Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Outman (In re Outman)

• Citation: 209 A.D.3d 42,173 N.Y.S.3d 7
• Decision Date: 23 August 2022
• Docket Number: Motion No. 2022-02070,Case No. 2022-02114
• Parties: In the MATTER OF William D. OUTMAN, II, an attorney and counselor-at law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. William D. Outman, II, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 3002391), Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

209 A.D.3d 42
173 N.Y.S.3d 7

In the MATTER OF William D. OUTMAN, II, an attorney and counselor-at law:

Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,
v.
William D. Outman, II, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 3002391), Respondent.

Motion No. 2022-02070
Case No. 2022-02114

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Entered: August 23, 2022

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Remi E. Shea, Esq., of counsel), for petitioner.

Respondent pro se.

David Friedman, J.P., Lizbeth González, Manuel J. Mendez, Bahaati E. Pitt, John R. Higgitt, JJ.

Per Curiam

173 N.Y.S.3d 9

209 A.D.3d 43

Respondent William D. Outman, II, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on October 26, 1999. Respondent's registered address is in Maryland, but this Court retains jurisdiction over him as the admitting Department (Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.7 [a][2]).

Respondent consented to disbarment in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI § 12. He submitted a sworn affidavit dated June 15, 2021 wherein he acknowledged that he was aware that the District of Columbia's Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) had prepared charges against him alleging professional misconduct in his role as counsel to and personal representative of an estate, which included engaging in reckless misappropriation in violation of District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct rule 1.5(a) - failure to safeguard client property. Respondent also acknowledged that the material facts upon which the allegations of misconduct are predicated were true and that he consented to disbarment because he knew that if disciplinary proceedings based on the alleged misconduct were brought, he could not successfully defend against them. Furthermore, respondent acknowledged that his consent was freely given, he was not subject to coercion or duress, and he was fully aware of the implications of consenting to disbarment.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility filed respondent's June 15, 2021 affidavit, and a report and recommendation with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. On July 15, 2021, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals entered an order disbarring respondent by consent pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI § 12 and directed that it be published. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals further directed that pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI §...