Sup. Ct. R. 37(19)(c).

judgment and shall be subject to all legally-available post-judgment

court in any county in the state, where it shall be docketed as a final

7. The Committee may file a copy of the final assessment with the superior

be enforced in any Superior Court in New Hampshire.

shall have the full force and effect of a civil judgment. As a result, it may

6. I understand and agree that the assessment of costs is deemed final and

formal demand for payment.

further detail of the nature and amount of each expense, and I also waive

5. I waive the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 37(19)(b) regarding any

upon its receipt.

I do not notify the Committee that I dispute the bill, payment will be due

Committee will consider the disputed item and issue a written decision. If

writing within thirty days of my receipt of the bill. I understand that the