Opinion
December 14, 2000.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, as Louis Michael Rohrberg, was admitted to the Bar at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on May 24, 1978. An order of this Court was entered on March 28, 2000 (M-8373), inter alia, suspending respondent from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective the date thereof until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Committee had been concluded and until the further order of this Court.
Vitaly Lipkansky, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel), for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Before: Williams, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe, Friedman, JJ.
Respondent, Louis M. Rohrberg, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on May 24, 1978, as Louis Michael Rohrberg. At all times relevant to this proceeding, until May 1999, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee ("the DDC") moves for an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 603.4(g), disbarring respondent on the ground that he has been suspended under 22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1)(i) and (iii) and has not appeared nor applied in writing to the DDC or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement within six months of the date of the order of suspension. Respondent has not submitted a response to this motion, although it was mailed to his home address by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested.
Respondent was suspended from the practice of law until further order of the Court on March 28, 2000 [Matter of Rohrberg, 268 A.D.2d 180], when this Court granted the DDC's unopposed motion based on uncontested documentary evidence that respondent commingled a client's settlement funds with his own funds and then misappropriated all of said funds in violation of DR 9-102(a) and (b); that he violated DR 1-102(a)(4),(5) and (7), by giving false deposition testimony concerning the misappropriation; that he failed to remit the funds to his client upon repeated demand in violation of DR 9-102(c)(4); and that he failed to pay his biennial registration fee.
Accordingly, the DDC's request for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g) should be granted and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
Motion granted, respondent disbarred and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof.