In re Schell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Schell

286 A.D.2d 56, 732 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9094

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 56 (In re Schell) 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 Schell, 286 A.D.2d 56, 732 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 14, 1994, and maintained an office for the practice [57]*57of law in Fairport. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct arising from his misappropriation of law firm retainer funds. Respondent filed an answer admitting the allegations of the petition, and appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) — engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) — engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer.

We note in mitigation that the misconduct occurred at a time when respondent was suffering from depression and the side effects of medication that was prescribed for his depression. Additionally, we note that respondent admitted the misconduct, made restitution and cooperated with the Grievance Committee’s investigation. Finally, we have considered respondent’s previously unblemished record and commitment to providing pro bono legal service. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured.

Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Scudder and Burns, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 14, 1994, and maintained an office for the practice [57]*57of law in Fairport. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct arising from his misappropriation of law firm retainer funds. Respondent filed an answer admitting the allegations of the petition, and appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) — engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) — engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer.

We note in mitigation that the misconduct occurred at a time when respondent was suffering from depression and the side effects of medication that was prescribed for his depression. Additionally, we note that respondent admitted the misconduct, made restitution and cooperated with the Grievance Committee’s investigation. Finally, we have considered respondent’s previously unblemished record and commitment to providing pro bono legal service. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured.

Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Scudder and Burns, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 56, 732 N.Y.S.2d 295, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-schell-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack