Opinion
March 22, 1993
Upon remittitur, it is
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent Robert T. Rowe is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,
Ordered that the application by the respondent's counsel to hold in abeyance this Court's determination on remittitur pending determination of a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States is denied; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys ( 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 the respondent Robert T. Rowe is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.
Upon review of the remaining seven charges of professional misconduct purusant to the Court of Appeals directive that the issue of discipline be reconsidered, we reaffirm our original determination and disbar the respondent from the practice of law. The Court of Appeal's modification of this Court's order of January 15, 1992, by deleting the final charge of the petition, which alleged a technical violation of this Court's order of suspension, dated October 27, 1978, does not warrant the imposition of a less stringent sanction.
Reinstatement of the respondent to the practice of law would clearly undermine public confidence and trust in the Bar and have an adverse impact upon the public's perception of the integrity of the legal profession in view of his actions in bludgeoning his wife and three minor children to death, his conviction of the crime of escape in the first degree while suspended, his failure to file an affidavit of compliance with the terms of his suspension pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10 (f), and his failure to file a record of his conviction with this Court as required by Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (c). "Our duty in these circumstances is to impose discipline, not as punishment, but to protect the public in its reliance upon the presumed integrity and responsibility of lawyers, and we are called upon to adjudicate respondent's fitness to continue in the profession" (Matter of Kahn, 38 A.D.2d 115, 124, affd 31 N.Y.2d 752).
We find the respondent's misconduct sufficiently grave as to warrant his disbarment and to preclude his restoration to the practice of law. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.