In re Joseph

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Sgambettera

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 1953 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    Further, we decline to vacate the stay and suspend respondent's license on the basis of a private disciplinary matter that concerned conduct by respondent occurring prior to this Court's stayed suspension order. There is nothing in the record indicating that respondent engaged in professional misconduct following entry of the stayed suspension; it is further undisputed that the prior matter referenced by AGC did not result in a petition of charges (see generally Matter of Joseph, 237 AD2d 727, 728 [1997]). Instead, inasmuch as respondent has provided satisfactory proof that he fulfilled all required conditions in this Court's order, including being reinstated to active status in Massachusetts and completing all required additional CLE courses, we deem it appropriate to terminate respondent's stayed suspension and deny AGC's cross motion in opposition.

  2. In re Sgambettera

    148 A.D.3d 1421 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    Further, we decline to vacate the stay and suspend respondent's license on the basis of a private disciplinary matter that concerned conduct by respondent occurring prior to this Court's stayed suspension order. There is nothing in the record indicating that respondent engaged in professional misconduct following entry of the stayed suspension; it is further undisputed that the prior matter referenced by AGC did not result in a petition of charges (see generally Matter of Joseph, 237 A.D.2d 727, 728, 654 N.Y.S.2d 476 [1997] ). Instead, inasmuch as respondent has provided satisfactory proof that he fulfilled all required conditions in this Court's order, including being reinstated to active status in Massachusetts and completing all required additional CLE courses, we deem it appropriate to terminate respondent's stayed suspension and deny AGC's cross motion in opposition.

  3. In re Gallagher

    112 A.D.3d 1057 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    We note that a condition of our stay of respondent's suspension in 2009 was that he not be the subject of any further disciplinary actions or proceedings, a condition he has violated. Under all the circumstances presented, and noting that the purpose of a disciplinary sanction is to protect the public, deter similar misconduct and preserve the reputation of the bar, we conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year ( see e.g. Matter of Joseph, 237 A.D.2d 727, 654 N.Y.S.2d 476 [1997] ). ORDERED that respondent is found guilty of professional misconduct as set forth in this decision; and it is further

  4. In re Sissman

    34 A.D.3d 978 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

    Respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him ( see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 [a] [3] [ 22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]), failed to communicate with his client ( see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [5] [ 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5)]), failed to withdraw from employment when his physical or mental condition made it unreasonably difficult to carry out the employment ( see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-110 [b]| [3]; [c] [4] [ 22 NYCRR 1200.15 (b) (3); (c) (4)]), and failed to cooperate with petitioner ( see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [5] [ 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5)]). Under all of the circumstances, including respondent's prior disciplinary record ( see e.g. Matter of Sissman, 274 AD2d 738), we conclude that respondent should be suspended from practice for a period of one year, effective immediately ( see Matter of Lewis, 283 AD2d 831; Matter of Griffin, 278 AD2d 581; Matter of Joseph, 237 AD2d 727; Matter of Rea, 173 AD2d 955). Upon any application for reinstatement, respondent shall make the showing required by this Court's rules ( see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]), including submission of a medical opinion that he has the mental and physical capacity to resume the practice of law.