State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: September 11, 2014 D-51-14 

___________________________________

In the Matter of THOMAS W. 

PLIMPTON, a Suspended

Attorney.

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STANDARDS,

Petitioner

THOMAS W. PLIMPTON,

Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 2849966)

___________________________________

Calendar Date: September 3, 2014

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

__________

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards,

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 1997. 

He formerly maintained an office for the practice of law in the

City of Plattsburgh, Clinton County.

By decision and order dated April 17, 2014, this Court

found respondent guilty of professional misconduct immediately

threatening the public interest and suspended him from the

practice of law pending consideration of the disciplinary charges
-2- D-51-14 

filed against him (Matter of Plimpton, 116 AD3d 1297 [2014]). We

then granted petitioner's motion for an order declaring that no

factual issues were raised by the pleadings (see 22 NYCRR 806.5). 

We now find respondent guilty of the two charges of professional

misconduct set forth in the petition and supplementary petition

alleging that, between June 2009 and June 2013, he converted over

$29,000 in funds that he received from, among other things,

billing clients for fraudulent expenses, and then using those

funds for personal purposes. Consequently, respondent is guilty

of violating Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule

8.4 (b), (c), (d) and (h) by having engaged in conduct that was

illegal, involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,

was prejudicial to the administration of justice, and adversely

reflected on respondent's fitness as a lawyer. 

We have now heard respondent in mitigation and conclude

that, under all of the circumstances presented and in order to

protect the public, deter similar professional misconduct and

preserve the reputation of the bar, respondent's fraudulent and

deceptive misconduct warrants his disbarment (see Matter of

Chamblee, 96 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2012]; Matter of Kahn, 37 AD3d 949,

950 [2007]; Matter of Van DeLoo, 240 AD2d 940, 944-945 [1997], lv

denied 90 NY2d 811 [1997]). As previously noted by this Court,

"conversion of client funds [is] a most serious violation of an

attorney's ethical obligations," and it is viewed accordingly

(Matter of Balok, 2 AD3d 887, 887 [2003]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.,

concur.

ORDERED that respondent is found guilty of professional

misconduct as charged in the petition and supplemental petition;

and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is disbarred and his name is

stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the

State of New York, effective immediately; and it is further 
-3- D-51-14 

ORDERED that 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 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 disbarred attorneys

(see 22 NYCRR 806.9).

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court