 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Lieberman6/22/1998
THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
DISCIPLINARY proceeding instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts. The respondent was admitted to the practice of law on March 13, 1968, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. By order of this court dated December 2, 1996, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(ii) and (iii), upon a finding that he was guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon certain admissions under oath and uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him, and the issues raised in the proceeding were referred to the Honorable Robert T. Groh, as Special Referee to hear and report.
The respondent was served with a petition dated September 23, 1996, which contained 14 charges of professional misconduct against him. The Special Referee sustained all 14 charges. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee's report. The respondent has neither cross-moved nor submitted any papers in response thereto.
Charges One through Ten concern the respondent's handling of the estate of Herbert Ring and matters which came to the Grievance Committee's attention during its investigation of a complaint relating thereto.
Charge One alleged that the respondent converted to his own use funds which were entrusted to him as a fiduciary, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102(B) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 ). In March 1992 the respondent was retained to act as attorney for the estate of Herbert Ring. On August 17, 1992, the respondent deposited $10,789.82 into his escrow account with Chemical Bank on behalf of the estate. On October 8, 1992, the respondent deposited $20,496.57 on behalf of the estate into the same account. Therefore, between October 8, 1992, and December 10, 1992, the respondent was required to maintain $31,286.39 on deposit in his escrow account on behalf of the estate of Herbert Ring. As of December 10, 1992, the escrow account had been depleted to $1,624.54.
Charge Two alleged that the respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 ), based on the factual allegations of Charge One.
Charge Three alleged that the respondent commingled personal funds with moneys entrusted to him as a fiduciary and incident to his practice of law, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102(A) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 ). Between July 1992 and August 1996, the respondent maintained an escrow account with Chemical Bank. During that period, the respondent deposited into that account both moneys which had been entrusted to him as a fiduciary incident to his practice of law, and funds which he had received as legal fees.
Charge Four alleged that the respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects upon his fitness to practice law, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(8) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 ), based on the factual allegations of Charges One and Three.
Charge Five alleged that the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of Justice, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 ). By letter dated October 25, 1994, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent with a copy of a complaint from Jill Ring, alleging misconduct in the handling of the estate of her
Page 1 2 3 New York Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|