MATTER OF ARTHUR S. BICKEL, AN ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys (see Matter of Manown, 240 AD2d 83). PRESENT: SCUDDER, J.P., GORSKI, GREEN, PINE, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed Jan. 20, 2006.)

MATTER OF LAWRENCE J. FINEBERG, 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 10, 1991, and was formerly employed in Buffalo. Respondent currently resides out of state. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct based upon his repeated failure to comply with attorney registration requirements. Respondent failed to file an answer to the petition. The Grievance Committee thereafter filed a motion for an order finding respondent in default. Respondent filed no papers in response to the motion and did not appear before this Court on the return date of the petition. Consequently, we find respondent in default and deem the allegations of the petition to be admitted.

    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.

    We have considered, in mitigation, that respondent has satisfied outstanding attorney registration fees. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, J.P., GORSKI, GREEN, PINE, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed Feb. 3, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF JOHN S. POMEROY, 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 September 12, 1977. By order entered August 24, 2005, respondent was suspended by the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, for a period of one year, effective April 6, 2005, the date on which a temporary suspension had been imposed, for misconduct that included neglecting client matters and failing to refund unearned legal fees.

    This Court, upon receipt of a certified copy of the order of suspension entered in Massachusetts, directed respondent, by order entered December 13, 2005, to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22. Respondent filed no papers in response to this Court’s order to show cause and did not appear before this Court on the return date thereof.

    Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22, an attorney disciplined in another jurisdiction may be disciplined by this Court 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. Respondent failed to raise in response to this Court’s order to show cause any factor that would preclude the imposition of reciprocal discipline, and we conclude that he should be suspended for a period of one year and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: SCUDDER, J.P., GORSKI, GREEN, PINE, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed Feb. 3, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF EDWARD S. REICH, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Resignation accepted and name stricken from roll of attorneys. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, MARTOCHE, AND SMITH, JJ. (Filed Jan. 20, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF MELVIN G. SHAPIRO, 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 April 3, 1961, and maintains offices for the practice of law in Rochester. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct including neglect. 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 stipulated to amend the petition and the answer. After the hearing, the Referee submitted a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm in part and disaffirm in part, and respondent cross-moves to confirm.

    Respondent admitted that he neglected the matters of numerous clients. He also admitted that he used a retainer form that was not in compliance with the rules governing the conduct of attorneys in domestic relations matters and that he failed to provide clients in domestic relations matters with billing statements at regular intervals.

    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 2-106 (c) (2) (ii) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [c] [2] [ii]) - entering into an arrangement for, charging or collecting a fee in a domestic relations matter without a written retainer agreement signed by the lawyer and client setting forth in plain language the nature of the relationship and the details of the fee arrangement;

    DR 2-106 (c) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [c] [3]) - entering into an arrangement for, charging or collecting a fee that is proscribed by law or rule of court; and

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

    By order entered March 19, 2004, we censured respondent for similar misconduct. We note, however, that most of the misconduct that is the subject of the instant petition occurred during the same time frame as the misconduct for which respondent previously was censured. Additionally, we have considered, in mitigation, the findings of the Referee that respondent, following the imposition of the censure, substantially conformed his retainer forms to the rules and that his failure to provide billing statements at regular intervals resulted from his financial inability to employ secretarial assistance until early in 2005. Finally, we have considered that respondent did not act to benefit himself, harmed no clients and cooperated with the Grievance Committee. Accordingly, after consideration of all the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be censured. PRESENT: SCUDDER, J.P., GORSKI, GREEN, PINE, AND HAYES, JJ. (Filed Feb. 3, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF ALAN M. ST. CLAIR, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.20 (e). PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, MARTOCHE, AND SMITH, JJ. (Filed Jan. 18, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF DAVID M. STANTON, 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 December 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 arising from his representation of a client in securing payments from the employee benefit plan of her deceased husband and arising from his use 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 admits that he failed to maintain required records of disbursements made on behalf of his client, failed to deposit the client’s funds into an interest-bearing account, and collected a legal fee that was determined to be excessive. Additionally, he admits that he deposited into his trust account fees earned in assigned counsel matters.

    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 2-106 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.11 [a]) - entering into an agreement for, charging or collecting an illegal or excessive fee;

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

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

    DR 9-102 (c) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [3]) - failing to maintain complete records of all funds of a client coming into his possession and render appropriate accounts to the client regarding them; and

    DR 9-102 (d) (9) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [d] [9]) - failing to make accurate, contemporaneous entries of all financial transactions in his records of receipts and disbursements, special accounts, ledger books and in any other books of account kept by him in the regular course of his practice.

    We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including that he achieved a favorable result for his client, disbursed funds in accordance with her directives, and kept her advised regarding those disbursements. Additionally, we have considered that respondent participated in fee dispute arbitration and promptly paid to the client the portion of the fee determined to be excessive. With regard to the deposit of earned fees into his trust account, we have considered the statement of respondent that he acted under the erroneous belief that he was required to do so because a portion of the funds was owed to third parties. Finally, we note that respondent has an otherwise unblemished record and has submitted character references attesting to the substantial amount of pro bono work that he has performed. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be censured. PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HURLBUTT, KEHOE, MARTOCHE, AND SMITH, JJ. (Filed Feb. 3, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE