In re Reilly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Reilly

5 A.D.3d 944, 774 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3436

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 944 (In re Reilly) 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 Reilly, 5 A.D.3d 944, 774 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1996 and maintains a law office in Latham, Albany County.

Respondent was previously suspended by this Court for one year with the suspension stayed upon certain conditions (Matter of Reilly, 309 AD2d 965 [2003]). Petitioner now moves to vacate the stay of respondent’s suspension or, in the alternative, suspend him from the practice of law pursuant to Rules of this Court (22 NYCRR) § 806.4 (f) until such time as a final order shall be entered in a disciplinary proceeding recently commenced against him.

Respondent admits mishandling funds in his attorney escrow [945]*945account (see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102 [a] [22 NYCRR 1200.46 (a)]) and neglecting legal matters entrusted to him (see DR 6-101 [a] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]). In view of the failure of respondent to meet the conditions imposed by this Court in staying his suspension and the seriousness of the new charges filed against him, we conclude that the stay of suspension should be vacated and respondent should be suspended effective immediately.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that the stay of respondent’s suspension is hereby vacated, and respondent is suspended from the practice of law immediately and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that respondent, while so suspended from practice, is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; he is forbidden to appear as an attorney and counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 806.9).

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 1996 and maintains a law office in Latham, Albany County.

Respondent was previously suspended by this Court for one year with the suspension stayed upon certain conditions (Matter of Reilly, 309 AD2d 965 [2003]). Petitioner now moves to vacate the stay of respondent’s suspension or, in the alternative, suspend him from the practice of law pursuant to Rules of this Court (22 NYCRR) § 806.4 (f) until such time as a final order shall be entered in a disciplinary proceeding recently commenced against him.

Respondent admits mishandling funds in his attorney escrow [945]*945account (see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102 [a] [22 NYCRR 1200.46 (a)]) and neglecting legal matters entrusted to him (see DR 6-101 [a] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]). In view of the failure of respondent to meet the conditions imposed by this Court in staying his suspension and the seriousness of the new charges filed against him, we conclude that the stay of suspension should be vacated and respondent should be suspended effective immediately.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that the stay of respondent’s suspension is hereby vacated, and respondent is suspended from the practice of law immediately and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that respondent, while so suspended from practice, is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; he is forbidden to appear as an attorney and counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 806.9).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 944, 774 N.Y.S.2d 835, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-reilly-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack