Case ID: ad3d_147/html/0048-01.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

[42 NYS3d 806]
    In the Matter of Charles U. Odikpo (Admitted as Charles Ubaka Odikpo), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.
    First Department,
    December 29, 2016
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York City (Jeremy S. Garber of counsel), for petitioner.
    
      Charles U. Odikpo, respondent pro se.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent Charles U. Odikpo was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on June 20, 2000 under the name Charles Ubaka Odikpo. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now moves for an order disbarring respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.4 (g), on the ground that respondent has been suspended under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i), and that he has not applied in writing to the Committee or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement since the date of his immediate suspension, which occurred more than six months ago on March 17, 2016 (139 AD3d 17 [1st Dept 2016]). Respondent, pro se, was served with this motion to disbar by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested, but no response has been received.

More than six months have elapsed since the date of this Court’s suspension order and respondent has failed to appear or contact the Committee or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement. Respondent’s interim suspension was triggered by a complaint by a client that he was unable to contact respondent to find out what happened to his case, and respondent’s drunk driving convictions and his failure to report them (139 AD3d at 20). In light of the above, respondent should be disbarred (Matter of Silverman, 135 AD3d 182 [1st Dept 2016]; Matter of Cumberbatch, 131 AD3d 91 [1st Dept 2015]).

Accordingly, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent is granted, and respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Mazzarelli, J.R, Andrias, Saxe, Moskowitz and Richter, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof.