In Re Caro

Supreme Court of Georgia

In Re Caro

709 S.E.2d 813, 289 Ga. 178, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 1333, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 308

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 26, 2011

DocketS11Y0831

StatusPublished

This text of 709 S.E.2d 813 (In Re Caro) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Caro, 709 S.E.2d 813, 289 Ga. 178, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 1333, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 308 (Ga. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this reciprocal discipline case, the Review Panel issued its Report and Recommendation recommending that Chase Arthur Caro (State Bar No. 111072) be disbarred in Georgia following the order disbarring him from practice in the State of New York, see In re Caro, 46 A.D.3d 136 (845 N.Y.S.2d 239 N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.) (2007). The State Bar filed a notice of reciprocal discipline to which it attached a certified copy of the decision from the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, in accordance with Rule 9.4 (b), as amended, of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The New York Supreme Court found that Caro converted client funds and pled guilty on June 21, 2007 to one count of grand larceny in the second degree, a class C felony, for stealing funds from clients. The notice of reciprocal discipline was mailed to Caro at his address in New York and he acknowledged service on October 30, 2010.

The Review Panel noted that under Rule 9.4 (b) (3) it shall recommend substantially similar discipline unless it finds clearly from the face of the record that certain elements exist that would give the Review Panel discretion to make another recommendation to this Court. Here, the Review Panel found, Caro was disbarred in New York for committing a felony and he did not contest the New York disciplinary proceedings. The Review Panel concluded that disbarment is appropriate in Georgia under Rule 8.4 (a) (2) and Caro failed to establish that any other level of discipline would be appropriate under these facts.

We have reviewed the record and agree that disbarment is the appropriate punishment. Accordingly, the name of Chase Arthur Caro hereby is removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Disbarred.

Ml the Justices concur. *179 Decided April 26, 2011. Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Carmen R. Rafter, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this reciprocal discipline case, the Review Panel issued its Report and Recommendation recommending that Chase Arthur Caro (State Bar No. 111072) be disbarred in Georgia following the order disbarring him from practice in the State of New York, see In re Caro, 46 A.D.3d 136 (845 N.Y.S.2d 239 N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.) (2007). The State Bar filed a notice of reciprocal discipline to which it attached a certified copy of the decision from the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, in accordance with Rule 9.4 (b), as amended, of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The New York Supreme Court found that Caro converted client funds and pled guilty on June 21, 2007 to one count of grand larceny in the second degree, a class C felony, for stealing funds from clients. The notice of reciprocal discipline was mailed to Caro at his address in New York and he acknowledged service on October 30, 2010.

The Review Panel noted that under Rule 9.4 (b) (3) it shall recommend substantially similar discipline unless it finds clearly from the face of the record that certain elements exist that would give the Review Panel discretion to make another recommendation to this Court. Here, the Review Panel found, Caro was disbarred in New York for committing a felony and he did not contest the New York disciplinary proceedings. The Review Panel concluded that disbarment is appropriate in Georgia under Rule 8.4 (a) (2) and Caro failed to establish that any other level of discipline would be appropriate under these facts.

We have reviewed the record and agree that disbarment is the appropriate punishment. Accordingly, the name of Chase Arthur Caro hereby is removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Disbarred.

Ml the Justices concur. *179 Decided April 26, 2011. Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Carmen R. Rafter, Assistant General Counsel State Bar, for State Bar of Georgia.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

709 S.E.2d 813, 289 Ga. 178, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 1333, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-caro-ga-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack