New York SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department
October 9, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF SAUL A. BERKMAN (ADMITTED AS SAUL ARTHUR BERKMAN), A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY: DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, PETITIONER, SAUL A. BERKMAN, RESPONDENT.
Matter of Berkman
Appellate Division, First Department
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.
Decided on October 9, 2012
Luis A. Gonzalez,Presiding Justice, Angela M. Mazzarelli Richard T. Andrias John W. Sweeny, Jr. Rolando T. Acosta,Justices.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Saul A. Berkman, 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 April 1, 1968. Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Kevin E.F. O'Sullivan, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent pro se. M-2984 (July 9, 2012) IN THE MATTER OF SAUL A. BERKMAN, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY
Respondent Saul A. Berkman was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on April 1, 1968, as Saul Arthur Berkman. At all times relevant to this motion, he has practiced law within the First Judicial Department.
By order entered June 8, 2006, effective July 10, 2006, this Court confirmed findings of professional misconduct and suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of nine months (Matter of Berkman, 32 AD3d 39 [1st Dept. 2006]). By order of this Court entered August 24, 2006, this Court stayed the effective date of his suspension nunc pro tunc until September 5, 2006. Our discipline arose from respondent's neglect and inadequate preparation of a legal matter, and his persistent misrepresentations to his client about the status of her case. We also considered a prior admonition for similar misconduct.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now moves, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.11, for an order accepting respondent's resignation from the practice of law and to strike his name from the roll of attorneys. Respondent's affidavit of resignation, sworn to on June 15, 2012, states that (1) his resignation is submitted freely, voluntarily and without coercion or duress, and that he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his resignation, (2) he is aware that the Committee has opened an investigation into his professional misconduct based on letters dated January 20, 2012 [FN1] and February 29, 2012, alleging that he practiced law while under suspension in violation of Judiciary Law §§ 90(2) and 486, and (3) if charges were brought predicated upon the misconduct under investigation, or a motion seeking disbarrment were made for practicing while under suspension, he would be unable to successfully defend himself on the merits against such charges or such motion (see 22 NYCRR 603.11[a]-). Respondent states further that he is delinquent in his attorney registration for the biennial periods 2008/9-2010/11. Because his affidavit complies with section 603.11, the Committee's motion should be granted.
Accordingly, respondent's resignation from the practice of law should be accepted, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys, effective nunc pro tunc to June 15, 2012. All concur. Order filed.[October 9, 2012] Gonzalez,P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Sweeny, and Acosta, JJ.
Respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, nunc pro tunc to June 15, 2012. Opinion Per Curiam. All concur. Footnotes Footnote 1:Respondent's affidavit of resignation states "January 20, 2010", however, it is believed that this is a typographical error and the correct year is 2012.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.