Opinion
October 31, 2000.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent Nancy C. Ross, as Nancy Campbell Ross, was admitted to the Bar at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on April 13, 1992. Respondent Kenneth S. Ross, as Kenneth Scott Ross, was admitted to the Bar at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on April 12, 1989. By unpublished orders entered on May 28, 1999 (M-3565-Nancy C. Ross; M-3565A [corrected June 7, 1999] — Kenneth S. Ross), a Referee was appointed to conduct a hearing and file a report on formal charges against respondents.
Jorge Dopico, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel) for petitioner.
James J. Culleton, of counsel (Culleton, Marinaccio Foglia, attorneys) for respondent Nancy C. Ross.
David Godosky, of counsel (Godosky Gentile, attorneys) for respondent Kenneth S. Ross.
Before: Angela M. Mazzarelli, Justice Presiding, Alfred D. Lerner, Richard T. Andrias, John T. Buckley, David Friedman, Justices
OPINION OF THE COURT
Respondent, Kenneth S. Ross, was admitted to practice law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on April 12, 1989, as Kenneth Scott Ross. Respondent, Nancy C. Ross, was admitted to practice law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on April 13, 1992, as Nancy Campbell Ross. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondents maintained an office for the practice of law within and/or committed the acts in question within the First Judicial Department.
Pursuant to a Notice and Statement of Charges dated June 16, 1999, respondents were charged with violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4), 1-102(A)(5) and 1-102(A)(8). The facts underlying the charges, which are not disputed, indicate that Nancy C. Ross, at the request of her husband, Kenneth Ross, misused her position as an Assistant District Attorney in an attempt to undermine a traffic summons issued to him. In this attempt, Mrs. Ross improperly issued a Grand Jury notice to the police officer who issued the summons. This conduct resulted in Mrs. Ross' dismissal from the District Attorney's office and the imposition of a $1000 fine by the City of New York Conflict of Interest Board.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now moves for an order sanctioning respondents to the extent that this Court deems just. We agree with the conclusion reached by the hearing panel, namely, that the appropriate sanction, under the circumstances presented, is a public censure. Among other things, respondents' conduct appears to have been aberrational, as they had a previously unblemished record. Further, they immediately admitted their wrongdoing, cooperated with the investigation of their conduct, and expressed their remorse and contrition.
Accordingly, petitioner's motion should be granted and a sanction of public censure imposed.
All concur.
Petition granted to the extent of confirming the determination of the Hearing Panel, which confirmed the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the referee's report, and the Panel's recommended sanction and respondents publicly censured.