In re Siegfried

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Siegfried

123 A.D.2d 160, 510 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 39896

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.2d 160 (In re Siegfried) 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 Siegfried, 123 A.D.2d 160, 510 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 39896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in the Second Department on March 10, 1982, and was employed by a law firm with offices in the First Department.

Pursuant to rule 603.11 of this court (22 NYCRR), respondent has submitted an affidavit in which he admits that there [161]*161is currently pending against him a sua sponte complaint which would lead to formal charges of professional misconduct, acknowledges that he does not have any defense to any charge of misconduct which might ensue, and, as a result, wishes to resign voluntarily and freely from the Bar. He states he is not being subjected to coercion or duress, and is fully aware of the implications of submitting the resignation.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee does not oppose his request and agrees that the affidavit recites facts which meet the required criteria.

Accordingly, the resignation should be accepted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Fein and Wallach, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York.

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 practice in the Second Department on March 10, 1982, and was employed by a law firm with offices in the First Department.

Pursuant to rule 603.11 of this court (22 NYCRR), respondent has submitted an affidavit in which he admits that there [161]*161is currently pending against him a sua sponte complaint which would lead to formal charges of professional misconduct, acknowledges that he does not have any defense to any charge of misconduct which might ensue, and, as a result, wishes to resign voluntarily and freely from the Bar. He states he is not being subjected to coercion or duress, and is fully aware of the implications of submitting the resignation.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee does not oppose his request and agrees that the affidavit recites facts which meet the required criteria.

Accordingly, the resignation should be accepted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Asch, Fein and Wallach, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 160, 510 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 39896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-siegfried-nyappdiv-1987.