| Matter of Siegel; Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial |
| Motion No: 1990-03970 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2006 NYSlipOp 71501(U) |
| Decided on June 30, 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
M41700
K/nl
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
ANITA R. FLORIO
HOWARD MILLER
ROBERT W. SCHMIDT
FRED T. SANTUCCI, JJ.
|
1990-03970 In the Matter of Matthew A. Siegel, admitted as Matthew Allen Siegel, a disbarred attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 1922558)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Motion by the respondent for, inter alia: 1) clarification of the decision and order of this court dated March 17, 2006, which denied his application for reinstatement; 2) an extension of time to seek reargument and/or renewal of his application for reinstatement and the granting of a hearing with respect to the grounds for this Court's rejection of his application for reinstatement; and/or 3) leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The respondent was admitted to the Bar on March 28, 1984, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Matthew Allen Siegel. By a decision and order of this court dated January 22, 1990, he was immediately suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding against him. By opinion and order of this court dated August 17, 1992, he was disbarred based upon 12 charges of professional misconduct, including commingling clients' funds, failing to maintain required escrow records, making improper withdrawals from his escrow account, filing suits merely to harass or maliciously injure others, charging excessive fees, overreaching, failing to return an unearned fee, and failing to act competently. By decision and order on application of this court dated June 12, 2002, the respondent 's first application for reinstatement was denied on the ground that he did not demonstrate the requisite fitness and character to practice law. By decision and order of this court dated March 17, 2006, the respondent's second application for reinstatement was denied on the same ground.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition and in response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is denied.
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, MILLER, SCHMIDT and SANTUCCI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court