In re Coughlin

188 A.D.2d 1, 598 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1420
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 1 (In re Coughlin) 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 Coughlin, 188 A.D.2d 1, 598 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1420 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court on June 23, 1988. On November 13, 1992, this Court granted an application for substituted service by the Grievance Committee, which alleged that it had been unable to effectuate personal service of the petition. That order directed that respondent be served by affixing a copy of the petition to the door of her last known address in LaGrangeville, New York, and by mailing a copy thereof to that address.

In 10 separate charges of misconduct, the petition alleges that respondent was retained in numerous matters but failed to carry out the contracts of employment and failed to refund unearned fees, failed to deliver property and papers entrusted to her by various clients, misrepresented the status of legal matters to clients and, in one instance, converted funds entrusted to her to pay a bankruptcy filing fee. Respondent’s failure to appear, answer or otherwise move against the petition constitutes an admission of those charges (see, Matter of Young, 168 AD2d 26; Matter of Supples, 102 AD2d 699). Accordingly, we find respondent guilty of violating DR 1-102 (A) (4), DR 1-102 (A) (5), DR 1-102 (A) (7), DR 2-106 (A), DR 2-110 (A) (3), DR 6-101 (A) (3), DR 7-101 (A) (2), DR 7-101 (A) (3), DR 9-102 (B) (1), DR 9-102 (C) (4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4], [5], [7]; 1200.11 [a]; 1200.15 [a] [3]; 1200.30 [a] [3]; 1200.32 [a] [2], [3]; 1200.46 [b] [1]; [c] [4]), and she should be disbarred.

Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Boomer and Boehm, JJ., concur.

Order of disbarment entered.

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

Related

In re Wedlock
230 A.D.2d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re Hetzelt
225 A.D.2d 195 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Golkin
223 A.D.2d 50 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Monroe
220 A.D.2d 66 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Gembarosky
214 A.D.2d 209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re Osborne
196 A.D.2d 177 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
In re Schweitzer
189 A.D.2d 61 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 A.D.2d 1, 598 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-coughlin-nyappdiv-1993.