Anthony M. Davis (2023)

 Margaret R. Kerouac, Esq. Derek Lick, Esq. Karyl R. Martin, Esq. Mona T. Movafaghi, Esq. Mitchell M. Simon, Esq. Eric R. Wilson, Esq. (1992) (

Supreme Court, which were both acting to protect his clients. Because of his lack of failed to comply with his obligations to the Attorney Discipline System and the he met his obligations for record-keeping regarding client funds and he repeatedly and actual injury to the legal system. He could not provide a clear answer for how system, he did so knowingly, and his actions caused potential injury to his clients looks to for guidance. Mr. Davis violated duties owed to his clients and the legal Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions Standards), which this Committee were deemed admitted lead to a baseline sanction of suspension under the the Committee adopts the Panel’s factual findings. The multiple rule violations that The Hearing Panel accurately considered the factors relevant to sanction and

Committee. inviting Mr. Davis’s input on sanction, he did not file a Memorandum with the Memorandum on Sanction. Despite postponing the discussion of this case and of the hearing before the Hearing Panel, and the Attorney Discipline Office’s matter after having reviewed the Hearing Panel’s Order on Sanctions, the transcript On December 12, 2023, the Professional Conduct Committee discussed this

*non-lawyer member

reinstatement to the practice of law, 3) and law office management, 2) by her, and follow her recommendations, 1)

following conditions: may petition to have one year of his suspension suspended if he complies with the resume practicing law sooner if those issues have been addressed. Thus, Mr. Davis incentive to work on the issues that lead him to these troubles and to be able to upon the date of this order. However, the Committee wanted to give Mr. Davis the The Committee voted to suspend Mr. Davis for a period of two years effective

retroactive suspension did not appear appropriate in this case. addressed the issues that led to the attorney discipline case. For these reasons, a hearing before the Hearing Panel. On top of that, he did not appear to have to have addressed the cause of the administrative suspension by the time of the Supreme Court’s Order following that administrative suspension, nor did he appear with the administrative suspension and ceased legal work. He did not follow the circumstance. It is unclear whether, when, and to what extent Mr. Davis complied reinstatement provisions of Supreme Court Rule 37(14)(b), would be sufficient in this did not concur that any suspension greater than six months, because it triggers the suspension retroactive to the date of his administrative suspension. The Committee The Committee discussed the Hearing Panel’s decision to make Mr. Davis’s

$39.60.. decision, with the Court finding only one accounting irregularity in the amount of for failing to cooperate with the attorney discipline system before the PCC’s the Supreme Court issued a suspension for two years. This suspension was primarily system warrants suspension. For instance, in, 155 N.H. 66 (2007), implicate client funds, with inconsistent cooperation with the attorney discipline The New Hampshire Supreme Court has found that multiple violations that

sanction. this case are in near equipoise and do not warrant departing from the baseline effort to address the underlying problems. The aggravating and mitigating factors in his use of them. This behavior took place over many months with no apparent operation, questions remain about the funds that had been in his IOLTA account and

Page 2 p. 3 He must pay the costs incurred by the ADO in the investigation and He must comply with any Supreme Court orders regarding notification of his He must comply with all other requirements for reinstatement pursuant to /s/Stephanie C. Hausman

Jill O’Neill Anthony M. Davis cc: Sara S. Greene, Esq., Disciplinary Counsel

December 19, 2023

December 1, 2024. complied with the conditions of suspension. This motion may be filed no earlier than Davis shall also file with the PCC a motion to suspend which indicates how he has If the Supreme Court refers the matter to the Professional Conduct Committee, Mr. comply with the reinstatement process contained in Supreme Court Rule 37(14)(b). In order to have one year of his two-year suspension suspended, Mr. Davis must

reach out to her as soon as possible. appropriate training and in obtaining a suitable mentor. Mr. Davis is encouraged to Ms. O’Neill, who is copied on this order, has agreed to assist Mr. Davis in finding

Supreme Court Rule 37(14) and any order of the Supreme Court. 6) Discipline Office; clients and provision of proof therewith to the Court and/or the Attorney 5) 37(19)(b), enforcement of this disciplinary matter pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 4)

Page 3