Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Calendar Date: March 31, 2009
Before: Spain, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, McCarthy and Garry, JJ.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1988. He practices law in New Jersey, where he was admitted to the bar in 1987.
By order dated January 20, 2009, the Supreme Court of New Jersey censured respondent for professional misconduct because he engaged in impermissible fee sharing with a non-lawyer firm employee and related misconduct. Another firm lawyer who was found more culpable was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months in New Jersey and has been reciprocally disciplined by this Court (Matter of Fusco, ___ AD3d ___ [decided herewith]).
Petitioner moves for an order imposing reciprocal discipline (see 22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has filed an affidavit in mitigation.
Having considered the conduct which gave rise to respondent's discipline in New Jersey and respondent's affidavit in mitigation, and having due regard for the discipline imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court, we conclude that the same discipline should be imposed by this Court as was imposed in New Jersey, i.e., censure.
Spain, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that petitioner's motion is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is censured.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...