Opinion
05-17-2016
In the Matter of Craig F. WILSON, a suspended attorney: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Craig F. Wilson, Respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Vitaly Lipkansky, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent pro se.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Craig F. Wilson, 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 October 31, 1988.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Vitaly Lipkansky, of counsel), for petitioner.
Respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM. Respondent Craig F. Wilson was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on October 31, 1988. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department.
By previous order, we granted the motion of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (Committee) for an order, pursuant to THE Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.4(e)(1)(i) and (iii), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law based upon respondent's failure to fully cooperate with the Committee's investigation of allegations of professional misconduct and other uncontested evidence of misconduct, namely, intentional conversion and/or misappropriation of client funds (totaling $22,795.85), which immediately threatened the public interest (122 A.D.3d 1, 993 N.Y.S.2d 315 [1st Dept.2014] ).
The Committee now seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b).
On June 16, 2015, respondent pled guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree in violation of Penal Law § 155.30(1), a class E felony, based on his theft of client escrow funds.
Respondent's conviction of the class E felony of grand larceny in the fourth degree constitutes grounds for his automatic disbarment pursuant to section 90(4)(a) of the Judiciary Law and his name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys pursuant to section 90(4)(b) (see Matter of Block, 105 A.D.3d 70, 960 N.Y.S.2d 375 [1st Dept.2013] ; Matter of Cherry, 51 A.D.3d 119, 854 N.Y.S.2d 8 [1st Dept.2008] ). For purposes of automatic disbarment, conviction occurs at the time of the plea or verdict; therefore, the fact that respondent has not yet been sentenced does not preclude his name from being stricken from the rolls (see Matter of Sheinbaum, 47 A.D.3d 49, 845 N.Y.S.2d 264 [1st Dept.2007] ).
Accordingly, the Committee's petition pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b) should be granted, and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York effective nunc pro tunc to June 16, 2015.
ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI, Justice Presiding, DAVID B. SAXE, KARLA MOSKOWITZ, SALLIE MANZANET–DANIELS, BARBARA R. KAPNICK, Justices, concur.