@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document A-5842
AI Analysis
Summary: The court suspended respondent Conrad from practicing law in New York for an indefinite period, effective December 18, 2007, and denied her cross-motion for reinstatement without prejudice to a future motion supported by an expert evaluation of her fitness to practice law.
Significance: This document is a court decision regarding an attorney's suspension and potential reinstatement, providing insight into the court's reasoning and procedures for handling attorney misconduct cases.
Key Topics:
Attorney Suspension
Reinstatement to Law Practice
Non-cooperation Finding
Key People:
- Conrad - Respondent attorney subject to suspension and reinstatement proceedings
Full Text
80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 09090 (Cite as: 80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187) nite period until further order of this Court, nunc pro tunc to December 18, 2007, and the branch of respondent's cross motion seeking reinstatement to the practice of law should be denied without prejudice to a further motion for the same relief, supported by an expert's evaluation attesting to her present fitness to practice law. Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for an indefinite period until further order of this Court, effective nunc pro tunc to December 18, 2007. Cross motion denied, without prejudice to a further motion, as indicated. So much of the Opinion Per Curiam and order of this Court entered on December 18, 2007 (M-4837) incorporating a finding of non-cooperation vacated, as indicated. All concur. N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2010. In re Conrad 80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 09090 END OF DOCUMENT © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. 6-3 DOJ-OGR-00010125