In re Feindt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Feindt

301 A.D.2d 185, 754 N.Y.S.2d 790, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11110

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 301 A.D.2d 185 (In re Feindt) 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 Feindt, 301 A.D.2d 185, 754 N.Y.S.2d 790, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 10, 1991. The Grievance Committee filed charges [186]*186against respondent, a former assistant district attorney, following her arrest on January 28, 2002, on a charge of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) arising from the theft of a witness fee payment. The criminal charge was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal on April 11, 2002, and respondent was directed to make restitution and perform community service.

Respondent filed an answer admitting the material allegations of the petition, and appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [3]) — engaging in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on her honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer;

DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) — engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) — engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness as a lawyer.

We note in mitigation, that respondent made full restitution and exceeded the amount of required hours of community service. She cooperated with the Grievance Committee’s investigation, admitted the misconduct and expressed extreme remorse. Additionally, we note that the misconduct occurred at a time when respondent was suffering from depression, for which she has received counseling. Finally, we have considered respondent’s previously unblemished record and that respondent voluntarily discontinued practicing law following her arrest. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured (see Matter of Schell, 286 AD2d 56).

Pine, J.P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 10, 1991. The Grievance Committee filed charges [186]*186against respondent, a former assistant district attorney, following her arrest on January 28, 2002, on a charge of petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25) arising from the theft of a witness fee payment. The criminal charge was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal on April 11, 2002, and respondent was directed to make restitution and perform community service.

Respondent filed an answer admitting the material allegations of the petition, and appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [3]) — engaging in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on her honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer;

DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) — engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) — engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness as a lawyer.

We note in mitigation, that respondent made full restitution and exceeded the amount of required hours of community service. She cooperated with the Grievance Committee’s investigation, admitted the misconduct and expressed extreme remorse. Additionally, we note that the misconduct occurred at a time when respondent was suffering from depression, for which she has received counseling. Finally, we have considered respondent’s previously unblemished record and that respondent voluntarily discontinued practicing law following her arrest. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured (see Matter of Schell, 286 AD2d 56).

Pine, J.P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 185, 754 N.Y.S.2d 790, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-feindt-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack