In re Peluso

43 A.D.3d 155, 838 N.Y.S.2d 771
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 28, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 155 (In re Peluso) 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 Peluso, 43 A.D.3d 155, 838 N.Y.S.2d 771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

OPINION OP THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent is a foreign attorney admitted to practice law in Italy, and was licensed to act as a legal consultant in the State of New York by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on June 25, 1997. At all times, relevant to this proceeding pursuant to 22 NYCRR 610.7, respondent maintained an office for his practice as a licensed legal consultant within the First Judicial Department. Recently, he has returned to Italy to practice law and no longer maintains an office in New York.

' The Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.11 accepting respondent’s resignation from practicing as a licensed legal consultant, revoking respondent’s license to practice as a licensed legal consultant, and striking his name from the roll of licensed legal consultants in this state.

The Committee is satisfied that respondent’s affidavit of resignation, sworn to April 26, 2007, conforms to the requirements set forth in 22 NYCRR 603.11 in that his resignation is voluntary, free from coercion or duress, and he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his resignation.

Respondent acknowledges that he was served on January 19, 2007, with 35 charges of professional misconduct which relate to his conduct between January 1998 and June 2001. He states that the Committee opened an investigation after receiving a complaint from Simone Chiarella in January 2004, alleging that respondent exceeded the scope of his practice as a foreign legal consultant in the State of New York in violation of 22 NYCRR 521.3 and Judiciary Law §§ 478, 484 and 485 by holding himself out as a New York attorney and by engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

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

Related

In re Antoine
74 A.D.3d 67 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 A.D.3d 155, 838 N.Y.S.2d 771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-peluso-nyappdiv-2007.