Case ID: ad3d_76/html/0743-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Anthony C. Iromuanya, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.
    [905 NYS2d 527]
   Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2004. He resides in Texas.

Charge I of the petition alleges that respondent filed an attorney registration statement in compliance with Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (see 22 NYCRR 118.1) for the 2008-2009 biennial period accompanied by a check for the $350 registration fee which was returned for insufficient funds. Respondent has failed to correct the deficiency to date. The charge alleges a violation of former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]). Charge II alleges that respondent engaged in misleading and deceiving conduct in violation of former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (4), (5) and (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4], [5], [7]) (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [c], [d], [h]) by filing attorney registration statements for the 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 biennial registration periods, which contained his false certifications that he was exempt from the continuing legal education requirements. Charge III alleges that respondent failed to cooperate with the Office of Court of Administration and petitioner in violation of former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (5) and (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5], [7]) (Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d], [h]) by failing to correct his registration fee delinquency despite requests from the Office of Court Administration and petitioner to do so and by failing to answer a Chief Attorney’s Inquiry regarding the false certifications.

Respondent did not answer the petition nor has he answered or otherwise appeared in response to petitioner’s instant motion for a default judgment. The petition and motion were served upon respondent by mail and the petition was also personally served upon respondent. Petitioner has filed an affidavit that supports the allegations of misconduct. Under such circumstances, we grant petitioner’s motion, and we further find that respondent is guilty of the charged misconduct.

We conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months. Any application for. reinstatement must be accompanied by proof that he has complied with the attorney registration requirements, has answered the Chief Attorney’s Inquiry, and has otherwise satisfied the reinstatement requirements set forth in this Court’s rules (see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]).

Cardona, P.J., Lahtinen, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion for a default judgment is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is found guilty of professional misconduct as charged and specified in the petition; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, effective 20 days from the date of this decision, and until further order of this Court; 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; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 806.9).