Case Name: In the Matter of George A. Schell, Jr., an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2001-09-28
Citations: 286 A.D.2d 56
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of George A. Schell, Jr., an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 286
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
[732 NYS2d 295]
In the Matter of George A. Schell, Jr., an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner.
Fourth Department,
September 28, 2001
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Andrea T. Burciaga, Associate Counsel, Seventh Judicial District Grievance Committee, for petitioner.
Dean J. Fero, Rochester, for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 14, 1994, and maintained an office for the practice of law in Fairport. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct arising from his misappropriation of law firm retainer funds. Respondent filed an answer admitting the allegations of the petition, and appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation.
We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) — engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and
DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) — engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer.
We note in mitigation that the misconduct occurred at a time when respondent was suffering from depression and the side effects of medication that was prescribed for his depression. Additionally, we note that respondent admitted the misconduct, made restitution and cooperated with the Grievance Committee's investigation. Finally, we have considered respondent's previously unblemished record and commitment to providing pro bono legal service. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured.
Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Scudder and Burns, JJ., concur.
Order of censure entered.