Opinion
No. PM-124-24
06-27-2024
In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Willem Lodewikus Pretorius, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4076105).
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. Corrigan, McCoy & Bush, PLLC, Rensselaer (Scott W. Bush of counsel), for respondent.
Calendar Date: May 20, 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.
Corrigan, McCoy & Bush, PLLC, Rensselaer (Scott W. Bush of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and McShan, 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, 1748 [3d Dept 2019]; see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).
We note that respondent previously sought reinstatement, which motion was denied by this Court in July 2023 (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Pretorious], 218 A.D.3d 954 [3d Dept 2023]), as he had failed to supply proof of his compliance with Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5).
Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to February 1, 2024, his supplemental affidavit sworn to May 17, 2024 and the May 13, 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.
Garry, P.J., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and McShan, JJ., concur.