In re Freeman

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Matemu

    No. 2022-02179 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 31, 2022)

    Finding no open claims, the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection similarly advises that it does not oppose respondent's reinstatement application. Initially, we note that respondent has properly submitted a duly-sworn affidavit in the form provided in appendix D to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Matter of Freeman, 192 A.D.3d 1377, 1378 [2021]; see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [d]). Respondent has also submitted a timely affidavit of compliance and supplemental affidavit addressing his compliance with the order of suspension (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15 [f]). Based on the entirety of the submissions, we find that respondent has established by clear and convincing evidence that he has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from a disciplinary suspension (see Matter of Njogu, 175 A.D.3d 800, 800-801 [2019]).

  2. Attorney Grievance Comm. for the Third Judicial Dep't v. Matemu (In re Matemu)

    203 A.D.3d 1544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Finding no open claims, the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection similarly advises that it does not oppose respondent's reinstatement application. Initially, we note that respondent has properly submitted a duly-sworn affidavit in the form provided in appendix D to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (seeMatter of Freeman, 192 A.D.3d 1377, 1378, 140 N.Y.S.3d 789 [2021] ; see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [d]). Respondent has also submitted a timely affidavit of compliance and supplemental affidavit addressing his compliance with the order of suspension (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.15 [f]).

  3. In re Matemu

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 2179 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)

    Finding no open claims, the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection similarly advises that it does not oppose respondent's reinstatement application. Initially, we note that respondent has properly submitted a duly-sworn affidavit in the form provided in appendix D to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Matter of Freeman, 192 A.D.3d 1377, 1378 [2021]; see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [d]). Respondent has also submitted a timely affidavit of compliance and supplemental affidavit addressing his compliance with the order of suspension (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15 [f]). Based on the entirety of the submissions, we find that respondent has established by clear and convincing evidence that he has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from a disciplinary suspension (see Matter of Njogu, 175 A.D.3d 800, 800-801 [2019]).