Steven N. Fuller (2024)

rule violations constitute "serious misconduct," which "by itself could result in a s uspension of As the Supreme Court found, in issuing a summary suspension, the Respondent's alleged

8.4(b) (committing a crime), 8.4(c) (dishonesty), and 8.4(a) (general rule). property), 3.4 (disobeying court order), 8.1(b) (failure to respond to the discipline autho rity), alleged rule violations: Rule 1.3 (diligence), 1.4 (communication), 1.15 (safeguarding client allegations contained there in are deemed admitted. Supr. Ct. R. 37A(III)(b)(3)(A). So too are the The Respondent failed to file an Answer to the Notice of Charges; thus, all factual

37A(III)(aa)(2)(A). "resolve[s] some but not all issues of fact, rule violation and sanction." Supr. Ct. R. 37A(III)(aa)(1). Rather, it better fits the defini tion of "partial stipulation" that not appear to meet the definition of a "dispositive stipulation" in Supreme Court Rule The Stipulation does not include an explicit admission of rule violations and thus does

misconduct." Suspension," and also admitted that disbarment was the "appropriate sanction for his Notice of Charges is predicated" and "all material facts found in the Petition for Summary Stipulation, in which the Respondent admitted "the majority of the material facts upon which the Panel's Recommendation that the Stipulation be approved. The Committee also reviewed the On August 20, 2024, the Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the Hearing

*non - lawyer member

*Peter J. Kiriakoutsos *Everett S. Grass Trudy Renfors, Admin. Asst. Richard C. Gagliuso, Esq. Eric R. Wilson, Esq. *Ronald K. Ace Mitchell M. Simon, Esq. Caroline K. Leonard, Esq., Vice Chair. Robin D. Melone, Esq. * Kath l een M. Ames, Vice Chair Karyl R. Martin, Esq. Stephanie C. Hausman, Esq., Chair Robert R. Lucic, Esq.

agreement to pay costs. Supreme Court that the Respondent by disbarred. The Committee also voted to approve the Accordingly, the C ommittee voted to accept the Stipulation and recommend to the

violations alleged, the Committee treated the stipulation as a dispositive stipulation. given the posture of the case and the appropriateness of disbarment as a sanction for the rule N.H. 170, 181 (2012). Thus, even though there i s not an explicit stipulation as to rule violations, transgression reflects more negatively on the legal profession than a lie." O'Meara's Case, 164 deceives client with intent to benefit the lawyer and causes serious injury)."[N]o single client property and causes injury) and 4.61 (disbarment appropriate w hen lawyer knowingly Imposing Lawyer Sanctions 4.11 (disbarment appropriate when lawyer knowingly converts disbarment," as alleged by the ADO. Supr. Ct. R. 37(9 - B)(b); see also ABA Standards for

Page 2