In Re Matthew Ragaller (Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Appellant), 336 A.3d 316

Matthew Ragaller, an attorney admitted in Vermont, was disbarred in North Carolina in 2015 after consenting to the disbarment following findings of client fund misappropriation and filing false accountings in connection with an estate matter.
The Vermont Office of Disciplinary Counsel sought reciprocal discipline in Vermont based on Ragaller's North Carolina disbarment, as Vermont’s rules typically require identical discipline absent specific exceptions.
Ragaller did not notify Vermont authorities of his North Carolina disbarment as required by Vermont’s rules.
The underlying North Carolina misconduct involved misappropriating $21,500 from an estate and submitting false accountings, for which Ragaller admitted fault.
Ragaller argued for a lesser sanction in Vermont, citing mitigating factors and alleging his actions were negligent rather than intentional, and that he now has greater experience and remorse.
Disciplinary Counsel argued for identical discipline, noting Vermont precedent of disbarment for similar misconduct and emphasizing the limited inquiry permitted in reciprocal discipline cases.

Issue	Ragaller's Argument	Disciplinary Counsel's Argument	Held
Should Vermont impose identical discipline based on NC disbarment?	A lesser sanction is warranted given mitigating factors and alleged negligence.	Disbarment is warranted; Ragaller consented to NC discipline and misconduct warrants same outcome.	Identical discipline appropriately imposed; disbarment.
Can Ragaller present new evidence not in the North Carolina record?	Explanations for conduct and mitigating factors justify less severe discipline.	New facts not in the NC record are irrelevant under Vermont’s reciprocal discipline rules.	Only the original record is considered; new evidence rejected.
Would identical discipline result in grave injustice?	Yes, because circumstances were not fully considered in NC; penalty arguably harsh.	No, the NC penalty fit the misconduct; 'grave injustice' focuses on original sanction’s propriety.	No grave injustice shown; identical discipline proper.
Does the Vermont precedent permit substantially different discipline?	Vermont standards and mitigating factors might support suspension or reprimand.	Vermont practice is to disbar in like cases of misappropriation and dishonesty, as in NC.	No substantial grounds for different discipline in Vermont.

In re Palmisano, 205 Vt. 636 (Reciprocal discipline limited to face of the out-of-state record)
In re Ruggiero, 179 Vt. 636 (Approving consented disbarment for misappropriation)
In re Sinnott, 178 Vt. 646 (Same)
In re McGinn, 178 Vt. 604 (Same)
In re Lane, 174 Vt. 550 (Same)