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 Mooney

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

May 10, 2017

In the Matter of Richard C. Mooney, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 2222156)

         DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING The respondent, Richard C. Mooney, was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on December 14, 1988. By order to show cause dated January 20, 2017, this Court directed the respondent to show cause why discipline should or should not be imposed upon him in this State pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 based on the misconduct underlying the discipline imposed by the order of the New Hampshire Supreme Court dated December 30, 2016.

         Diana Maxfield Kearse, Brooklyn, NY, for Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts.

          RANDALL T. ENG, P.J. WILLIAM F. MASTRO REINALDO E. RIVERA MARK C. DILLON LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

          PER CURIAM.

         By order of the New Hampshire Supreme Court dated April 4, 2016, the respondent was immediately suspended from the practice of law in New Hampshire pending resolution of four disciplinary matters. On September 20, 2016, the New Hampshire Supreme Court Professional Conduct Committee (hereinafter the PCC) filed with the New Hampshire Supreme Court a recommendation that the respondent be disbarred. The recommendation was based upon a stipulation signed by the respondent in which he admitted that he violated numerous rules of professional conduct and conceded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for his misconduct. Thereafter, an order was issued by the New Hampshire Supreme Court notifying the respondent and disciplinary counsel of the PCC recommendation and affording them the opportunity to advise the court of any legal or factual issues relating to the PCC recommendation. No response to the order was filed by the respondent.

         As reflected in an order of the New Hampshire Supreme Court dated December 30, 2016, the PCC found that the respondent violated the following New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct:

"1. Rule 1.2, which generally requires a lawyer to abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and to consult with the client as to the means by which they are pursued;
"2. Rule 1.5, which prohibits a lawyer from charging or collecting an unreasonable fee;
"3. Rule 1.15, which requires a lawyer to safeguard the property of clients or third persons in his possession, and Supreme Court Rules 50, which establish requirements for lawyer trust accounts;
"4. Rule 3.3, which prohibits a lawyer from making false statements of fact or law to a tribunal;
"5. Rule 3.4(c), which prohibits a lawyer from knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal;
"6. Rule 8.1(b), which prohibits a lawyer from knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority;
"7. Rule 8.4(b), which makes it professional misconduct to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
"8. Rule 8.4(c), which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving deceit, dishonesty, or ...

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.