In re Manger

110 A.D.3d 150, 970 N.Y.S.2d 456

This text of 110 A.D.3d 150 (In re Manger) 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 Manger, 110 A.D.3d 150, 970 N.Y.S.2d 456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Philip M. Manger was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on June 19, 1978. He does not maintain an office in New York.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (Committee) now seeks an order pursuant to Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.11, accepting respondent’s affidavit of resignation from the practice of law and striking his name from the roll of attorneys.

Respondent co-founded and operated Credit Collections Defense Network (CCDN), an entity which purportedly offered debt relief services and legal assistance to consumers in connection with credit card debt and collection matters. By decision dated March 25, 2011, respondent was found by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, to have made false and deceptive statements in violation of the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act (15 USC § 1679b), and the Illinois Credit Service Organizations Act (815 ILCS 605/5). By decision dated March 7, 2011, CCDN was found to have repeatedly violated West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (W Va Code § 46A-6-101 et seq.) by, inter alia, engaging in unfair and deceptive practices by failing to disclose material information about their services and misleading consumers into entering into contracts. Respondent was also found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West Virginia.

Respondent acknowledges, in his affidavit of resignation, that he is aware that the Committee has alleged in its pending collateral estoppel petition that he has engaged in fraudulent or deceptive business practices and the unauthorized practice of law, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (4), (5) and (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4], [5], [7]),

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

Related

In re Bristol
94 A.D.3d 85 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 A.D.3d 150, 970 N.Y.S.2d 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-manger-nyappdiv-2013.