AD DECISIONS OF SEPT 28 2001

MATTER OF MARK DAVID BLUM, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. -- 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 Fayetteville. This Court, upon receipt of a certified copy of disciplinary decision and order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (District Court) suspending respondent for a period of two years, effective April 30, 2001, directed respondent, by order entered April 23, 2001, to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22. Respondent appeared, pro se , before this Court and argued that he was denied due process in the District Court proceeding, that there was a substantial failure of proof in the District Court proceeding and that the imposition of reciprocal discipline would be unjust. Respondent also raised matters in mitigation. Respondent was disciplined by the District Court for lying to a District Court Judge during the course of a trial, in violation of rules 1-102 (A) (4), (5), (6); 7-102 (a) (5); and 7- 106 (6) of the American Bar Association's Model Code of Professional Responsibility (Model Code) and for making false representations to a client concerning a District Court Magistrate, in violation of rule 8-102 (B) of the Model Code. Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22, this Court may discipline an attorney disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction for the underlying misconduct unless we find that the procedure in the foreign jurisdiction deprived the attorney of due process of law, that there was insufficient proof that the attorney committed the misconduct or that the imposition of discipline would be unjust. Upon our review of the record and consideration of the material submitted by respondent, we find that respondent was not deprived of due process of law in the District Court proceeding. Respondent was given notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard. We also find that there was sufficient proof that the attorney committed the misconduct. There is no material dispute concerning the underlying facts. Finally, we find that the imposition of reciprocal discipline would not be unjust. By his conduct, respondent has demonstrated a disregard and disrespect for the judiciary, and there is an absence of genuine remorse. After consideration of all the factors in this matter, including respondent's previously unblemished record, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for a period of 18 months and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., PINE, WISNER, SCUDDER AND BURNS, JJ. (Filed Sept. 28, 2001.)

MATTER OF BRUCE R. FENWICK, AN ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Resignation accepted and name stricken from roll of attorneys. PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER AND BURNS, JJ. (Filed Sept. 28, 2001.)

MATTER OF ANTHONY F. LEONARDO, JR., A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. -- A certified copy of a certificate having been filed showing that Anthony F. Leonardo, Jr. was convicted of conspiracy in the second degree, he is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, SCUDDER AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Sept. 12, 2001.)

MATTER OF SAMUEL A. MARINO, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Resignation accepted and name stricken from roll of attorneys. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Sept. 28, 2001.)

MATTER OF JONATHAN I. RAPOPORT, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. -- Order of disbarment entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on March 7, 1975. On February 14, 2001, he was convicted in the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut of three counts of risk of injury to a minor, in violation of Connecticut General Statute § 53-21 (a) (2), a class C felony. On May 7, 2001, respondent was sentenced to three consecutive 10-year terms of imprisonment, with the execution of the sentence to be suspended after three years, followed by a term of probation of 30 years and lifetime registration as a sex offender. By order entered May 30, 2001, this Court suspended respondent and directed him to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a) and (e). Respondent filed a letter in response to the order to show cause, stating that he would not contest the matter in this Court. The Grievance Committee filed an affirmation in support of the position that if committed in New York, respondent's conduct would constitute sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). This Court thereafter determined that there is no corresponding felony in New York. Respondent has been convicted of three felony offenses involving sexual contact with young victims. He failed to contest this proceeding or provide to this Court any mitigating factors. Accordingly, we conclude that he should be disbarred. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Sept. 28, 2001.)

MATTER OF GEORGE A. SCHELL, JR., 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 14, 1994, and maintained an office for the practice of law in Fairport. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct arising from his misappropriation of law firm retainer funds. Respondent filed an answer admitting the 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; and DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) - engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer. We note in mitigation that the misconduct occurred at a time when respondent was suffering from depression and the side effects of medication that was prescribed for his depression. Additionally, we note that respondent admitted the misconduct, made restitution and cooperated with the Grievance Committee's investigation. Finally, we have considered respondent's previously unblemished record and commitment to providing pro bono legal service. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured. PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., PINE, HAYES, SCUDDER AND BURNS, JJ. (Filed Sept. 28, 2001.)

MATTER OF JAMES C. SLOAN, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of censure entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 14, 1988, and formerly maintained an office for the practice of law in Buffalo. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct including trust account improprieties. Respondent filed an answer admitting the allegations of the petition, and appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation. Respondent admits that he issued two checks drawn on his trust account for matters unrelated to his representation of the only client for whom he had funds on deposit, causing the balance in the account to fall below the amount of the client's interest. He then deposited personal funds into the account to rectify the deficiency, thereby commingling funds. Additionally, he admits that he neglected a client's matrimonial matter while he was in the process of relocating to another State. 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; 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 (c) (2) (ii) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [c] [2] [ii] ) - collecting a fee in a domestic relations matter without executing with the client a written retainer agreement; 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; DR 5-105 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.24 [a]) - failing to decline proffered employment when it is likely to involve him in representing differing interests; DR 6-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3]) - neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him; DR 7-101 (a) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.32 [a] [2]) - failing to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services; DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - commingling client funds with his own 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, including that the misconduct was not intentional and that no client suffered a permanent loss as a result of the misconduct. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., WISNER, HURLBUTT, KEHOE AND LAWTON, JJ. (Filed Sept. 28, 2001.)

MATTER OF PETER S. ZOGBY, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE FIFTH 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 Sept. 28, 2001.)