Majority
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1980. He lists a business address in the City of Albany with the Office of Court Administration.
Respondent is the subject of an investigation of alleged professional misconduct conducted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) with respect to a complaint from a client in a personal injury matter. Pursuant thereto, AGC directed respondent to provide, among other things, various records and to appear for an examination under oath (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.7 [b] [2]). AGC reports that respondent failed to respond to AGC’s requests or produce the requested records and, further, failed to appear at the scheduled June 27, 2017 examination as directed. Now, by order to show cause returnable September 18, 2017, AGC moves for an order pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9 (a) (1) and (3) suspending respondent from the practice of law during the pendency of its investigation. Respondent has not responded to the application.
AGC has submitted sufficient evidence establishing respondent’s default in responding to AGC’s notice of examination, as well as his failure to comply with AGC’s several lawful demands for the production of his records. Accordingly, we find that respondent’s conduct immediately threatens the public interest (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a]) and imperils the effectiveness of the attorney disciplinary system. Consequently, we grant AGC’s motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law during the pendency of AGC’s investigation and until further order of this Court (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a]; see also Matter of Humphrey, 151 AD3d 1539 [2017]; Matter of Croak, 148 AD3d 1451 [2017]).
Peters, P.J., Rose, Clark, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- In re Humphrey 151 AD3d 1539 p. 1058
- In re Croak 148 AD3d 1451 p. 1058