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 the Matter of Roy R. Kulscar (Admitted As Roy Raymond John Kulscar)

June 14, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF ROY R. KULSCAR (ADMITTED AS ROY RAYMOND JOHN KULSCAR), AN ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR-AT-LAW: DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, PETITIONER, ROY R. KULSCAR, RESPONDENT.


Per curiam.

Matter of Kulscar

Decided on June 14, 2012

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.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISIONFirst Judicial Department

Luis A. Gonzalez,Presiding Justice,

Peter Tom Angela M. Mazzarelli Rolando T. Acosta Leland G. DeGrasse,Justices.

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Roy R. Kulscar, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on November 12, 1968. Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Jeremy S. Garber, of counsel), for petitioner. Sarah Diane McShea, for respondent. M-3010 (October 21, 2011) IN THE MATTER OF ROY R. KULSCAR, AN ATTORNEY

PER CURIAM

Respondent Roy Kulscar was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on November 12, 1968 under the name Roy Raymond John Kulscar. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within this Department.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.3, imposing reciprocal discipline on respondent, predicated on two orders: one dated February 15, 2011 issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both suspending respondent for six months and publicly censuring him; and the other dated March 24, 2011 issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York suspending respondent for two years.

In May 2007, the Second Circuit issued an order referring respondent to its Committee on Admissions and Grievances (CAG) based on the dismissal of four criminal appeals for default in which he was counsel of record; his defaults in meeting the briefing schedule in three other criminal matters; his repeated motions for extensions of time to file briefs; and repeated instances of his being uncommunicative with court staff.

After conducting a hearing at which respondent and his counsel appeared, and accepting all of his submissions, the CAG, in a March 31, 2010 report, found respondent guilty by clear and convincing evidence of misconduct, which was aggravated by the fact that he established a pattern of behavior. The report further noted that, despite his having been aware of communication problems related to his office for a period of years, it did not appear that respondent had implemented significant changes. In mitigation, the CAG noted that respondent had a demanding practice, his personal life presented significant challenges, and he had no prior disciplinary history. In addition to recommending public censure, the CAG recommended that respondent meet certain reporting requirements.

On February 15, 2011, the Second Circuit issued an order in which it, inter alia, confirmed the CAG's factual findings and recommendation of censure, but also ordered that respondent be suspended from practice before that court for six months and, thereafter, barred for an additional one-year period from representing litigants before the Second Circuit pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act. The Second Circuit concluded that a more severe sanction than public censure was warranted because, while the proceeding was pending, respondent had been suspended on an interim basis by the Southern District, for reasons discussed below, and because he had continued to neglect appeals. The Second ...


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.