MATTER OF KENNETH L. BENNETT, FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW. -- Order entered terminating suspension and reinstating petitioner to the practice of law. PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, BURNS, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed Mar. 21, 2003.)

MATTER OF H. RONALD BUTTARAZZI, AN ATTORNEY, 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 September 18, 1979, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Rochester. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct, including entering into agreements for excessive fees, and charging and collecting such fees. Respondent filed an answer denying the material allegations of the petition, and a referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. The Referee filed a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm and respondent cross-moves to disaffirm. The Referee found that respondent charged and collected excessive fees from his clients. He used mixed fee agreements providing for the payment of fixed fees, fees billed at hourly rates and fees calculated on a contingency basis without providing that any part of the fee was refundable, and, in a medical malpractice matter, respondent’s retainer agreement provided that the clients were entitled to no refund, regardless of case outcome. Additionally, a form retainer agreement and statement of clients’ rights used by respondent in a domestic relations matter failed to contain required language regarding mandatory fee arbitration and the client’s rights to cancel the agreement and to receive billing statements at regular intervals. 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 2-106 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [a]) - entering into an agreement for, charging or collecting an illegal or excessive fee; DR 2-106 (c) (2) (ii) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [c] [2] [ii]) - entering into an arrangement for, charging or collecting a fee in a domestic relations matter without a written retainer agreement signed by the lawyer and client setting forth in plain language the nature of the relationship and the details of the fee arrangement; DR 2-106 (c) (2) (iii) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [c] [2] [iii]) - entering into an arrangement for, charging or collecting a fee in a domestic relations matter that is based upon a security interest, confession of judgment or other lien without prior notice to the client in a signed retainer agreement and approval from a tribunal after notice to the adversary; DR 2-106 (c) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [c] [3]) - entering into an agreement for, charging or collecting a fee proscribed by law or rule of court; DR 2-106 (e) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [e]) - failing to resolve a fee dispute in a civil matter by arbitration at the election of the client pursuant to a fee arbitration program established by the Chief Administrator of the Courts and approved by the justices of the Appellate Divisions; DR 2-106 (f) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [f]) - failing to provide a prospective client in a domestic relations matter with a statement of client’s rights and responsibilities at the initial conference and prior to the signing of a written retainer agreement; DR 2-110 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.15 [a] [3]) - withdrawing from employment without refunding promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned; DR 9-102 (c) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [1]) - failing to notify a client promptly of the receipt of funds in which the client has an interest; and DR 9-102 (c) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [4]) - failing to pay promptly to the client as requested by the client funds in the possession of the lawyer that the client is entitled to receive. Additionally, we find that respondent violated rules setting forth procedures for attorneys in domestic relations matters by failing to provide a client with a proper statement of client’s rights and responsibilities (22 NYCRR 1400.2); failing to execute a proper written retainer agreement (22 NYCRR 1400.3); and taking a lien on real property to secure his fee without providing notice to the client’s spouse or obtaining court approval (22 NYCRR 1400.5). We have considered the matters submitted in mitigation, including that respondent has reduced his hourly rates, revised his forms used for retainer agreements in domestic relations matters and discontinued his use of mixed fee arrangements. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for six months and until further order of the Court. Additionally, respondent is directed to make restitution to his clients in the amounts set forth in the order entered herewith. PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Mar. 21, 2003.)

MATTER OF WILLIE R. FELTON, FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW. -- Order entered dismissing application for reinstatement. Memorandum: Petitioner, in his five applications to this Court, has failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he has complied with the order of disbarment, that he has the requisite character and fitness to practice law or that it would be in the public interest to reinstate him. PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, BURNS, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed Mar. 21, 2003.)

MATTER OF ROBERT C. NEWMAN, AN 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, 1981, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Arcade. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct including conversion. Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition, and a referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. Prior to the hearing, the parties executed a stipulation resolving outstanding issues of fact. Respondent appeared before this Court and submitted matters in mitigation. Respondent allowed the balance in his attorney trust account to fall below the amount of his clients’ interests, allowed negative balances to occur in the account and issued a check drawn on the account that was dishonored for insufficient funds. He issued trust account checks payable to his own order and made cash deposits into the account with no reference to the source or purpose of the deposits. Additionally, respondent paid himself an advance legal fee from the funds of an estate without prior court approval and without the knowledge of the executor of the estate. He has not reimbursed the estate to date. We 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; DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) - engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) - engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer; DR 6-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3]) - neglecting legal matters entrusted to him; DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - misappropriating clients’ funds and commingling clients’ funds with personal funds; DR 9-102 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) - failing to maintain clients’ funds in a special account separate from his business or personal accounts; DR 9-102 (d) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [d] [1]) - failing to maintain required records of bank accounts; DR 9-102 (e) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [e]) - allowing non-attorneys as signatories on a special account; and DR 9-102 (i) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [i]) - failing to produce, in response to a subpoena issued in connection with the Grievance Committee’s investigation, financial records required by the disciplinary rules to be maintained. We have considered the matters submitted in mitigation. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be suspended from practice for two years and until further order of the Court (see Matter of Morrison, 279 AD2d 246; Matter of Bennett, 265 AD2d 33). Additionally, we direct respondent to make restitution in the amount set forth in the order entered herewith. PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, BURNS, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed Mar. 21, 2003.)

MATTER OF ERIC G. PAUL, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. -- Order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f) and (g). PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Mar. 14, 2003.)

MATTER OF TIMOTHY J. TOOHEY, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. -- Order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f) and (g). PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Mar. 5, 2003.)