In re LaSalle

194 A.D.2d 28, 604 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10964
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 23, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 194 A.D.2d 28 (In re LaSalle) 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 LaSalle, 194 A.D.2d 28, 604 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent, John D. LaSalle, was admitted to practice of [29]*29law in New York by the First Judicial Department on December 22, 1969.

By petition dated May 5, 1993, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the DDC) is seeking an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.3, suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of 30 days based upon the fact that he was similarly disciplined by the Supreme Court of Colorado on February 16, 1993.

The discipline imposed upon respondent in Colorado, where he is also admitted to practice law, arose out of respondent’s neglect of a client matter and misrepresentation of the status of the case to the client in Colorado.

An attorney who has been disciplined in another State may be disciplined by this Court because of the conduct which gave rise to such discipline (22 NYCRR 603.3). The misconduct of which respondent has been found guilty in Colorado also violates the Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 (A) (3) and 1-102 (A) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3]; 1200.3 [a] [4]). Since the Hearing Board in Colorado did find a number of mitigating factors, including the absence of a selfish motive, a cooperative attitude in the proceedings, and respondent’s sincere remorse, the DDC’s petition seeking a 30-day suspension is denied and respondent is publicly censured for his neglect of his client’s matter and misrepresentation of the status of the case to his client.

Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ., concur.

Petition seeking a 30-day suspension is denied, and respondent is publicly censured, as indicated.

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

Related

Matter of Stasiuk
2017 NY Slip Op 6148 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Basdekis
142 A.D.3d 280 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
In re Goldsmith
61 A.D.3d 132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re O'Toole
12 A.D.3d 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
In re Vohra
303 A.D.2d 61 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
In re Bieluch
209 A.D.2d 52 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 A.D.2d 28, 604 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lasalle-nyappdiv-1993.