In re Pearson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Pearson

282 A.D.2d 818, 723 N.Y.S.2d 531, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3698

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

DecidedApril 9, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 818 (In re Pearson) 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 Pearson, 282 A.D.2d 818, 723 N.Y.S.2d 531, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinions

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1968. She moved to South Dakota in 1976 and eventually to Minnesota, where she currently resides. In June 2000, respondent was denied admission in Minnesota upon a finding that she did not have the character and fitness to practice law in that State.

In February 2001, this Court issued an order declaring that no factual issues were raised by respondent’s answer to petitioner’s charges of, inter alia, conversion of client funds, and directing that respondent could be heard in mitigation before the Court at a time to be fixed by the Clerk (see, 22 NYCRR 806.5). Respondent has not replied to two letters from the Clerk asking her to advise whether she intended to appear or submit written papers in mitigation. Her failure to reply appears to evince a disregard for her fate as an attorney.

Respondent is guilty of serious professional misconduct. She converted trust funds to her own benefit (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [4], [5], [7]; DR 9-102 [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (4), (5), (7); 1200.46]), made false statements on her Minnesota Bar application (see, DR 1-102 [a] [4], [5], [7] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (4), (5), (7)]), and failed to comply with an order of a Minnesota court, which failure led to a finding by that court that she was in contempt (see, DR 1-102 [a] [5] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5)]).

In view of the above, we conclude that respondent should be disbarred.

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

—Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1968. She moved to South Dakota in 1976 and eventually to Minnesota, where she currently resides. In June 2000, respondent was denied admission in Minnesota upon a finding that she did not have the character and fitness to practice law in that State.

In February 2001, this Court issued an order declaring that no factual issues were raised by respondent’s answer to petitioner’s charges of, inter alia, conversion of client funds, and directing that respondent could be heard in mitigation before the Court at a time to be fixed by the Clerk (see, 22 NYCRR 806.5). Respondent has not replied to two letters from the Clerk asking her to advise whether she intended to appear or submit written papers in mitigation. Her failure to reply appears to evince a disregard for her fate as an attorney.

Respondent is guilty of serious professional misconduct. She converted trust funds to her own benefit (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [4], [5], [7]; DR 9-102 [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (4), (5), (7); 1200.46]), made false statements on her Minnesota Bar application (see, DR 1-102 [a] [4], [5], [7] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (4), (5), (7)]), and failed to comply with an order of a Minnesota court, which failure led to a finding by that court that she was in contempt (see, DR 1-102 [a] [5] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5)]).

In view of the above, we conclude that respondent should be disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 818, 723 N.Y.S.2d 531, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pearson-nyappdiv-2001.