 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Santalone11/19/2002
for his claim that he had rejected other offers of cases from Connor, suggests the opposite of mitigation. When he made the arrangement with Connor on the phone, he did not know anything about Connor, the name of the client who allegedly referred Connor to him, or any other details. He didn't know until after he was arrested that there had not been any such accident.
The Hearing Panel, in its determination, stated: There can be no doubt that the respondent's admitted misconduct was willful and that it constituted serious misconduct that warrants a suspension from the practice of law. Having considered, however, respondent's arguments in mitigation and, more specifically, the facts that respondent's misconduct was limited to one incident and that his record as a lawyer has been otherwise without blemish, the Panel recommends that the Referee's Recommendation of a six-month suspension be modified and that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months.
Matter of Setareh (264 AD2d 146) involves the same conduct which constitutes a violation of DR 2-103(b) and DR 1-102(a)(5). There, we imposed a sanction of public censure. This case is different in that it lacks the mitigating factors present in Setareh. There, respondent was a troubled inexperienced young lawyer. Here, respondent graduated from law school in 1987, almost ten years before the illicit arrangement with Connor. He was admitted in 1991. At the time of this incident, he had a profitable practice. On the other hand, Setareh, at the time of (*5)the two incidents, had been a member of the bar only twenty months, having been admitted in February 1995.
Here, respondent, at the time he paid Connor for the referral, was not experiencing any health or psychological problems, or any pressing financial concerns. He had been admitted to practice law more than five and one-half years, and was sufficiently experienced to suggest to the informant a scale of payment based upon whether surgery was required. Respondent has engaged in no significant public or pro bono service. In any event, we believe that in these cases of willful and serious misconduct, suspension, not censure, is the appropriate sanction.
Accordingly, the petition for an order confirming the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Referee's report and the determination of the Hearing Panel should be granted and respondent suspended for three months. Respondent's cross-motion to confirm in part and disaffirm in part the determination of the Hearing Panel should be granted except to the extent it seeks disaffirmance of the finding that he violated DR 1-102(a)(5).
All concur.
Order filed.
|