In re Connolly

63 A.D.3d 1369, 879 N.Y.S.2d 738
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 11, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 1369 (In re Connolly) 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 Connolly, 63 A.D.3d 1369, 879 N.Y.S.2d 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1984. He maintained an office for the practice of law in New Jersey where he was also admitted in 1984.

By order dated February 10, 2009 (198 NJ 3, 965 A2d 113 [2009]), the Supreme Court of New Jersey temporarily suspended respondent from the practice of law until further order [1370]*1370of that court. The order was based upon respondent’s admission during a random compliance audit by the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics that he had misappropriated approximately $300,000 from his client trust account over an 18-month period.

We grant petitioner’s unopposed motion for an order imposing reciprocal discipline (see 22 NYCRR 806.19). We further conclude that respondent should be reciprocally suspended from the practice of law in New York indefinitely and until further order of this Court (see Matter of Mitchell, 32 AD3d 1105 [2006]).

Peters, J.P, Spain, Kavanagh, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law, effectively immediately, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of supervision, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 806.9).

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

Related

In re Gold
75 A.D.3d 82 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re Connolly
65 A.D.3d 800 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 A.D.3d 1369, 879 N.Y.S.2d 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-connolly-nyappdiv-2009.