Christopher D. Ray (2025)

la st Trust Account Compliance Certification (TACC) on July 30, 2023, for the reporting period Hampshire and, in August 2022, he closed his Massachusetts client account. Mr. Ray filed his practiced in Massachusetts for over a year. Mr. Ray never opened a client trust account in New Mr. Ray was admitted to the New Hampshire Bar on May 24, 2016, after having

Facts

recommendation to the Supreme Court. hearing panel’s conclusion that disbarment is the appropriate sanction and makes that transcript of the hearing panel, and other relevant portions of the record. The PCC affirmed the Professional Conduct Committee deliberated the matter, considering the hearing panel re port, determined that disbarment was the appropriate sanction. On December 17, 2024, the A hearing panel was convened to address the issue of sanction only. That panel

Supreme Cour Rule 37A(III)(b)(3)(A). and thereby is deemed to have admitted the allegations set forth in the notice of charges. 1.15, 8.1, 8.4(c), and 8.4(a). Mr. Ray did not respond to the notice of charges by filing an answer the respondent, Attorney Christopher D. Ray, violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, On March 8, 2024, the Attorney Discipline Office issued a notice of charges, alleging that

*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.

p. 2 the retainer and misrepresenting to his client that the Registration of Foreign Judgment had been failing to respond to the disciplinary matter. Mr. Ray violated Rule 8.4(c) by misappropriating and fail ed to return that portion of the retainer that was unearned. Mr. Ray violated Rule 8.1 by matter, failed to complete the task for which he was hired and thus misappropriated the retainer, client trust account, and commingled the funds, failed to account for any work completed in the violated Rule 1.15 when he took $3, 000 f rom Mr. Maupin as a retainer, did not deposit it in a which he was hired and instead essentially abandoned Mr. Maupin and his matter. Mr. Ray domesticate the judgment. Mr. Ray violated Rule 1.3 when he failed to complete the work for Mr. Ray violated Rule 1.1 when he failed to prepare and file the appropriate pleading to

Rule Violations

of Massachusetts for failing to comply with his CLE requirements. Mr. Ray was administratively suspended on July 2, 2024, by the Supreme Judicial Court

speak to him or to any proceeding in the disciplinary matter. Mr. Ray has not responded to any of the Attorney Discipline’s Office many attempts to

2023. At no point has Mr. Ray returned any portion of the retainer to Mr. Maupin. Registration of Foreign Judgment had been filed, the client filed a grievance on October 24, complete any other cognizable work on the case. After having discovered on his own that no Mr. Ray had no further communication with his client after August 30, 2023, nor did he

evidence that it ha d been filed in any other court. this purpose, no Registration was filed with the circuit court in Hillsborough and there was no Registration of Foreign Judgment had been filed. Although Mr. Ray had drafted a document for represented to Attorney David DeBold, counsel for another interested party in the case, that the of Foreign Judgment in the 6 Circuit Court – District Division – Hillsborough. Mr. Ray also th In August 2023, Mr. Ray twice represented to his client that he had filed the Registration

no evidence that it was placed in a client trust account, a s required. Discipline Office was unable to determine where Mr. Ray deposited this retainer and there was New Hampshire. Mr. Maupin paid Mr. Ray a $3, 000 retainer for the work. The Attorney In July 2023, Mr. Mark Maupin retained Mr. Ray to domesticate a fo reign judgment in

2024. ending May 31, 2023. Mr. Ray did not file a TACC for the reporting period ending May 31,

Page 2 erodes public confidence in the bar more completely than a lie.” In re: Gallant’ s Case, 170 N.H. p. 3 This is so because “[n]o single transgression reflects more negatively on the legal profession and Disbarment in this matter is consistent with other New Hampshire disciplinary cases.

offenses, and obstruction of the disciplinary process. However, this factor is outweighed by the aggravators: dishonest or selfis h motive, multiple the baseline. The only mitigating factor present here is Mr. Ray’s lack of a disciplinary history. consideration o f aggravating and mitigating factors guide the decision of whether to depart from for the violations of Rules 1.15, 1.3, 8.4(c), and 8.1. Once a baseline is determined, Under Standards 4.11, 4.41(b), 5.11(b), and 7, 1 call for a baseline sanction of disbarment

faith in the legal system. abandonment of his client. These acts would necessarily also inj ure a client’s and the public’s financial injury to Mr. Maupin as well as potential legal injury from the delay caused by his filed by Mr. Ray despite the payment of a $3, 000 retainer. Thus, Mr. Ray’s acts caused actual Mr. Ray caused actual injury. Mr. Maupin’s Registration of Foreign Judgment was no t

the retainer, and abandoning the client – evince an intentional mental state. the w ork, misrepresenting the status of the work, never invoicing, never returning any portion of but found no such evidence. The course of conduct – commingling the retainer, not completing determine whether Mr. Ray’s abandonment of his client was the result of death or serious injury client, but also to another lawy er involved in the case. Disciplinary counsel took steps to Mr. Ray acted intentionally as to many of the Rule violations. He not only lied to his

disciplinary authority also violated the duty he owed to the legal profession. integrity of the profession. ABA S tandards, Sec. II. Mr. R ay’s failure to respond to the who are “entitled to be able to trust lawyers” and the legal profession, by failing to maintain the work, and abandoning his client. When lawyers act dishonestly, they violate duties to the public, failing to complete the work for which he was hired, lying to his client about the status of the ABA Standards, Sec. II. Mr. Ray violated his duty to Mr. Maupin by commingling the retainer, The “most important ethical duties are those obligations which a lawyer owes to clients.”

Standards. determining the baseline sanction, (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors. ABA mental state; (c) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct; and, after N.H. 299, 303 (2009). Under the Standards, we consider: (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, it looks to them for guidance. Conner’s Case, 158 While the Supreme Court has not explicitly adopted the American Bar Association

Sanction Analysis

Page 3 p. 4 Highland MI 48356 Mark Maupin (via email maupin.mark@gmail.com and U.S.Mail: 1655 Highland Park Christopher D. Ray (via email christopher@rayatlaw.com) cc: Sara S. Greene, Disciplinary Counsel

DATED: January 14, 2025 /s/ Stephanie C. Hausman

attorney discipline process all support disbarment. dealing with client money, dishonesty, abandonment of his client, and refusal to participate in the conduct in the future.” In re O’Meara’ s Case, 164 N.H. 762, 179 (2012). Here, Mr. Ray’s self confidence in the bar, preserving the integrity of the legal profession, and preventing similar focuses “not on punishing the offender, but on protecting the public, maintaining public When determining to impose the ultimate sanction of disbarment,” the Supreme Court

quotation omitted). 171 N.H. 694, 707 (2019) (“attorney misconduct involving dishonesty justifies disbarment,” Coddington’ s Case, 155 N.H. 66, 70 (2007) (quotation omitted). See also In re Salomon’ s Case, from misuse of a client’s property must stand among the most insistent of professional norms.” 528, 538 (2017) (quotation omitted). In addition, a lawyer’s obligation to “refrain, at the least,

Page 4