Opinion
2012-10-9
In the Matter of Manuel E. THILLET (admitted as Manuel Thillet), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Manuel Thillet, Respondent.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Manuel Thillet, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on August 23, 1979. Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Jeremy S. Garber, of counsel), for petitioner. Marvin Ray Raskin, for respondent.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Manuel Thillet, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on August 23, 1979.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Jeremy S. Garber, of counsel), for petitioner. Marvin Ray Raskin, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Manuel Thillet was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on August 23, 1979. At all times relevant to this proceeding, he maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) moves for an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.11, accepting respondent's affidavit of resignation from the practice of law and striking his name from the roll of attorneys.
In respondent's affidavit of resignation, sworn to on May 18, 2012, respondent avers that he has consulted with his attorneyand has decided that as a result of disciplinary charges that are pending against him, his resignation as an attorney is appropriate at this time. Respondent's affidavit of resignation conforms with 22 NYCRR 603.11 insofar as he states that his resignation is submitted voluntarily and that he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his resignation. He describes the charges against him which allege, among other things, professional misconduct in connection with the operation of his law practice and related bank accounts, and his belief that he cannot successfully defend himself on the merits.
Accordingly, the DDC's motion for an order accepting respondent's resignation from the practice of law in the State of New York pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.11 should be granted and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys, effective nunc pro tunc on May 18, 2012 ( see Matter of Roy, 72 A.D.3d 117, 894 N.Y.S.2d 425 [1st Dept. 2010];Matter of Freedman, 208 A.D.2d 325, 623 N.Y.S.2d 584 [1st Dept. 1995] ).