In re Capobianco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Capobianco

219 A.D.2d 179, 639 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3046

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 179 (In re Capobianco) 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 Capobianco, 219 A.D.2d 179, 639 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court [180]*180on February 7, 1986 and maintains an office in Rochester. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent’s answer denied material allegations of the petition and a Referee was appointed to conduct a trial on the issues of fact raised by the pleadings. The Referee filed a report that petitioner moves to confirm and respondent moves to reject.

The Referee found that respondent consistently failed to preserve and identify client funds in his attorney-client trust account, commingled his personal funds with his client funds in the trust account, used the trust account to pay for personal and business expenses, failed to maintain a running balance of his trust account activity and failed to maintain individual client ledger sheets reconciled with his trust account obligations.

We confirm the report of the Referee and conclude that respondent has violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (A) (5) and (8) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5], [8])— engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law; and

DR 9-102 (A), (B) and (C) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a], [b], [c])— failing to maintain and preserve client funds and to keep records related to client funds entrusted to him.

We have considered the matters in mitigation, including the fact that no client sustained a financial loss as a result of respondent’s misconduct. Therefore, we conclude that respondent should be suspended from practice for one year and until further order of the Court.

Denman, P. J., Green, Lawton, Fallon and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Order of suspension entered.

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