Raymond J. DiLucci (2006)

law office at 81 South State Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. admitted to practice in 1990. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. DiLucci operated his 2. Mr. DiLucci is an attorney licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. Mr. DiLucci was DiLucci. Complainant, Gabe Cohen, asserted allegations of professional misconduct against Mr. 1. In a sworn letter of complaint dated November 4,2003, and in subsequent letters, the and 11,2006: and convincing evidence as set forth in the Stipulation, which was signed by the parties on January 9 The Professional Conduct Committee determined that the record supports the findings of fact by clear I. FACTUAL FINDINGS

Pennit Waiver of Hearings Committee Process, dated January 11,2005. The Professional Conduct Committee, upon consideration, granted Disciplinary Counsel's Motion To

N. Page. Gerald A. Daley abstained. David N. Cole, Alan J. Cronheim, Eleanor Wm. Dahar, Gretchen Rule Hamel, James R. Martin, David included: Margaret H. Nelson, Chair, Benette Pizzimenti, Vice Chair, Toni M. Gray, Vice Chair, On January 17,2006, the Professional Conduct Committee considered the matter. Members present

p. 2 16. Per the terms of the Extension Agreement, the $1,500.00 payment was"good and valuable 15. Mr. DiLucci drafted the Extension Agreement. extension of the closing date. 14. The Goldsteins and Mr. Cohen entered into an"Extension Agreement" to effectuate the 13. Mr. Cohen agreed to extend the closing date to October 31, 2003, for a $1,500.00 fee. place as scheduled on that date. 12. Because the Goldsteins did not secure financing by October 15, 2003, the closing did not take financing. 11. According to the terms of the P & S, it was not contingent on the Goldsteins' securing 10. The Goldsteins were permitted to reside in the property during the pendency of the P & S. 9. The closing date was scheduled for October 15, 2003. 8. Neither Mr. DiLucci nor Mr. Cohen retained a copy of the"reverse side" of the P & S.

MADE A PART HEREOF. WHICH ARE INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE AND damages. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR INTERPLEADER PROVISIONS SELLER, become the property of the SELLER as reasonable liquidated this agreement, the amount of the deposit may, at the option of the Ifthe BUYER shall default in the performance of his obligation under ---------------.-. 7. The P & S also contained the following liquidated damages provision: J. DiLucci in the sum of $2,000.00. check is to be held in an escrow account by Buyer's Attorney, Raymond Deposit, receipt of which [sic 1 hereby acknowledged in the form of a

6. The P & S contained a provision requiring a buyer's deposit. That provision stated: property was $209,900.00. drafted by Mr. DiLucci. The Goldsteins signed it on October 6, 2003. The selling price for the 5. On October 2,2003, Mr. Cohen went to Mr. DiLucci's office and signed the P & S, which was subject property. 4. As of October 1,2003, Mr. Cohen, as Trustee for 271 Brookline Realty Trust, held title to the they had lost at a foreclosure sale on August 27, 2003. Sales Agreement ("P & S"). The P & S would enable the Goldsteins to repurchase a property 3._M1:~DiLu~clIepresentedAndreaandJeffrey Goldstein in the negotiation ·ofa Purchase and·- . under the P & S. p. 3 informing Mr. Cohen and seeking his consent, Mr. DiLucci violated his obligations as fiduciary 26. By disbursing the $2,000.00 escrow account without proper authorization and without first consummated for lack of the necessary financing. had a colorable claim to the $2,000.00 once it became clear that the deal would not be deposit pending the closing of the transaction. According to the terms of the P & S, Mr. Cohen 25. The terms of the P & S required Mr. DiLucci, as escrow agent, to safeguard the $2,000.00

DiLucci violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct: The Professional Conduct Committee concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. II. RULINGS OF LAW

24. Mr. DiLucci did not forward the $2,000.00 deposit money to Mr. Cohen. the P & S. before November 3, Mr. DiLucci forward the $2,000.00 deposit to him pursuant to the terms of 23. On or about October 31, 2003, Mr. Cohen faxed Mr. DiLucci a letter demanding that, on or disbursed to Ms. Goldstein. $2,000.00 deposit. Mr. DiLucci's secretary informed Mr. Cohen that the deposit had been 22. On or about October 30, 2003, Mr. Cohen telephoned Mr. DiLucci's office to inquire about the escrow account ($500.00) to the Goldsteins. 21. On that date, without informing Mr. Cohen, Mr. DiLucci disbursed the funds remaining in the secure the necessary financing for the October 31, 2003, closing. 20. As of October 27,2003, it became clear to all parties that the Goldsteins were not going to disbursing $1,500.00 to. him from the $2,000.00 being held in escrow as the deposit. 19. Unbeknownst to Mr. Cohen, Mr. DiLucci paid Mr. Cohen for the Extension Agreement by date was thereby extended to October 31, 2003. 18. Mr. DiLucci paid Mr. Cohen $1,500.00, as called for by the Extension Agreement. The closing 17. Ms. GoldsteinlUldMr. CohenBignedtheExtensionAgreement on Qr abQutDcJoner 2/f,20Q3. p. 4 File Edmund J. Boutin, Esquire Landya B. McCafferty, Disciplinary Counsel Distribution:

associated with the investigation and prosecution of this matter. DiLucci, for violating N.H. R. Prof. Conduct l.lS(a) and 8.4(a). Mr. DiLucci is assessed all costs For the above reasons, the Professional Conduct Committee issues a Public Censure to Raymond 1. IV. CONCLUSION

the Court has considered them when imposing sanctions). (N.H., October 31, 200S) (noting that although the Court has never formally adopted these Standards, or Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991). See, e.g., Wolterbeek's Case, No. LD 200S-002, slip op. at 2 New Hampshire Supreme Court and with the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Standards Public Censure. This sanction is in accord with the purpose of attorney discipline as described by the The Professional Conduct Committee concludes that the appropriate discipline in this matter is a III. SANCTION

8.4(a). there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence of a violation ofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct 28. Because there exists clear and convincing evidence that Mr. DiLucci violated the above rules,

funds would constitute a violation ofN.H. R. Prof. Conduct l.lS(a).

... 27. Ifproven byc1ear and convincing evidence,Mr.DiLucci's failure to.safeguardthe escrow