From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a.

Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 25, 2024
2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

Opinion

No. PM-05-24

01-25-2024

In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Urs Martin Lauchli, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2830917.)

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Urs Martin Lauchli, San Francisco, California, respondent pro se.


Calendar Date: January 8, 2024

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Urs Martin Lauchli, San Francisco, California, respondent pro se.

Before: Pritzker, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher, McShan and Powers, JJ., concur.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 172 A.D.3d 1706, 1735 [3d Dept 2019]; 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 November 22, 2023, his supplemental correspondence with attachments submitted on December 29, 2023 and January 4, 2024, and the January 3, 2024 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, 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.

Pritzker, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher, McShan and Powers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a.

Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 25, 2024
2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
Case details for

In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 25, 2024

Citations

2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)