MATTER OF STEPHEN THOMAS ERB, 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 Oct. 2, 2006.)

MATTER OF WILLIAM C. MIDGLEY, 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 Oct. 2, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF VINCENT A. PARADIS, 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, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Nov. 2, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF MICHAEL TERRENCE REVO, 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 Oct. 2, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF JOSEPH DRAKE RICH, 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 Oct. 2, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF NATASHA A. SINCLAIR, 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, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Nov. 2, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF J.H.M. WILL, 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, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Nov. 2, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF ROBERT S. WOLFE, 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, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Nov. 3, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

Disciplinary Matters

MATTER OF DAVID B. GROSSMAN, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of disbarment entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (a), (e). Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by the Appellate Division, Second Department on June 11, 1986. On May 3, 2002, this Court entered an order suspending respondent for a period of three years and until further order of the Court for misconduct that included misappropriation of client funds (Matter of Grossman, 293 AD2d 82). Respondent has not applied for reinstatement.

    On October 11, 2002, respondent was convicted upon his plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of money laundering (18 USC § 1956 [a] [1] [A] [i]; [B] [i], [ii]) and conspiracy to commit securities fraud (15 USC § 78j [b]; § 78ff; 18 USC § 371). He has not yet been sentenced.

    The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct based upon the facts underlying his plea of guilty in federal court. Respondent did not file an answer to the petition and, instead, submitted to this Court a proposed resignation from the practice of law.

    Respondent admitted in the plea allocution in federal court that he agreed with another person to accept a check in the amount of $125,000, knowing that it constituted the proceeds of unlawful activity, and that, prior to transferring the funds to a third party, to deposit the check into his attorney trust account in order to conceal the origin of the funds and to avoid a transaction reporting requirement imposed by law. Respondent further admitted that he engaged in a scheme to defraud the investing public and that, in furtherance of the scheme, he issued a false opinion letter in violation of the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to free certain securities for sale on the open market.

    Respondent has admitted to the commission of conduct that, "if committed within this state, would constitute a felony in this state" (Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [e]), i.e., he has admitted to the commission of conduct that would constitute money laundering in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 470.05 [3]) and fraudulent practices with respect to stocks, bonds and other securities (General Business Law § 352-c [5]), both class E felonies. Respondent therefore is disbarred by operation of law (see Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [a], [e]; Matter of Delany, 87 NY2d 508, 512; Matter of Johnston, 75 NY2d 403). The fact that respondent has not yet been sentenced in federal court does not preclude automatic disbarment, because conviction occurs upon the entry of the plea (see Matter of Chilewich, 20 AD3d 109, 110; Matter of Porges, 297 AD2d 1, 3; Matter of Salamone, 287 AD2d 143).

    Because respondent is disbarred by operation of law, he may not resign (see Matter of Kourland, 172 AD2d 77, 80). Additionally, in view of our determination in this matter, consideration of the charges of misconduct in the petition is unnecessary, and the petition is dismissed. PRESENT: SCUDDER, J.P., GORSKI, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Nov. 17, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF GARRY KING, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Final order of suspension 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. By order entered December 12, 2005, this Court granted the motion of petitioner pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.20 (e) to suspend respondent as an immediate threat to the public interest on the ground that he had failed to appear as directed by petitioner for an examination under oath and had failed to respond to a subpoena issued by the Clerk of this Court. Petitioner thereafter filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct including conversion of client funds and neglect of client matters. Respondent filed an answer admitting certain material allegations of the petition, and outstanding issues of fact were resolved by stipulation. Respondent appeared before this Court and submitted matters in mitigation.

    Respondent failed to deposit into an attorney trust account filing fees accepted on behalf of clients, failed to complete legal matters on behalf of clients, failed to return funds to clients in a prompt manner as requested by the clients and failed to execute written retainer agreements with matrimonial clients or provide to them itemized bills at regular intervals.

    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) (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 2-101 (k); 2-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.6 [k]; 1200.7 [a]) - failing to include an office address in his firm letterhead and in advertisements for legal services;

    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 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]) - intentionally 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]) - misappropriating client funds and commingling such funds with personal funds;

    DR 9-102 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) - failing to maintain client funds in a special account separate from his business or personal accounts; and

    DR 9-102 (c) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [4]) - failing to pay to the client in a prompt manner as requested by the client funds in his possession that the client is entitled to receive.

    We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including that, when he entered private practice, he opened two bank accounts and erroneously believed that one of the accounts was an attorney trust account. When the bank subsequently withdrew funds from that account to rectify a shortage in the other account, client funds were depleted. Additionally, we have considered the previously unblemished record of respondent and his expression of extreme remorse for his misconduct. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for a period of six months, effective immediately, and until further order of the Court. Respondent is directed to make restitution pursuant to the order entered herewith. PRESENT: HURLBUTT, A.P.J., KEHOE, MARTOCHE, AND SMITH, JJ. (Filed Nov. 17, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF KEDRA L. SMALL, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.23 (b). PRESENT: SCUDDER, J.P., GORSKI, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Oct. 25, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF PATRICIA E. SWARTZ, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of disbarment entered. Memorandum: Respondent’s unexcused failure to appear or answer the petition constitutes a default (see Matter of Termini, 28 AD3d 1256; Matter of Hensel, 24 AD3d 1324). PRESENT: SCUDDER, J.P., GORSKI, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Nov. 17, 2006.)

TOP OF PAGE