Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Specht)

2023 NY Slip Op 04482

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: September 7, 2023
• Docket: PM-200-23
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Specht) (2023 NY Slip Op 04482)

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Specht)

2023 NY Slip Op 04482

Decided on September 7, 2023

Appellate Division, Third Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered:September 7, 2023

PM-200-23

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; William Neville Specht, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4107736.)

Calendar Date:August 21, 2023
Before:Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and McShan, JJ., concur.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner.

William Neville Specht, Paterson, New Jersey, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by January 2014 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 113 AD3d 1020, 1052 [3d Dept 2014]; see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to July 11, 2022 and the October 20, 2022 responsive correspondence from petitioner, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has satisfied the requirements of Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5), (2) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the rules of this Court, (3) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (4) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effective immediately.

Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and McShan, JJ., concur.