From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 8, 2004
3 A.D.3d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

72.

Decided and Entered: January 8, 2004.

Petitioner moves to suspend respondent attorneys on the ground that they have failed to file a registration statement and pay the required attorney registration fee in accordance with Judiciary Law § 468-a and part 118 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR part 118).

Mark S. Ochs, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany, for petitioner.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew, III, Peters and Spain, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration and a notice sent by petitioner, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. They have also failed to respond to the instant motion.

Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration "shall constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and shall be referred to the appropriate appellate division * * * for disciplinary action." This Court has previously held that failure to comply with the registration requirements is professional misconduct warranting discipline (see e.g. Matter of Arms, 251 A.D.2d 743; Matter of Ryan, 238 A.D.2d 713; Matter of Farley, 205 A.D.2d 874).

In view of respondents' continued failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of the Judiciary Law and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, petitioner's motion is granted and the respondents listed on the schedule attached hereto are suspended, effective 30 days from the date of this order, until further order of this Court (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 291 A.D.2d 631).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew, III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that petitioner's motion is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the respondents listed on the schedule attached hereto are suspended, effective 30 days from the date of this order, until further order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondents, for the period of suspension, are commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, and are forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another any opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further

ORDERED that respondents shall comply with the provisions of this Court's rules ( 22 NYCRR 806.9) regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys. ATTORNEY YEAR OF ADMISSION

Clark Robert Gilkes 1995

Gellene Alfred V. 1980

Goldberg Andrew M. 1994

Griffiths Steven Harry 1997

Iacopino Joseph J. 1982

Muller Andrew Joseph 1997

Oberst Gary Edmund 1991

Sakofsky Charles Baer 1963

Tarbell Eaton Weatherbee 1968


Summaries of

In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 8, 2004
3 A.D.3d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468-a…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 8, 2004

Citations

3 A.D.3d 662 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
769 N.Y.S.2d 914

Citing Cases

In re Robert

April 24, 2008. Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in 1995, was suspended by this Court's…

In re of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary

This Court has previously held that failure to comply with the registration requirements is professional…