APPELLATE DIVISION DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS OF  NOVEMBER 13, 2000

The Referee found and respondent admits that he made misrepresentations to a client regarding the status of a lawsuit and prepared documents and advanced funds in furtherance of the misrepresentations; that he engaged in a sexual relationship with the client during the course of the attorney-client relationship; that he prepared a will for the client designating himself as executor and guardian of the property of the client's infant son without making required disclosures regarding the potential conflict of interest; and that he neglected another client's criminal matter.

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) (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 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 5-103 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.22 [b] [1]) - advancing or guaranteeing financial assistance to a client while representing the client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation; and

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

In mitigation, respondent presented testimony that he was suffering from four medical disorders, including bipolar disorder, at the time that the misconduct occurred. He contends that the Referee ignored the medical evidence presented at the hearing. It appears, however, that the Referee, after consideration of the proof, declined to find that the illness of respondent excused his misconduct. After consideration of all of the factors in this matter, including the evidence in mitigation, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for one year and until further order of this Court. Additionally, we direct that respondent, in any application for reinstatement, must establish to the satisfaction of the Court that he possesses the requisite mental capacity to resume the practice of law. PRESENT: PINE, J. P., HAYES, HURLBUTT, BALIO AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Nov. 13, 2000.)

MATTER OF JOSEPH DI NARDO, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. -- Order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f). PRESENT: PINE, J. P., HAYES, WISNER, HURLBUTT AND SCUDDER, JJ. (Filed Oct. 25, 2000.)

MATTER OF PAUL J. HEILIGENTHALER, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. -- A certified copy of a certificate having been filed showing that Paul J. Heiligenthaler was convicted of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, he is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys. PRESENT: PINE, J. P., HAYES, WISNER, HURLBUTT AND SCUDDER, JJ. (Filed Oct. 25, 2000.)

MATTER OF WILLIAM J. SEDOR, 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 July 13, 1994, and maintained an office for the practice of law in Rochester. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct. Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition, and a Referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. Certain issues of fact were resolved by stipulation and the hearing was conducted with respect to outstanding issues of fact. The Referee filed a report that the Grievance Committee moves to confirm in part and respondent cross-moves to confirm in part.

The Referee found that respondent falsely notarized documents, arranged loans between clients, and represented the buyer and seller in the sale of a business without making required disclosures regarding the potential conflict of interest.

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) (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 5-105 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.24 [a]) - failing to decline proffered employment if the exercise of his independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the acceptance of the proffered employment, or if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing interests; and

DR 7-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.33 [a] [5]) - knowingly making a false statement of fact in his representation of a client.

We have considered the matters in mitigation presented by respondent at the hearing, including the measures taken by him to correct deficient office procedures with respect to the handling of affidavits of service. Additionally, we note that respondent has no disciplinary history. We have also considered, however, respondent's lack of candor at the hearing. After consideration of all of the circumstances, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for six months and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., HAYES, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER AND BALIO, JJ. (Filed Nov. 13, 2000.)