In re Crumb
Opinion
Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in 1981. He maintained a law office in the City of Binghamton, Broome County. He is currently suspended from practice (Matter of Crumb, 50 AD3d 1310 [2008]).
Respondent has not answered or otherwise replied to a petition of charges or to petitioner’s, instant motion for a default judgment, both of which were personally served upon him. In support of its motion, petitioner has filed proof by affidavit of the facts constituting the alleged misconduct. Under the circumstances, respondent is deemed to have admitted the charges and we grant petitioner’s motion (see e.g. Matter of Lucas, 32 AD3d 1150 [2006]). Further, based on such admission and the proof submitted by petitioner, we find respondent guilty of the charged misconduct.
The petition alleges that respondent failed to notify his clients of his receipt of funds in the amount of $35,000 in which the clients had an interest and failed to remit funds belonging to his clients in violation of the attorney disciplinary rules (see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102 [c] [1], [4] [22 NYCRR 1200.46 (c) (1), (4)]);
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
66 A.D.3d 1323 (In re Crumb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.