MATTER OF BERNARD J. MC NAMEE, AN ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys (see, Matter of Manown, 240 AD2d 83).  PRESENT:  GREEN, J. P., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER AND BURNS, JJ.  (Filed Sept. 21, 2001.)

MATTER OF DAVID A. CURTIN, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT.  GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Resignation accepted, name stricken from roll of attorneys and order of restitution entered.  PRESENT:  GREEN, J. P., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER AND BURNS, JJ.  (Filed Dec. 21, 2001.)

MATTER OF ANDREW EMBURY, AN ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Resignation accepted and name stricken from roll of attorneys.  PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER AND BURNS, JJ.  (Filed Dec. 21, 2001.)

MATTER OF DAVID A. GAESSER, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT.  GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension and restitution entered.  Per Curiam Opinion:  Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on March 16, 1995, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Rochester.  The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct arising from his real estate practice.  Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition and raising matters in mitigation.  A Referee was appointed to conduct a hearing.  Prior to the hearing, the parties executed a stipulation resolving outstanding issues of fact.  After a hearing on mitigation, the Referee filed a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm. 

Respondent's admissions establish that respondent failed to supervise adequately a paralegal in his employ, neglected four real estate cases by failing in each case to discharge an existing mortgage in a timely manner, failed to maintain client funds and failed to maintain required bank account records.

We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee and conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) - engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer;

DR 1-104 (c) (22 NYCRR 1200.5 [c]) - failing to supervise adequately the work of a nonlawyer employee;

DR 6-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3]) - neglecting legal matters entrusted to him;

DR 9-102 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) - failing to maintain funds of a client in a special account separate from his business or personal accounts; and

DR 9-102 (d) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [d]) - failing to maintain required records of bank accounts.

We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation.  We note, however, that the misconduct of respondent entailed his failure to supervise a paralegal whom he continued to employ after learning that the paralegal and another attorney had engaged in misconduct similar to the misconduct herein (see, Matter of Bushorr, 274 AD2d 107) and after the paralegal had admitted to him that she had forged checks drawn on an attorney trust account.  Moreover, as a result of respondent's failing to maintain and preserve client funds, more than $110,000 in client funds remain unaccounted for.  Accordingly, after consideration of all the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for a period of three years and until further order of the Court.  Additionally, we direct respondent to make restitution in accordance with the order entered herewith.  PRESENT:  GREEN, J. P., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER AND BURNS, JJ.  (Filed Dec. 21, 2001.) 

MATTER OF ROBERT W. HOCK, FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW. -- Order entered terminating suspension and reinstating petitioner as an attorney and counselor at law.  PRESENT:  GREEN, J. P., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER AND BURNS, JJ.  (Filed Dec. 10, 2001.)

MATTER OF MARC C. PANEPINTO, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT.  GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. - - Order of suspension entered.  Per Curiam Opinion:  Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 18, 1998, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Buffalo.  On October 11, 2001, respondent was convicted upon his plea of guilty in Erie County Court of misconduct in relation to petitions (Election Law § 17-122 [7]), a misdemeanor.  Respondent admitted that he signed his name as subscribing witness to nominating petitions that were not signed in his presence and that contained fraudulent signatures.  Respondent was sentenced to payment of a fine.  This Court determined that misconduct in relation to petitions is a serious crime within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d), and, on October 31, 2001, entered an order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered.  Respondent appeared before the Court and submitted matters in mitigation.

We have considered the matters in mitigation, including respondent's expression of remorse and previously unblemished record.  Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for 30 days, effective October 31, 2001.  PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ.  (Filed Dec. 5, 2001.) 

MATTER OF JOHN W. STEINBACH, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT.  GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension and restitution entered.  Per Curiam Opinion:  Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 20, 1974, and formerly maintained an office for the practice of law in Cicero.  The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct including conversion.  Respondent filed an answer admitting the allegations of the petition and appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation.

Respondent admits that, as counsel for the sellers in a real estate transaction, he accepted a check from which he was to pay the broker's commission in the amount of $2,800.  He deposited the check into his attorney trust account and thereafter issued checks drawn on the trust account for personal purposes, causing the balance in the account to fall below the amount owed to the broker.  The broker obtained a judgment against respondent for the amount of the commission, which remains unsatisfied.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7])- engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer; and

DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - misappropriating funds belonging to another person that are in his possession incident to his practice of law.

We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including his expression of remorse.  We note, however, that financial difficulty does not justify or excuse conversion.  Accordingly, after consideration of all the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for a period of two years and until further order of the Court.  Additionally, we direct respondent to make restitution in accordance with the order entered herewith.  PRESENT:  GREEN, J. P., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER AND BURNS, JJ.  (Filed Dec. 21, 2001.)

MATTER OF HARRY NORMAN STONE, FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW. -- Order entered terminating suspension and reinstating petitioner to the practice of law.  PRESENT:  GREEN, J. P., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER AND BURNS, JJ.  (Filed Dec. 10, 2001.) 

MATTER OF DAVID H. WALSH, IV, RESPONDENT.  GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered.  Per Curiam Opinion:  Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 12, 1980, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Rochester.  The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with converting a client's funds that were entrusted to him while he was engaged in estate planning on behalf of the client.  Respondent admitted the material allegations of the petition and raised emotional and psychological problems as an affirmative defense.  A hearing was held on respondent's affirmative defense and the Referee filed a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm and respondent cross-moves to confirm in part.  Respondent appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation.

Respondent admits that he accepted $11,000 in cash on behalf of his client, noted the receipt of the funds on the file and, instead of depositing the funds into his firm's trust account, placed the cash in his desk.  He admits that he used $2,000 of the funds for personal purposes.

We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee and conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) - engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) - engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer;

DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - misappropriating client funds;

DR 9-102 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) - failing to maintain funds of a client in a special account separate from his business or personal accounts;

DR 9-102 (c) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [3]) - failing to maintain complete records of client funds and render appropriate accounts to the client regarding them; and

DR 9-102 (d) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [d]) - failing to maintain required records of bank accounts.

In mitigation, we have considered the previously unblemished record of respondent, his cooperation with the Grievance Committee's investigation and his prompt payment of restitution.  Additionally, we note that the misconduct occurred during a period when respondent was experiencing emotional and psychological problems.  Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for a period of six months and until further order of the Court.  PRESENT:  PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ.  (Filed Dec. 21, 2001.)