AD DECISIONS OF FEBRUARY 7, 2001

MATTER OF ROBERT W. HOCK, A SUSPENDED 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 the Appellate Division, Second Department, on July 24, 1991, and formerly maintained an office for the practice of law in Liverpool.

Respondent was suspended by this Court for one year, by order entered June 16, 2000, for acts of professional misconduct arising from his conduct as counsel to a plaintiff in a personal injury action. Respondent submitted a false expert disclosure statement and made false statements to the trial court and to defense counsel regarding the availability and prospective testimony of an expert witness (see, Matter of Hock, 274 AD2d 130).

The Grievance Committee subsequently filed a petition charging respondent with submitting a false expert disclosure statement in another personal injury action. Respondent's submission of the false expert disclosure statement occurred within two weeks of the misconduct that formed the basis of respondent's suspension. Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition, and a Referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. Outstanding issues of fact were resolved by stipulation, and the hearing was conducted on matters in mitigation. The Referee filed a report that the Grievance Committee moves to confirm.

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

DR 7-106 (c) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.37 [c] [7]) - intentionally violating an established rule of procedure in appearing as a lawyer before a tribunal.

Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for one year, effective June 16, 2000, and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER AND KEHOE, JJ. (Filed Feb. 7, 2001.)

MATTER OF CHRISTOS G. LADAS, 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 10, 1991, and maintained an office for the practice of law in West Seneca. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct, including converting estate funds. Respondent filed an answer admitting the material allegations of the petition, and appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation.

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 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - commingling client funds with personal funds; and

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.

We have considered the matters in mitigation submitted by respondent, including the fact that respondent has made restitution. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for two years and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: PINE, J. P., WISNER, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER AND KEHOE, JJ. (Filed Feb. 7, 2001.)

MATTER OF MICHAEL B. RUDIN, 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 January 13, 1970, and maintained 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 use and maintenance of his attorney trust account. 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 submitted to the Referee a statement in lieu of testimony on matters in mitigation.

The Referee filed a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm and respondent cross-moves to disaffirm in part.

The Referee found that respondent used his attorney trust account to pay certain law-office related expenses; that he issued checks drawn on the trust account that were payable to cash; that he disbursed funds from the trust account prior to making corresponding deposits; and that he allowed the balance in the trust account to fall below zero.

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 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - commingling client funds with personal 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; and

DR 9-102 (e) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [e]) - issuing trust account checks made payable to cash rather than to a named payee.

We have considered the matters in mitigation, including the fact that no client suffered a permanent loss as a result of respondent's misconduct. We note, however, that respondent's extensive disciplinary history is an aggravating factor. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., GREEN, HAYES, HURLBUTT AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Feb. 7, 2001).

MATTER OF KEITH R. WOLFE, FOR REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. -- Order of reinstatement entered. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Jan. 17, 2001.)