In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a
Opinion
Respondent, whowas admitted to practice by this Court in 1993, was suspended by this Court’s order dated June 15, 2000 for failure to comply with the attorney registration require- ments of Judiciary Law § 468-a (273 AD2d 600 [2000]). Respondent now
Respondent nowrequests reinstatement on the ground that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (see 22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object to respondent’s application. respondent’s application.
[996]*996Respondent’s application is granted and he is ordered reinstated, effective immediately.
Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
19 A.D.3d 995 (In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.