Matter of Stenstrom

6 Citing cases

  1. PEOPLE v. MUTO

    66 P.3d 1276 (Colo. 2003)

    Respondent, who already has a substantial disciplinary history based on neglect of client matters during an earlier period of his career, has been proven in this proceeding to have neglected the representation of no less than 17 clients in matters of the gravest significance, involving possible loss of their personal liberty and deportation. Through this "long-standing pattern of insensitivity to his legal and ethical obligations, . . . respondent has shown himself to be unfit to continue in the practice of law" (Matter of Hunter, 120 A.D.2d 214, 220; see also,Matter of Evangelista, 233 A.D.2d 1; Matter of Kranis, 219 A.D.2d 278,lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 805; Matter of Stenstrom, 194 A.D.2d 277). In the words of the Hearing Panel, respondent "is a danger to any client who might retain him."

  2. In re Muto

    291 A.D.2d 188 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)   Cited 9 times

    Respondent, who already has a substantial disciplinary history based on neglect of client matters during an earlier period of his career, has been proven in this proceeding to have neglected the representation of no less than 17 clients in matters of the gravest significance, involving possible loss of their personal liberty and deportation. Through this "long-standing pattern of insensitivity to his legal and ethical obligations, . . . respondent has shown himself to be unfit to continue in the practice of law" (Matter of Hunter, 120 A.D.2d 214, 220; see also, Matter of Evangelista, 233 A.D.2d 1; Matter of Kranis, 219 A.D.2d 278, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 805; Matter of Stenstrom, 194 A.D.2d 277). In the words of the Hearing Panel, respondent "is a danger to any client who might retain him."

  3. Matter of Carrigan

    283 A.D.2d 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 1 times

    Respondent, however, has not demonstrated that he has overcome his addiction to cocaine. By delegating to his paralegal his responsibility to finalize an estate and by failing to supervise the paralegal, which resulted in a loss to the estate of an amount in excess of $80,000, respondent has "abdicat[ed] his responsibility to manage his law practice" ( Matter of Stenstrom, 194 A.D.2d 277, 280). Moreover, the conduct of respondent in continuing to operate a law practice after being served with this Court's order of suspension constitutes criminal contempt of court (see, Judiciary Law § 750 [A] [3]; Matter of Foley, 240 A.D.2d 64, 66; see also, Matter of Michalek, 180 A.D.2d 67). Finally, the failure of respondent to file any papers or to appear in response to the motion to confirm the Referee's report evinces the same lack of interest that he has demonstrated from the onset of this proceeding.

  4. Matter of Gilbert

    268 A.D.2d 67 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 11 times

    In his response, respondent does not dispute the factual findings of the New Jersey Supreme Court. With respect to the July 1996 order, the commingling of trust account funds with personal funds, in violation of NJRPC § 1.15(c), clearly violates DR 9-102(A) of the Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent's failure to record certain disbursements from a trust account, in violation of NJRPC §§ 1.15(d) and 1.21-6 constitutes a violation of DR 9-102(D)(1). Finally, respondent's negligent misappropriation of client trust funds, in violation of NJRPC § 1.15(a), violates DR 9-102(A) and (B). Furthermore, by stipulation, respondent admitted that he failed to adequately supervise the record-keeping duties of his firm's lay employees, in violation of NJRPC §§ 5.3(a), (b) and (c), which constitutes a violation of DR 1-104(A)(2) as of the time of the misconduct (see, Matter of Stenstrom, 194 A.D.2d 277). With respect to the 1999 order, the New Jersey Supreme Court's finding that respondent violated NJRPC 1.15(b) in failing to promptly return the funds of a third person and wrongfully placing a lien on funds belonging to that third person constitutes a violation of DR 9-102(C)(4). Furthermore, the misconduct prohibited by NJRPC § 4.4 is prohibited by DR 7-102(A)(2), which states that, in the representation of a client, a lawyer must not "file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another."

  5. Matter of Parker

    241 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 5 times

    The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order confirming the Hearing Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and imposing at least a three-month suspension as a sanction. In support of the motion, the Committee's counsel points out, as it did to the Panel, that, in similar cases where an attorney aided a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law, other Departments have imposed sanctions ranging from a one-year suspension to disbarment ( see, Matter of Raskin, 217 A.D.2d 187; Matter of Stenstrom, 194 A.D.2d 277; Matter of Kuriakose, 171 A.D.2d 358), but agrees with the Panel that respondent's misconduct was significantly less blameworthy than the conduct of the attorneys in the above-cited cases and, therefore, his suspension should be shorter. In response, respondent requests that this Court be more lenient in imposing a sanction and impose an admonition or public censure.

  6. Matter of Capobianco

    241 A.D.2d 63 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

    The misconduct of respondent, including his neglect of client matters, demonstrates his complete indifference to the needs of his clients and his lack of understanding of a lawyer's ethical obligations to clients. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be disbarred (see, Matter of Stenstrom, 194 A.D.2d 277). We further direct that respondent make restitution in the amounts found by the Referee, with the exception of the finding regarding the restitution for which a civil judgment has already been entered.