Medina v. Napoli
49 A.D.3d 1145
N.Y. App. Div.
2008
Check Treatment

In the Matter of KEVIN R. HALL, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, Petitioner.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

February 21, 2008

854 NYS2d 580 | 49 AD3d 1146

Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1993. He maintained an office for the practice of law in the Town of Kinderhook, Columbia County. He is currently suspended from practice (, lv denied ).

Petitioner moves to confirm a Referee‘s report issued after a hearing which sustained the allegations set forth in the petition of charges. Respondent has submitted an affidavit to confirm in part and disaffirm in part the Referee‘s report and in support of his reinstatement to practice.

Respondent is guilty of serious professional misconduct. As charged in the petition, he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in contravention of this Court‘s 2004 order of suspension and the November 2004 reciprocal order of suspension issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (see Judiciary Law § 90 [2]; §§ 478, 484, 486; Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [4], [5], [7]; DR 3-101 [b] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (4), (5), (7); 1200.16 (b)]; 22 NYCRR 806.9). We find without merit respondent‘s arguments set forth in his answer to the petition and in response to the Referee‘s report, including his supplemental papers.

Petitioner cites respondent‘s disciplinary record in aggravation of his professional misconduct. In June 2003, this Court suspended respondent from practice for one year, but stayed the suspension upon conditions (). In September 2004, we suspended respondent from practice for a period of three years, which suspension continues to date (). In addition, petitioner orally admonished respondent in 1998 and issued letters of admonition to him in 2000, 2002 and 2005.

We conclude that to protect the public, deter similar misconduct, and preserve the reputation of the bar, respondent should be disbarred.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.