Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re Richman
Citations: 217 A.D.2d 252; 636 N.Y.S.2d 623; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13280
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 17, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court
The respondent, admitted to the practice of law on February 23, 1972, faces two charges of professional misconduct sustained by a Special Referee. The Grievance Committee seeks to confirm this report. The first charge involves the respondent's failure to respond to multiple requests from the Grievance Committee regarding complaints of professional misconduct from Arthur LoCasio and Steven Baronti, which constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, violating Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (A. 5). Despite several directives to provide written answers, the respondent failed to comply on multiple occasions, only submitting responses on May 6, 1994. The second charge asserts that the respondent's repeated non-compliance adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, violating Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (A. 8). The Court finds that the Special Referee properly sustained both charges. While the respondent requested a limited sanction based on mitigating factors, including his cooperation during a sworn session and compliance with an interim suspension, his extensive disciplinary history weighs against leniency. The Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted. In 1984, the First Department publicly censured Jeffrey Mark Richman for neglecting numerous matters entrusted to him, failing to maintain client contact, and not cooperating with investigations into his professional misconduct. In 1990, he received an Admonition for similar failures to communicate with a client and cooperate with the Grievance Committee. A Letter of Caution was issued in June 1994 for his lack of cooperation. As a result of these actions and the totality of circumstances, Richman is suspended from practicing law for one year, effective immediately. He may apply for reinstatement six months before the suspension ends, provided he demonstrates he has not practiced law during this period, has complied with the court's order and regulations governing suspended attorneys, and has otherwise conducted himself properly. During the suspension, Richman must refrain from practicing law in any capacity, appearing as an attorney before any authority, providing legal opinions or advice, and representing himself as an attorney.