Opinion
M-2036
07-09-2015
In the Matter of Lawrence S. CUMBERBATCH (admitted as Lawrence St. Clair Cumberbatch, a suspended attorney: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Lawrence S. Cumberbatch, Respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Jun H. Lee, of counsel), for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Jun H. Lee, of counsel), for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
ROLANDO T. ACOSTA, Justice Presiding, ROSALYN H. RICHTER, SALLIE MANZANET–DANIELS, PAUL G. FEINMAN, JUDITH J. GISCHE, Justices.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.Respondent Lawrence S. Cumberbatch was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on April 25, 1973, under the name Lawrence St. Clair Cumberbatch. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
By order entered October 16, 2014, this Court granted the motion of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee to immediately suspend respondent from the practice of law pursuant to the Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.4(e)(1)(i) based upon his failure to fully cooperate with the Committee in its investigation of a complaint filed against him alleging, inter alia, neglect (123 A.D.3d 152, 994 N.Y.S.2d 859 [1st Dept.2014] ). Respondent did not appear on that motion.
According to the Committee, its July 24, 2014 Notice of Motion for Immediate Suspension included the following warning:
“PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g), an attorney who is suspended and who has not appeared or applied in writing to the Committee or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement for six months from the date of the order of suspension, may be disbarred without further notice.”
On October 21, 2014, the notice of entry of this Court's October 16, 2014 order of suspension was mailed to respondent by first-class mail and certified mail return receipt requested.
Now, by notice of motion, the Committee seeks an order disbarring respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g), on the grounds that respondent has been suspended under 22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1)(i) and has not appeared or applied in writing to the Committee or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement since the date of his immediate suspension, which occurred more than six months ago on October 16, 2014.
Respondent was served with this motion to disbar by first-class mail and certified mail return receipt requested but no response has been submitted.
In light of the fact that more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court's suspension order and respondent has failed to appear or contact the Committee or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement, respondent should be disbarred (Matter of Ayu, 123 A.D.3d 44, 994 N.Y.S.2d 569 [1st Dept.2014] ; Matter of Anyikwa, 120 A.D.3d 49, 987 N.Y.S.2d 129 [1st Dept.2014] ).
Accordingly, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g), should be granted and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
All concur.