86 A.D.2d 344 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1982
OPINION OF THE COURT
Petitioner Departmental Disciplinary Committee moves to confirm a hearing panel majority decision recommending a one-year suspension from the practice of law or, in the alternative, to confirm said hearing panel majority decision directing that respondent Stephen A. Miller be disbarred from the practice of law.
Respondent was admitted to practice as an attorney in June of 1968 by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Judicial Department. Until 1978, and at all times relevant to the instant proceeding, he maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
On November 8, 1979, respondent submitted an answer admitting the allegations contained in the charges brought against him by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. In these charges, he was accused of having knowingly converted to his own use a
Respondent was also charged with having failed to return unearned fees in that he did not set up the fore-mentioned trust fund nor invest the principal sum in his capacity as trustee. In addition, it was alleged that he did not co-operate with the Committee on Grievances and made knowing misrepresentations of fact.
Based upon his admissions, respondent was found guilty of professional misconduct in violation of sections DR 1-102 (A) (4) and (5), DR 9-102 (A) and (B) (4), DR 6-101 (A) (3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and section 603.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (22 NYCRR 603.4). Respondent, at the hearing held by the Committee on Grievances on November 8, 1979, stated that while he did not wish to defend the charges against him and was fully aware that there was no excuse for his actions, offered in mitigation the fact that he had suffered from a serious gambling problem at the time the events complained of occurred. He further testified that he did not then have control of himself, his family was being threatened, and he was attempting to pay back people and institutions and maintain intact his family unit.
Since Matter of Marks (72 AD2d 399) this court has consistently held that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conversion. (See, also, Matter of Field, 79 AD2d
Respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation and, consequently, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee’s motion to confirm the findings of fact and conclusions of law is granted to the extent of confirming respondent’s guilt and ordering that respondent be disbarred and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law.
Sandler, J. P., Carro, Lupiano, Bloom and Milonas, JJ., concur.
Respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York.