Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Peters

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


August 6, 2008

IN THE MATTER OF KRISTAN PETERS, AN ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Brian M. Cogan U.S.D.J.

ORDER

On May 14, 2008, the Committee on Grievances of this Court (the "Committee") entered an Order (the "May 14 Order") imposing reciprocal suspension on the respondent in recognition of an Order suspending her that the Committee on Grievances of the Southern District of New York had issued on April 18, 2008. The Southern District had suspended respondent based upon her conduct in a case before the Hon. Harold Baer, a judge of that court, who had imposed sanctions upon her. The May 14 Order provided that the suspension would become effective 24 days after issuance unless stayed by this Court.

On June 5, 2008, respondent moved this Court for an Order revoking or staying her suspension pending her appeal of Judge Baer's sanctions Order to the Second Circuit. That motion was denied on July 2, 2008. On July 14, 2008, respondent again moved, this time for reconsideration, and for a stay pending review of that motion, or, in the alternative, for modification of the May 14 Order to allow respondent to continue representing a client in two cases pending before this Court (the "reconsideration motion").

In reviewing the reconsideration motion, it came to the Court's attention that although the May 14 Order had noted respondent's suspension by the Southern District of New York, it mistakenly stated that the suspension was upon the terms and conditions set by "the Northern District of New York." The Court therefore issued an Amended Order correcting that error on July 15, 2008.

The Committee has now reviewed the motion for reconsideration, and that motion is denied. Respondent has failed to provide the requisite clear and convincing evidence why reciprocal removal should not be imposed, and has not otherwise satisfied the Committee that there is sufficient reason to defer or modify such reciprocal discipline.

SO ORDERED.

20080806

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.