In re Loughlin

*926The charges arise out of respondent’s alleged neglect of two clients’ matters, deceiving a client as to the status of a legal matter, failing to maintain records or render accounts of client funds, and conversion of client funds. Because we find the charges supported by the evidence before the Referee, we grant the Committee’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report.

In deciding upon an appropriate disciplinary sanction, we note that a number of factors weigh heavily against leniency in this case. First, applicant is guilty of serious misconduct. His neglect of personal injury and false arrest…