Rhonda M. Simpson (2025)

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

ORDER LD-2024-0009, In the Matter of Rhonda Simpson, Esquire On June 5, 2024, the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) notified the court that the respondent, Attorney Rhonda Simpson, had been indicted by a grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire on two felony counts (conspiracy to submit false claims to the federal government and conspiracy to make false statements to the federal government) and had agreed to plead guilty to count 2, conspiracy to make false statements to the federal government. The ADO, which further notified this court that the federal court had not yet accepted the plea agreement, recommended that this court “institute formal proceedings, pursuant to Rule 37(9)(i), that result in Ms. Simpson’s immediate suspension from the practice of law.” On June 18, 2024, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(9)(i) and (16)(f), the court suspended the respondent from the practice of law in New Hampshire. The respondent did not contest her suspension. On July 8, 2025, the ADO notified the court that the respondent had been convicted and sentenced in federal court on June 17, 2025, on count 2 of the indictment, a felony, for conspiracy to make false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1001(a)(2). With that notification, the ADO recommended that the respondent “be disbarred from the practice of law in New Hampshire” and represented that the respondent’s counsel had “confirmed to [the ADO] that Ms. Simpson will not contest her disbarment.” In light of that representation, it is unnecessary to serve the respondent with the ADOQ’s recommendation or to provide an opportunity to be heard on the ADO’s recommendation prior to court action. After reviewing the ADO’s July 8, 2025 filing, the court agrees with the ADO that the respondent’s conviction constitutes a “serious crime, ” which is defined by Supreme Court Rule 37(9)(b) to include “any felony and any lesser crime a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of such crime, involves interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a ‘serious crime.” The court further concludes that disbarment is the appropriate sanction.