| Matter of Weekes |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07805 [44 AD3d 1154] |
| October 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| In the Matter of Oscar W. Weekes, Jr., an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner. |
—[*1]
Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice in Massachusetts in 1988, where he was
employed as a corporate attorney. He was admitted to practice by this Court in 2002.
On February 8, 2005, as the result of a complaint of professional misconduct, an order was
entered by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County temporarily suspending
respondent, on consent, pending a full disciplinary proceeding. Thereafter, by decision dated
June 23, 2005, this Court denied petitioner's motion for reciprocal discipline but temporarily
suspended respondent from the practice of law for an indefinite period and until further order of
this Court (see Matter of Weekes,
19 AD3d 931 [2005]).
By order dated June 26, 2007, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County
suspended respondent, on consent, from practice in that jurisdiction, for an indefinite period,
retroactive to the date of his temporary suspension. Respondent admitted to, among other [*2]things, fraudulent misappropriation of his employer's funds for
personal use. The stipulation indicated that respondent paid restitution to his employer.
Petitioner moves for an order imposing reciprocal discipline pursuant to this Court's rules
(see 22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has not replied to or otherwise appeared on the
motion nor has he filed a copy of the Massachusetts disciplinary order as required (see 22
NYCRR 806.19 [b]).
We grant petitioner's motion and further conclude that, in the interest of justice, respondent
should be reciprocally suspended from the practice of law in this state for an indefinite period.
Further, any application for reinstatement by respondent shall require the showing pursuant to
this Court's rules (see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]) and include proof of respondent's
reinstatement to practice in Massachusetts (see Matter of Ledingham, 40 AD3d 1256 [2007]).
Mercure, J.P., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner's
motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law
for an indefinite period, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court; and it is
further ordered that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain
from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another;
and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court,
judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to
the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that
respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court's rules regulating the conduct of
suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 806.9).