Voluntary resignations and decisions in attorney disciplinary

Matter of Joseph M. Hobaica, an attorney, respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, petitioner. -- Order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law [section] 90 (4) (f) and (g). Present: Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Gorski, JJ. (Filed Feb. 27.)

Matter of Thomas E. Krug, an attorney, respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, petitioner. -- Order of censure entered.

Per curiam opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this court on Dec. 6, 1965, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Buffalo. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging the respondent with acts of misconduct arising from his representation of a client who was referred to him by a friend. The petition alleged, inter alia, that the respondent gave compensation as a reward for a referral and shared legal fees with a nonlawyer. The respondent filed an answer admitting the material allegations of the petition and raising matters in mitigation.

The respondent admits he agreed to and did compensate a nonlawyer for a referral that resulted in employment. He further admits that he kept the legal fee received for his services in the matter even though, at the time he collected the fee, there was a proceeding pending to dissolve his law partnership, and an order was issued directing the parties to remit to their respective counsel half of the legal fees collected on any file in which the parties had an interest, regardless of whether the interest in the particular file was disputed.

We conclude the respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility: DR 1-102 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [3]) -- engaging in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on his honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer; DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) -- engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) -- engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) -- engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer; DR 2-103 (d) (22 NYCRR 1200.8 [d]) -- compensating or giving anything of value to a person or organization to recommend or obtain employment by a client, or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in employment by a client; and DR 3-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.17 [a]) -- sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer.

We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including that the misconduct was an isolated incident that occurred during a period of time in which the respondent was involved in contentious litigation with a former law partner. Additionally, we have considered respondent's candor, cooperation with the Grievance Committee and expression of extreme remorse. After consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude the respondent should be censured. Present: Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ. (Filed Mar. 14.)

Matter of Thomas A. Lenkiewicz, an attorney, respondent. Grievance Committee of the Fifth Judicial District, petitioner. -- Order of suspension entered. Present: Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Gorski, JJ. (Filed Feb. 27.)

Matter of G. Bruce Spence, an attorney, respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District. -- Order of suspension entered.

Per curiam opinion: The respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this court on Feb. 7, 1986. By order entered Feb. 14, 2007, the respondent was suspended by the Supreme Court of California for a period of two years for misconduct that included holding himself out as being entitled to practice law during a time in which he was suspended for failing to pay state bar membership fees. This court, upon receipt of a certified copy of the California order and decision, directed the respondent, by order entered Dec. 5, 2007, to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22. The respondent was personally served in California with the order to show cause on Dec. 24, 2007.

On the day prior to the return date of the order, the respondent sent to this court, by facsimile transmission, a letter indicating he would waive his right to appear and requesting an extension of time in which to file additional papers in response to the order to show cause. Although this court granted the respondent's request, the respondent filed no additional papers.

Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22, an attorney disciplined in another jurisdiction may be disciplined by this court for the underlying misconduct unless we find "that the procedure in the foreign jurisdiction deprived the attorney of due process of law, that there was insufficient proof that the attorney committed the misconduct, or, that the imposition of discipline would be unjust." The respondent raised no objection to the imposition of reciprocal discipline by this court, and we conclude he should be suspended for a period of two years, effective immediately, and until further order of the court. Present: Martoche, J.P., Lunn, Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ. (Filed Mar. 14.)

Copyright 2008 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.