| Matter of McNamara; Grievance Committee for the Ninth |
| Motion No: 2001-08741 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2006 NYSlipOp 60873(U) |
| Decided on January 19, 2006 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M34779
K/nal
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
ANITA R. FLORIO
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
THOMAS A. ADAMS
DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
|
2001-08741
In the Matter of Maureen McNamara, admitted as Maureen Margaret McNamara, a suspended attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 1259241)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT |
Motion by the respondent for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department on February 5, 1979, under the name Maureen Margaret McNamara. By opinion and order of this court dated February 3, 2003, she was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year. By decision and order on motion of this court dated June 9, 2004, her motion for reinstatement was held in abeyance and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on the respondent's current fitness to be an attorney including, but not limited to, the unsatisfied judgments against her and whether she properly notified her clients of her suspension by certified mail, return receipt requested, as required by this court's rules. By decision and order of this court dated April 27, 2005, her motion for reinstatement was continued to be held in abeyance and the matter was referred back to the Committee on Character and Fitness for further investigation and report on the respondent's current fitness to be an attorney, specifically for: (1) detailed information and documentation regarding the status of judgments against the respondent, actions for recovery of monies due and/or outstanding debts of the respondent; (2) detailed information and documentation regarding the taxpayer actions in which the respondent has been included as a plaintiff; and (3) detailed information and documentation regarding the malpractice lawsuit commenced by the respondent.
Upon the report of the Committee on Character and Fitness, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
We find that the respondent does not demonstrate the requisite fitness and character to practice law.
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, SCHMIDT, ADAMS and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court