Matter of Wallen
50 N.Y.S.3d 75
N.Y. App. Div.
2017
Check Treatment

In the Matter of Wesley G. Wallen (Admitted as Wesley Gersham Wallen), an Attorney, Respondent. Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York

March 28, 2017

50 N.Y.S.3d 75

First Department, March 28, 2017

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York City (Norma I. Lopez of counsel), for petitioner.

Wesley G. Wallen, respondent pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Wesley G. Wallen was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on August 10, 1992, under the name Wesley Gersham Wallen.* His last registered business address was in the First Judicial Department.

The Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) moves for an order under Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.10, accepting respondent‘s resignation from the practice of law and striking his name from the roll of attorneys. Respondent‘s affidavit of resignation, sworn to on January 19, 2017, complies with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 1240.10.

First, respondent states that his resignation is freely and voluntarily rendered, without coercion or duress by anyone, and with full awareness of its consequences (see 22 NYCRR 1240.10 [a] [1]). Next, respondent acknowledges that he is the subject of an investigation by the Committee based on allegations of professional misconduct. Respondent specifically acknowledges that the investigation is based on his allegedly misappropriating client funds in connection with a real estate transaction and he states the client‘s identity and the amount misappropriated (see 22 NYCRR 1240.10 [b] [1]-[2]). Finally, respondent admits that he cannot successfully defend against the allegations under investigation by the Committee (see 22 NYCRR 1240.10 [a] [2]).

The Committee agrees that respondent‘s affidavit is compliant with the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters. Moreover, the Committee acknowledges that respondent has made restitution under Judiciary Law § 90 (6-a) and represents that further restitution is unnecessary (see 22 NYCRR 1240.10 [b] [3]). The Committee recommends that respondent‘s resignation be accepted.

In light of respondent‘s compliant affidavit and the Committee‘s support, we accept respondent‘s resignation.

Accordingly, the Committee‘s motion should be granted, and respondent‘s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective nunc pro tunc to January 19, 2017.

Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ., concur.

Respondent‘s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, nunc pro tunc to January 19, 2017.

Notes

*
* He is also admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.