Opinion
22604A
Decided and Entered February 18, 2004.
Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, in 1965 and maintained a law office in the Town of Canton, St. Lawrence County. He is currently suspended from practice ( Matter of Dudley, 298 A.D.2d 700).
Mark S. Ochs, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany (Geoffrey E. Major of counsel), for petitioner.
Richard A. Dudley Jr., Canton, respondent pro se.
Before Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this matter, we grant petitioner's motion to confirm a Referee's report which sustained charges of professional misconduct against respondent, who has indicated no objection to this motion. Further, we find respondent guilty of failing to comply with this Court's order of suspension ( see 22 NYCRR 806.9, 1200.3 [a] [5], [7]), failing to comply with a reciprocal order of suspension from the US District Court for the Northern District of New York ( see 22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5], [7]; Rule 83.4 of the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York), failing to promptly return client property ( see 22 NYCRR 1200.46[c][4]), and engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in contravention of the orders of suspension of this Court and the US District Court for the Northern District of New York ( see 22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4], [5], [7]; 1200.16[b]; Rule 83.4 of the Local Rules of the Northern District of New York).
In view of respondent's misconduct and his disciplinary history ( Matter of Dudley, supra), we conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for an additional period of one year, effective immediately.
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that petitioner's motion to confirm the Referee's report is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is found guilty of the professional misconduct charged and specified in the petition; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent, while so suspended from practice, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; he is forbidden to appear as an attorney and 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 ( see 22 NYCRR 806.9).