OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
The respondent was served with a petition containing three charges of professional misconduct against him. Charge One alleged that he was convicted of a serious crime within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d) and 22 NYCRR 691.7 (b), in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (A) (1), (3), (4), (5), and (8) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [1], [3], [4], [5], [8]). On May 28, 1997, the respondent entered...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.