In re Burchill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Burchill

89 A.D.2d 696, 452 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17827

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 16, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 696 (In re Burchill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Burchill, 89 A.D.2d 696, 452 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17827 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent was admitted to the Bar by the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, on October 23, 1974. Petitioner moved to suspend respondent forthwith from the practice of law pending the disposition of charges of professional misconduct contained in a petition dated April 8, 1982 and petitioner’s investigation of an additional complaint. Notwithstanding respondent’s denial of the charges, the evidence submitted on the motion establishes a strong probability that respondent is guilty of serious professional misconduct. Moreover, the papers establish that respondent is unable to produce any records that would verify his implausible version of the events upon which some of the charges are based. In view of the gravity of the charges, involving two incidents of conversion of clients’ funds, we believe that respondent’s immediate suspension is necessary to protect the public and to preserve the integrity of the profession. Motion granted and respondent is suspended from the practice of law, effective July 19, 1982, pending the resolution of this disciplinary proceeding and the further order of this court. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Mikoll, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Respondent was admitted to the Bar by the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, on October 23, 1974. Petitioner moved to suspend respondent forthwith from the practice of law pending the disposition of charges of professional misconduct contained in a petition dated April 8, 1982 and petitioner’s investigation of an additional complaint. Notwithstanding respondent’s denial of the charges, the evidence submitted on the motion establishes a strong probability that respondent is guilty of serious professional misconduct. Moreover, the papers establish that respondent is unable to produce any records that would verify his implausible version of the events upon which some of the charges are based. In view of the gravity of the charges, involving two incidents of conversion of clients’ funds, we believe that respondent’s immediate suspension is necessary to protect the public and to preserve the integrity of the profession. Motion granted and respondent is suspended from the practice of law, effective July 19, 1982, pending the resolution of this disciplinary proceeding and the further order of this court. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Mikoll, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 696, 452 N.Y.S.2d 862, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-burchill-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack