From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Lee

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb 21, 2013
103 A.D.3d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-02-21

In the Matter of Pil J. LEE, an Attorney. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner; Pil J. Lee, Respondent.

Peter M. Torncello, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany (Elizabeth M. Devane of counsel), for petitioner. McDonough & McDonough, LLP, Garden City (Chris McDonough of counsel), for respondent.


Peter M. Torncello, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany (Elizabeth M. Devane of counsel), for petitioner. McDonough & McDonough, LLP, Garden City (Chris McDonough of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAHTINEN, J.P, SPAIN, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2003. He practices immigration law in Los Angeles, California.

Petitioner moves for respondent's immediate suspension from the practice of law pending final determination of disciplinary charges filed against him ( see22 NYCRR 806.4[f] ). Such charges include neglecting a client matter and engaging in fraudulent conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice ( see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.3, 8.4[c], [d] ). Though he opposes the motion, respondent has admitted the specifications underlying the charged violations, which, among other things, involve misleading petitioner and knowingly providing fabricated documentation to the client, ostensibly from the United States Citizen and Immigration Services agency.

Under the circumstances presented, and especially noting that respondent received a letter of admonition in February 2012 for a similar offense, we find that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest. We therefore 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 memorandum 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 ( see22 NYCRR 806.9).

LAHTINEN, J.P., SPAIN, McCARTHY and EGAN JR., JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re Lee

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Feb 21, 2013
103 A.D.3d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

In re Lee

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Pil J. LEE, an Attorney. Committee on Professional…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 21, 2013

Citations

103 A.D.3d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 1124
959 N.Y.S.2d 462

Citing Cases

Standards v. Lee (In re Pil Jae Lee)

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2003 and currently lists a business address in…

In re Lee

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2003 and currently lists a business address in…