 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Siegel11/7/2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
(*1)
M-2658
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, as Richard Herbert Siegel was admitted to the Bar at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on August 6, 1974.
(*2)
Motion No. 2658 - June 10, 2002
In the Matter of Richard H. Siegel, An Attorney
Respondent Richard H. Siegel was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on August 6, 1974, as Richard Herbert Siegel. At all times relevant to this proceeding he maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
On July 11, 2001, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the "DDC") served respondent with a notice and statement of charges dated May 21, 2001, alleging violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (DR 1-102 , DR 1-102 , DR 6-101 ), based upon his alleged neglect of two client matters, failure to cooperate with the DDC in its investigation of those matters, and affirmative misrepresentations made to the DDC, the court, and his clients regarding them. One of those two matters was a personal injury action commenced in Supreme Court, Kings County in which respondent represented plaintiff Francisco Gines; the other matter involved the defense of his client, Jay Sincoff, on a claim brought against Sincoff by the New York State Higher Education Services Corporation.
At the hearing held before a Referee, it was established that the personal injury action respondent first commenced on behalf of Francisco Gines was deemed dismissed on August 3, 1994, due to respondent's failure to file proof of service with the Clerk's office (former CPLR 306-b). The new action he recommenced on March 31, 1995 under a new index number was similarly deemed dismissed on July 31, 1995 for failure to file proof of service (id.); however, respondent offered evidence that in fact his employee had filed an affirmation of service with the Clerk's office. (*3) Unaware of the second dismissal, the parties proceeded with the litigation. After respondent failed to comply with his adversary's demand for a bill of particulars and certain other discovery demands, his adversary proceeded to seek dismissal on grounds of abandonment under CPLR 3216(b)(3). Defense counsel discovered that Gines's action had already been dismissed under CPLR 306-b when the court rejected the dismissal motion on the ground that the action had already been deemed dismissed. Believing this dismissal to be based upon a clerical error, respondent informed his adversary that he would clear up the situation. However, respondent made no motion to reinstate the action until July 2001, six years after the dismissal. Although respondent testified that he had telephoned the Clerk's office to inquire about the error and was informed that he would have to come down to the office, he offered no evidence establishing that he followed up any further.
When Mr. Gines complained to the DDC in March, 1999 about respondent's neglect of his case, the DDC forwarded his complaint letter to respondent on April 15, 1999 and demanded a response. Respondent's answering letter inaccurately asserted that all pre-trial proceedings had been completed except for depositions, when in fact he had not served either his bill of particulars or certain documents demanded. Subsequently, in response to a motion by the DDC, respondent filed an affirmation containing a similar misstatement regarding the work he
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.
|
|