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.

In re Quail

September 29, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF JAMES JOSEPH QUAIL, AN ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW.
GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE FOR THE TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER;
v.
JAMES JOSEPH QUAIL, RESPONDENT. (ATTORNEY REGISTRATION NO. 3012267)



DISCIPLINARY proceeding instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated March 9, 2007, the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based on a petition dated December 28, 2006, and the issues raised were referred to John P. Clarke, Esq., as Special Referee to hear and report. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 14, 2007, the respondent's motion to stay the disciplinary proceeding against him and allow a diversion of that proceeding pursuant to 22 NYCRR 692.4(m), permitting him to complete a monitoring program sponsored by a lawyer's assistance program approved by the Court, was denied.

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 in the Official Reports.

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA ROBERT A. SPOLZINO and STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.

OPINION & ORDER

The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on January 12, 2000.

The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter the Grievance Committee) served the respondent with a verified petition containing twenty-eight charges of professional misconduct. After a preliminary conference conducted by telephone and a subsequent hearing, Special Referee John P. Clark sustained charges one through twenty-six. Charges twenty-seven and twenty-eight were withdrawn. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee's report as to all twenty-six charges which were sustained, and to impose such discipline as the Court deems just and proper. The respondent has cross-moved to disaffirm the report insofar as it sustained charges fourteen, fifteen, and eighteen through twenty-two, and to limit the discipline imposed, if any, so as not to preclude him from continuing with the practice of law. Charges One to Five: Worthington Case

Charges one through five pertain to the respondent's representation of Natalie Worthington, a Suffolk County Police Officer, from January 2002 through February 2005, in a civil rights action entitled Worthington v County of Suffolk, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (hereinafter the Worthington case).

Charge one alleges that the respondent is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by ignoring or otherwise violating multiple federal court orders in the Worthington case, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(a)(5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][5]).

On or about May 29, 2003, United States Magistrate Lindsay issued an order directing the parties to submit statements pursuant to FRCP Rule 56.1 by no later than June 30, 2003, directing the parties to submit a joint pretrial order by July 14, 2003, and scheduling a final conference in the Worthington case for July 14, 2003. The respondent failed to submit the FRCP Rule 56.1 counter-statement on behalf of the plaintiff by June 30, 2003, and failed to appear at the conference held on July 14, 2003. Multiple extentions of time were granted to him, which with he also failed to comply.

On or about December 16, 2003, Magistrate Lindsay issued an order granting the respondent one last opportunity to provide the defendants' counsel with a proposed pretrial order by December 26, 2003, and to submit a joint pretrial order by January 14, 2004.

On or about January 9, 2004, the defendants moved for summary judgment. On or about January 14, 2004, the respondent submitted a proposed pretrial order to the defendants' counsel, but failed to file a Rule 56.1 counter-statement for the plaintiff or any opposition papers to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On or about August 2, 2004, Judge Seybert granted the defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, except for one claim.

The Worthington case was reassigned to the Honorable Dora L. Irizzary, who, by order dated October 13, 2004, scheduled a telephone status conference for November 9, 2004. On or about November 9, 2004, neither the respondent nor opposing counsel appeared for the conference. On or about November 10, 2004, Judge Irizarry issued an order directing the parties to show cause, by filing an electronic affidavit, why sanctions should not be imposed, not later than seven days from the date of the November 10th order. On or about November 16, 2004, opposing counsel complied with November 10th order. On or about December 16, 2004, Judge Irizarry issued an order imposing a $500 sanction upon the respondent, along with a Notice of Impending Dismissal.

Charge two alleges that the respondent is guilty of conduct which adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law by ignoring or otherwise failing to comply with multiple court orders in the Worthington case, as set forth above in the factual specifications contained in charge one, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(a)(7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][7]).

Charge three alleges that the respondent is guilty of engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer by submitting an affidavit containing inaccurate facts, in response to Judge Irizarry's November 10th order, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(a)(7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][7]). On December 10, 2004, the respondent filed an affidavit containing facts taken verbatim from the affidavit previously submitted by his opposing counsel and which were inapplicable to the respondent.

Charge four alleges that the respondent is guilty of neglecting the Worthington case by failing to file a Rule 56.1 counter-statement and papers in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, failing to appear on July 14, 2003, for a scheduled conference, and failing to comply with orders and deadlines imposed by the court, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101(a)(3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30[a][3]).

Charge five alleges that the respondent is guilty of engaging in conduct which adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law by neglecting the Worthington case by failing to file a Rule 56.1 counter-statement and papers in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, failing to appear on July 14, 2003, for a scheduled conference, and failing to comply with orders and deadlines imposed ...


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.