Opinion
January 20, 2000
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.
Respondent, as Paul David Ghinger, was admitted to the Bar at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on June 20, 1994.
By order of this Court entered on March 23, 1999 (M-53) respondent was suspended from the practice of law, effective the date thereof, and until the further order of this Court.
Sherry K. Cohen, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel) for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
JOSEPH P. SULLIVAN, Justice Presiding, EUGENE NARDELLI, ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI, ALFRED D. LERNER, DAVID B. SAXE, Justices.
Respondent Paul D. Ghinger was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on June 20, 1994, as Paul David Ghinger. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
By motion dated December 31, 1998, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee ("Committee") sought an order pursuant to22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1)(i), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of the Court, due to his willful failure to cooperate with the Committee in its investigation of allegations of professional misconduct involving neglect of three client matters and failure to or return advance legal fees paid to him. This motion was granted by an order of this Court entered March 23, 1999 (Matter of Ghinger, 253 A.D.2d 219).
The Committee's notice of motion to suspend specifically stated, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g), that an attorney who is suspended and has not appeared or applied in writing to the Committee or the court for a hearing or reinstatement for six months from the date of the order of suspension, may be disbarred without further notice.
The Committee now moves for an order disbarring respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g) on the ground that respondent has been suspended under 22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1)(i) and has not appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement for six months from the date of the order of suspension. Respondent has not responded to the instant motion.
Accordingly, in light of the foregoing and inasmuch as more than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court's suspension order, and respondent has neither appeared nor applied in writing to the Committee nor this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(g) should be granted (Matter of Tucker, 241 A.D.2d 250) and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys, effective immediately.
All concur.
Order filed.