In re Pannu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Pannu

87 A.D.3d 1175, 929 N.Y.2d 196

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 1, 2011·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By order dated January 31, 2011, the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board publically reprimanded respondent after finding that he engaged in professional misconduct by, among other things, attempting to introduce inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial in violation of a court’s pretrial ruling (In re Pannu, 188 Vt 279, 5 A3d 918, 2010 VT 58 [2010]).

As a result of the discipline imposed in Vermont, petitioner moves for an order imposing discipline pursuant to this Court’s [1176] rules (see 22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has filed a responsive affidavit in which he acknowledges the misconduct and does not raise any available defenses to the imposition of discipline (see 22 NYCRR 806.19 [d]). Accordingly, we grant petitioner’s motion and further conclude that, under the circumstances presented, respondent should be censured in this state.

Mercure, J.E, Peters, Spain, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is hereby censured.

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

Per Curiam.

By order dated January 31, 2011, the Vermont Professional Responsibility Board publically reprimanded respondent after finding that he engaged in professional misconduct by, among other things, attempting to introduce inadmissible evidence in a criminal trial in violation of a court’s pretrial ruling (In re Pannu, 188 Vt 279, 5 A3d 918, 2010 VT 58 [2010]).

As a result of the discipline imposed in Vermont, petitioner moves for an order imposing discipline pursuant to this Court’s [1176] rules (see 22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has filed a responsive affidavit in which he acknowledges the misconduct and does not raise any available defenses to the imposition of discipline (see 22 NYCRR 806.19 [d]). Accordingly, we grant petitioner’s motion and further conclude that, under the circumstances presented, respondent should be censured in this state.

Mercure, J.E, Peters, Spain, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is hereby censured.

In re Pannu, 87 A.D.3d 1175, 929 N.Y.2d 196 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

87 A.D.3d 1175 (In re Pannu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related