From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Barber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 26, 2010
69 A.D.3d 1222 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

January 26, 2010.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1983. He maintains an office for the practice of law in the Town of Fort Edward, Washington County.

Mark S. Ochs, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany (Michael Philip Jr. of counsel), for petitioner.

Carter, Conboy, Case, Blackmore, Maloney Laird, P.C., Albany (Michael J. Catalfimo of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Peters, J.P., Spain, Rose, Kavanagh and Stein. JJ., concur.


Petitioner moves for respondent's immediate suspension from the practice of law pending final determination of disciplinary charges filed against him ( see 22 NYCRR 806.4 [f]). Respondent opposes the motion, but has admitted to the charged disciplinary violations contained in the petition of charges. These charges include neglect ( see former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 [a] [3] [ 22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]), misleading and deceiving clients as to the status of matters ( see former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [4], [5], [7] [ 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (4), (5), (7)]), engaging in fraudulent conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by providing clients with Family Court orders purportedly signed by a judge but which were never issued or signed by the judge ( see former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [3], [4], [5], [7] [ 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (3), (4), (5), (7)]), failure to promptly remit and account for funds received on behalf of a client ( see former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [5], [7]; DR 9-102 [c] [3], [4] [ 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5), (7); 1200.46 (c) (3), (4)]), and failure to cooperate with petitioner's investigation ( see former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [5] [ 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5)]).

Under the circumstances presented, and especially noting the admitted disciplinary violations arising out of allegations of respondent's fraudulent conduct, we find that respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest. Therefore, we grant petitioner's motion to suspend respondent from the practice of law pending consideration of the disciplinary charges.

Ordered that petitioner's motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law, effective upon service on respondent of this decision and order, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of suspension, respondent is 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 respondent is hereby 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 an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court's rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys ( see 22 NYCRR 806.9).


Summaries of

In re Barber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 26, 2010
69 A.D.3d 1222 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

In re Barber

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PATRICK E. BARBER, an Attorney, Respondent. COMMITTEE ON…

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

Date published: Jan 26, 2010

Citations

69 A.D.3d 1222 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 567
891 N.Y.S.2d 923

Citing Cases

In re Ehrlich

Based upon respondent's default in responding to the petition and the instant motion, and the uncontroverted…

In re Barber

February 25, 2010. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1983 and maintained an office for the…