In re Schweitzer

189 A.D.2d 61, 601 N.Y.S.2d 877
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 12, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 61 (In re Schweitzer) 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 Schweitzer, 189 A.D.2d 61, 601 N.Y.S.2d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court on February 16, 1972. The Grievance Committee has filed a petition alleging seven charges of misconduct accusing respondent of converting over $55,000 of client funds, charging an [62]*62excessive fee, borrowing money from a client without advising the client to obtain independent legal advice and failing to comply with the attorney registration requirements set forth in Judiciary Law § 468-a. The petition also seeks restitution of the sums converted. Respondent’s failure to appear, answer or otherwise move against the petition constitutes an admission of those charges (see, Matter of Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1; Matter of Young, 168 AD2d 26; Matter of Supples, 102 AD2d 699). Accordingly, we find respondent guilty of violating the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility as amended April 29, 1978: DR 1-102 (A) (4); DR 2-106 (A); DR 5-104 (A); DR 9-102 (A); (B) (1) and 22 NYCRR former 1022.5 (a). Respondent is also guilty of violating the following provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility as amended September 1, 1990: DR 1-102 (A) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]); DR 9-102 (A) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]); DR 9-102 (B) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) and DR 9-102 (C) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [4]) and Judiciary Law § 468-a and should be disbarred. Additionally, restitution should be ordered of the amounts that the first, third, fourth and fifth charges of the petition allege were converted and not repaid.

Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Boomer and Davis, JJ., concur.

Order of disbarment and restitution entered.

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

Related

In re Wedlock
230 A.D.2d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re Hetzelt
225 A.D.2d 195 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Golkin
223 A.D.2d 50 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Powers
221 A.D.2d 126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Monroe
220 A.D.2d 66 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re Gembarosky
214 A.D.2d 209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re Osborne
196 A.D.2d 177 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 A.D.2d 61, 601 N.Y.S.2d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-schweitzer-nyappdiv-1993.