| Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law \s\t468-a |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06492 [99 AD3d 190] |
| September 28, 2012 |
| Per Curiam |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, November 21, 2012 |
| In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a and 22 NYCRR 118.1, Respondents. Attorney Grievance Committees for the Fourth Judicial Department, Petitioner. |
Fourth Department, August 3, 2012
Daniel A. Drake, Principal Counsel, Seventh Judicial District Grievance Committee, Rochester, for petitioner.
Respondents pro se.
Per Curiam.
The Grievance Committees moved to suspend respondents {**99 AD3d at 191}from the practice of law on the ground that they violated Judiciary Law § 468-a and 22 NYCRR 118.1 by failing to comply with attorney registration requirements. In support of the motion, the Grievance Committees alleged that they and the Office of Court Administration sent to respondents numerous written notices concerning their delinquency, and respondents failed to respond in any fashion. This Court, by order to show cause entered April 12, 2012, directed respondents to file a written response setting forth why an order should not be entered suspending them for their failure to comply with attorney registration requirements. Respondents failed to respond to the order to show cause.
The failure to comply with attorney registration requirements violates Judiciary Law § 468-a and 22 NYCRR 118.1 and constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice warranting the imposition of discipline (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 54 AD3d 9 [2008]). Accordingly, we conclude that respondents, who are named on the attached list, should be immediately suspended until further order of this Court.
Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley and Martoche, JJ., concur.
Order of suspension entered.