In re Watson

222 A.D.2d 4, 643 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6731
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 13, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 4 (In re Watson) 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 Watson, 222 A.D.2d 4, 643 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

[5]*5Respondent Frederick E. Watson was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on May 26, 1954, under the name Frederick Earl Watson. Respondent is also admitted to the practice of law in California. According to respondent, he has resided in California since 1955 and has not practiced law in New York since that time.

By order dated October 14, 1994, the California Supreme Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for one year but stayed the suspension, placing him on probation for two years and actually suspending him for 30 days, based on conduct constituting a willful violation of the California Business and Professional Code.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.3 ("Discipline of Attorneys for Professional Misconduct in Foreign Jurisdiction”), respondent is subject to discipline by this Court because of the conduct underlying the discipline imposed in California. None of the defenses to such reciprocal discipline, as provided in 22 NYCRR 603.3 (c), are applicable to respondent’s circumstances, and indeed, none have been raised.

It has been determined that respondent has consistently failed to file an attorney registration statement with the Chief Administrator of the Courts, as required by 22 NYCRR 118.1 of all attorneys admitted to practice in this State, nor has he submitted the required attorney registration fee. In view of this persistent failure, respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ., concur.

Respondent is disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

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

Related

In re Watson
239 A.D.2d 44 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 4, 643 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-watson-nyappdiv-1996.