In re Soto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Soto

67 A.D.3d 1321, 888 N.Y.S.2d 782

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

DecidedNovember 25, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.3d 1321 (In re Soto) 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 Soto, 67 A.D.3d 1321, 888 N.Y.S.2d 782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1990. He maintained an office for the practice of law in New Jersey, where he was admitted to the bar in 1990.

By order dated February 9, 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that respondent engaged in professional misconduct during his representation of a client’s personal injury action. The New Jersey Supreme Court reprimanded respondent for gross neglect, lack of diligence, failure to communicate with the client, failure to enter into a written fee agreement, with the client, and involvement in a conflict of interest.

As a result of the discipline imposed upon respondent in New Jersey, petitioner moves for an order disciplining him pursuant to this Court’s rules (see 22 NYCRR 806.19). We grant the unopposed motion and further conclude that respondent should be censured.

Peters, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is hereby censured.

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 1990. He maintained an office for the practice of law in New Jersey, where he was admitted to the bar in 1990.

By order dated February 9, 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that respondent engaged in professional misconduct during his representation of a client’s personal injury action. The New Jersey Supreme Court reprimanded respondent for gross neglect, lack of diligence, failure to communicate with the client, failure to enter into a written fee agreement, with the client, and involvement in a conflict of interest.

As a result of the discipline imposed upon respondent in New Jersey, petitioner moves for an order disciplining him pursuant to this Court’s rules (see 22 NYCRR 806.19). We grant the unopposed motion and further conclude that respondent should be censured.

Peters, J.P., Spain, Rose, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is hereby censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 1321, 888 N.Y.S.2d 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-soto-nyappdiv-2009.