MATTER OF TARA A. MC GEE, AN ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from the roll of attorneys (see Matter of Manown, 240 AD2d 83). PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., PINE, SCUDDER, GORSKI, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed Nov. 15, 2004.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF THOMAS C. KINGSLEY, 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 12, 1980, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Syracuse. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct, including conduct involving deceit and misrepresentation. 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 that resolved certain outstanding issues of fact. After the hearing, the Referee filed a report, which the Grievance Committee and respondent move to confirm.

The Referee found, based largely upon the admissions of respondent, that respondent: directed the service of a subpoena on a witness without court approval at a time when no action was pending; failed to notify opposing or interested parties of the subpoena or the deposition that he conducted pursuant to the subpoena; filed an affidavit in support of an application to rescind the maintenance obligation of his client that contained a misleading statement; and engaged in an ex parte communication with the support magistrate assigned to hear the client’s matter. Additionally, the Referee concluded that the actions of respondent were not deceitful and resulted from his lack of training and experience in matrimonial matters.

We confirm the factual findings made by the Referee. We disagree, however, with the conclusion of the Referee that the conduct of respondent was not deceitful.

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 have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation. We note, however, that respondent previously received two Letters of Admonition and that the Referee found that respondent’s hearing testimony lacked candor. 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: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HURLBUTT, KEHOE, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed Nov. 19, 2004.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF DOUGLAS E. ROWE, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Final order of suspension entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on March 18, 1970, and formerly maintained an office for the practice of law in Canandaigua. On December 5, 2003, respondent was convicted upon his plea of guilty in Ontario County Court of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05), a class A misdemeanor. The plea was entered in satisfaction of a nine-count indictment that included charges of criminal contempt in the second degree and tampering with a witness in the fourth degree. Respondent admitted that he instructed the complainant in a domestic violence case that she was not required to appear before the grand jury in response to a subpoena and that he in fact encouraged her not to appear. He was sentenced to perform 50 hours of community service and was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000. This Court determined that obstructing governmental administration in the second degree is a serious crime pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d), and, on January 27, 2004, entered an order suspending respondent and directing him to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered. Respondent requested a hearing prior to disposition pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (h), and a referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. The Referee filed a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm.We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee, including the finding in mitigation that respondent has had an exemplary 30-year career as an attorney. Respondent, however, has committed a serious crime involving interference with the administration of justice. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for three years, effective January 27, 2004, and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HURLBUTT, KEHOE, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed Nov. 19, 2004.)

TOP OF PAGE