OPINION OF THE COURT
Rеspondent David B. Tepper was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Depart
The various charges leading to this disciplinary mattеr all arise from either respondent’s inadequate bookkeeping in connection with his еscrow account, other bookkeeping irregularities, or his commingling of escrow funds without, hоwever, any venal intent or result. Respondent was served with a notice and statement of сharges on or about June 19, 2000, and an amended notice and statement of charges dated September 20, 2000, which alleged that respondent had engaged in the nonvenal conversiоn of client funds when he used one client’s funds in his IOLA account for the benefit of another client in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102 (b) (22 NYCRR 1200.46); that he failed to deposit client funds in an attorney escrow account in violation of DR 9-102 (b) (1); that he commingled his personal funds with client funds in viоlation of DR 9-102 (a) and (b) (1); that he wrote checks payable to cash in violation of DR 9-102 (e); and that he failed to maintain the required bookkeeping records of his escrow acсount in violation of DR 9-102 (d) (1), (2) and (8). By answer dated September 21, 2000, respondent admitted most of the faсtual allegations. A Referee was appointed by this Court and conducted a hearing on September 27, 2000, after which the Referee sustained all charges and accepted testimony regarding the appropriate sanction. In mitigation, respondent testified to his fаmily problems as an explanation for depositing personal funds, consisting largely of his inheritance from his father, in the escrow account in order to shield and protect those funds, аnd his ignorance of bookkeeping requirements as an explanation for his accоunting transgressions and the improper use of funds held in escrow. Respondent also called thrеe character witnesses. Although the Referee found that the character witnesses had provided “comparatively strong proof of respondent’s integrity as a lawyer and сompetence in their common field of law,” and that there was no evidence of vеnality and no losses were suffered by any of the parties affected by respondent’s actions, nevertheless respondent also demonstrated flagrant irresponsibility in his bookkeeрing and check writing. The Referee recommended, as a sanction, a two-year suspension from the practice of law. A Hearing Panel convened and heard argument. In its Marсh 23, 2001 report, the Panel
Thе Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order confirming the findings of fact and сonclusions of law of the Referee and Hearing Panel and imposing a two-year suspеnsion. By cross motion dated July 13, 2001, respondent seeks an order confirming in part and disaffirming in part. Thе latter relief is premised on purported factual omissions and inaccuracies, claims we reject on our reading of the record. Respondent also requests that, if suspеnsion is imposed, he be allowed to apply for reinstatement before expiration of the period of suspension.
In view of the clear record evidence, including respondent’s own admissions in this regard, we grant the motion to confirm. Moreover, we also find the sanction to be appropriate in such a case of escrow account boоkkeeping irregularities and careless and nonvenal invasions of client funds for personal or business uses (Matter of Semple,
Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Saxe, JJ., concur.
Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for a period of two years, effective October 26, 2001, and until the further order of this Court. Cross motion denied.