MATTER OF MERLYN E. BISSELL, 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 January 9, 1992, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Attica. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct including conversion. Respondent filed an answer denying certain 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, based in part upon the admissions of respondent, that he allowed the balances in his attorney trust accounts to fall below the amount of his clients’ interests and allowed negative balances to occur in the accounts. Additionally, he issued checks drawn against his attorney trust account payable to his own order that were not referenced to any particular client or matter, retained interest earned on clients’ funds and used clients’ funds for personal purposes. Finally, he engaged in representation involving a conflict of interest. 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, 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 5-101 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.20 [a]) - accepting or continuing employment if the exercise of his professional judgment on behalf of a client will be or reasonably may be affected by his own financial, business, property or personal interests; DR 5-105 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.24 [a]) - failing to decline proffered employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment on behalf of a client will be or is likely to involve him in representing differing interests; DR 5-105 (b) (22 NYCRR 1200.24 [b]) - continuing multiple employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment on behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by his representation of another client or if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing interests; DR 5-108 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.27 [a]) - representing a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of a former client without the consent of the former client after full disclosure; DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - misappropriating client funds and commingling client funds with personal funds; DR 9-102 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) - failing to maintain client funds in a special account separate from his business or personal accounts; DR 9-102 (b) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [2]) - failing to identify special bank accounts in a proper manner; DR 9-102 (d) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [d]) - failing to maintain required records of bank accounts; DR 9-102 (e) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [e]) - allowing non-attorneys to be authorized signatories of a special account; and DR 9-102 (i), (j) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [i], [j]) - failing to make available to petitioner financial records required to be maintained by the Disciplinary Rules. We have considered the matters submitted in mitigation, including that respondent did not permanently deprive any client of funds and has corrected his accounting procedures. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for two years and until further order of the Court (see Matter of Newman, ___ AD2d ___ [Mar. 21, 2003]; Matter of Morrison, 279 AD2d 246; Matter of Bennett, 265 AD2d 33). PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed May 2, 2003.)

MATTER OF JAMES P. BURD, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of censure entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 16, 1982, and maintains offices for the practice of law in Andover and Canisteo. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct arising from the maintenance and use of his trust accounts. Respondent filed an answer admitting certain material allegations of fact and outstanding issues of fact were resolved by amendments to the pleadings and by stipulation. Respondent deposited into his trust account checks received from a client and thereafter issued trust account checks on behalf of the client. The client’s checks that respondent accepted for deposit were dishonored for insufficient funds and, consequently, the checks issued by respondent on behalf of the client were drawn against the funds of another client. Additionally, respondent commingled clients’ funds with personal funds. 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; DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - 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 (c) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [4]) - failing to promptly pay or deliver as requested to a client or third person funds in his possession that the client or third person is entitled to receive; and DR 9-102 (d) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [d] [2]) - failing to maintain a record for special accounts showing the source and amount of funds deposited in the account and the names of persons to whom such funds were disbursed. We have considered, in mitigation, that when respondent issued trust account checks on behalf of a client for whom he had insufficient funds on deposit, he was attempting to assist the client, who was experiencing severe financial difficulties, and he did so after the client assured him that the checks deposited into respondent’s trust account were drawn against sufficient funds. Additionally, we note that respondent did not permanently deprive any client of funds, has corrected his accounting procedures and has a previously unblemished record. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured. PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, BURNS, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed May 2, 2003.)

MATTER OF ANGELO A. RINALDI, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of censure entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 9, 1992, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Syracuse. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct based upon his repeated failure to comply with attorney registration requirements. Respondent filed an answer admitting the allegations of the petition and appeared before this Court and submitted matters in mitigation. We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) - engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) - engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer. Additionally, respondent has violated Judiciary Law § 468-a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1. We have considered, in mitigation, respondent’s expression of extreme remorse and that respondent has satisfied outstanding attorney registration fees. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured. PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, BURNS, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed May 2, 2003.)

MATTER OF MICHAEL C. TRIMBOLI, 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, 1976, and formerly maintained an office for the practice of law in Buffalo. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct including misappropriation of funds. Respondent filed an answer admitting the material allegations of the petition, waived his right to appear before this Court, and submitted matters in mitigation through counsel. Respondent admits that, over a period of more than four years, he misappropriated funds in the total amount of $60,582 from his law firm’s operating account by issuing checks drawn on the account made payable to his personal credit card account or to petty cash and falsely noting on law firm check request forms that the expenditures were for office expenses and postage. We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 1-102 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [3]) - engaging in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) - engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) - engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer. Respondent has submitted, in mitigation, that he suffered from depression during the period when the misconduct occurred. The proof submitted by respondent, however, fails to establish a causal connection between the depression and his multiple thefts. We have considered that respondent made restitution and that he has a previously unblemished record. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for two years and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, BURNS, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed May 2, 2003.)

MATTER OF MICHAEL J. WALLACE, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 7, 1986, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Fayetteville. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct arising from the use and maintenance of his attorney trust account. Respondent filed an answer admitting the material allegations of the petition and appeared before this Court and submitted matters in mitigation. Respondent admitted that he made unauthorized withdrawals from his attorney trust account and used the funds to satisfy personal and business debt. 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; DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - misappropriating client funds and commingling client 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 (c) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [3]) - failing to maintain complete records of all funds of a client or third person coming into his possession and render appropriate accounts to the client or third person regarding them; and DR 9-102 (e) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [e]) - making withdrawals by bank transfer without obtaining prior written approval of the party entitled to the proceeds. We have considered, in mitigation, that respondent reported his misconduct to the Grievance Committee and funded an audit of his attorney trust account. No client was permanently deprived of funds or was aware that funds were used improperly. Additionally, we note the previously unblemished record of respondent after 17 years in practice, his expression of remorse and his cooperation with the Grievance Committee’s investigation. 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. PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., WISNER, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed May 2, 2003.)