Matter of Hogan , 38 N.Y.S.3d 850 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                             State of New York
    Supreme Court, Appellate Division
    Third Judicial Department
    Decided and Entered: October 13, 2016                     D-60-16
    ___________________________________
    In the Matter of JOHN M.
    HOGAN III, an Attorney.
    ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
    FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL
    DEPARTMENT,                                MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    Petitioner;
    JOHN M. HOGAN III,
    Respondent.
    (Attorney Registration No. 2348951)
    ___________________________________
    Calendar Date:   September 7, 2016
    Before:   McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.
    __________
    Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third
    Judicial Department, Albany (Michael G. Gaynor of counsel), for
    petitioner.
    Corrigan, McCoy & Bush, PLLC, Rensselaer (Scott W. Bush of
    counsel), for respondent.
    __________
    Per Curiam.
    Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1990.
    He maintains an office for the practice of law in the City of
    Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County.
    By May 2014 notice of petition, petitioner commenced this
    proceeding against respondent, initially charging him with four
    charges of professional misconduct involving two separate
    clients. Subsequently, in February 2015, a supplemental petition
    -2-                D-60-16
    of charges was filed setting forth 11 charges of professional
    misconduct encompassing his representation of four clients.
    Respondent denied the allegations and a Referee was appointed to
    hear and report on the consolidated petitions. Thereafter,
    following a lengthy hearing, the Referee submitted a report in
    March 2016 that made various factual findings and sustained
    several of the charges in the petitions.
    Upon the parties' cross motions to affirm and disaffirm
    that report – whereupon petitioner withdrew three of the charges
    – this Court found respondent guilty of eight of the 12 remaining
    charges of professional misconduct in a June 2016 confidential
    order. Specifically, with respect to the May 2014 petition,
    respondent was found guilty of failing to properly communicate
    with a client (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR
    1200.0] rule 1.4 [a] [1] [iii]; [3]; [b]), failing to forward a
    client's requested files (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22
    NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.15 [c] [4]) and knowingly misleading and
    deceiving petitioner in its investigation of respondent's conduct
    (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4
    [c], [d]). With respect to the February 2015 supplemental
    petition, respondent was found guilty of two charges of
    neglecting various legal matters and appeals entrusted to him by
    separate clients (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR
    1200.0] rules 1.3 [b]; 1.16 [b] [3]; 8.4 [d], [h]), one charge of
    failing to properly notify a client of his receipt of funds in
    which the client had an interest and failing to promptly remit
    those funds and render an appropriate accounting (see Rules of
    Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.15 [c] [1], [3],
    [4]), one charge of failing to obtain the required Surrogate's
    Court approval of a wrongful death settlement on behalf of a
    client (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule
    8.4 [d], [h]) and one charge of continuing to hold funds of a
    missing client without attempting to locate the client or seeking
    a court order disbursing the funds to the Lawyer's Fund for
    Client Protection (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR
    1200.0] rule 1.15 [f]).
    We have heard respondent in mitigation, where he expressed
    remorse. We have also considered the fact that respondent's
    serious professional misconduct is aggravated by a lengthy
    -3-                D-60-16
    disciplinary history that includes two letters of caution and
    three letters of admonition and oral admonitions issued by
    petitioner for similar misconduct. Upon consideration of all
    relevant factors presented herein, and in order to protect the
    public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession and
    deter others from committing similar misconduct (see Uniform
    Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b]
    [2]), we conclude that respondent should be suspended from the
    practice of law for a period of two years, effective 30 days from
    the date of this order (see Matter of Reilly, 9 AD3d 736, 737
    [2004]; Matter of Harter, 86 AD2d 696, 697 [1982]).
    McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.,
    concur.
    ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of
    law for a period of two years, effective 30 days from the day of
    this decision, and until further order of this Court (see
    generally Uniform Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22
    NYCRR] § 1240.16); and it is further
    ORDERED that, for the period of suspension, respondent is
    commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any
    form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of
    another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an
    attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice,
    board, commission or other public authority, or to give to
    another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any
    advice in relation thereto;
    -4-                  D-60-16
    ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of
    the Uniform Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters regulating
    the conduct of suspended attorneys (see Uniform Rules for
    Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15).
    ENTER:
    Robert D. Mayberger
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D-60-16

Citation Numbers: 143 A.D.3d 1044, 38 N.Y.S.3d 850

Filed Date: 10/13/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023