Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Leichtner v. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District (N.Y.App.Div. 03/20/2009)

March 20, 2009

MATTER OF EDWARD J. LEICHTNER, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT.
v.
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER.



Per curiam.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication inthe Official Reports.

OPINION AND ORDER

Order of suspension entered.

Opinion

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 26, 1992, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Penfield. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct including neglecting client matters, making misrepresentations to clients and failing to comply with rules regarding the maintenance of client funds and required records. Respondent did not file an answer to the petition, but he appeared before this Court and submitted matters in mitigation.

We deem the allegations in the petition to be admitted, and we find that respondent neglected the matters of two clients, made misrepresentations to clients and to the Grievance Committee during its investigation, made inappropriate comments to a client regarding the client's daughter, failed to maintain a balance in his trust account sufficient to cover his liabilities to clients, disbursed funds from his trust account in payment of personal expenses, issued checks and made disbursements on behalf of clients against trust account funds in excess of the amount of funds that he had on deposit for those clients, failed to comply with attorney registration requirements and failed to cooperate with the investigation of the Grievance Committee.

We conclude that respondent has violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) - engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) - engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) - engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer;

DR 6-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3]) - neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him;

DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - misappropriating funds belonging to another person that are in his possession incident to his practice of law;

DR 9-102 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) - failing to maintain client funds in a special account separate from his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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