Farley, Matter of

Decision Date10 June 1994
PartiesIn the Matter of Richard J. FARLEY Jr., an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Richard J. Farley Jr., Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Mark S. Ochs (Michael Philip Jr., of counsel), Albany, for petitioner.

Richard J. Farley Jr., in pro per.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, CREW, YESAWICH and PETERS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this attorney disciplinary proceeding, petitioner Committee on Professional Standards charges respondent with failure to file an attorney registration statement and failure to pay the attendant registration fee, as required by Judiciary Law 468-a (charge I); failure to comply with directives of this court and petitioner (charge II); and failure to cooperate with petitioner (charge III). Respondent was admitted to practice by this court in 1974.

After petitioner moved for a default judgment on the petition, respondent belatedly filed an answer. Because respondent has not provided a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely file the answer, we grant petitioner's motion.

As to charge I, we find respondent guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and of conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law by reason of his failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements since 1990 (see, Judiciary Law 468-a[5]; Matter of Agrillo, 194 A.D.2d 16, 18, 604 N.Y.S.2d 171). In mitigation, respondent states that he has not engaged in the practice of law since his registration for the 1990-1991 biennial registration period was due in September 1990. Respondent, however, was required to register and pay the registration fee regardless of whether he practiced law (see, Judiciary Law, § 468-a[4].

Respondent is also guilty of failure to cooperate with petitioner as alleged in charge III. Until the filing of his late answer, respondent made no reply to letters from petitioner concerning his failure to register, including a formal letter of caution (see, 22 NYCRR 806.4[c][1][iii] dated August 9, 1993; nor to a subsequent motion to summarily suspend respondent from practice; nor to the instant petition and subsequent default judgment motion, both of which were served upon him personally.

We find respondent not guilty of charge II alleging failure to comply with directives of this court and petitioner. This charge arises out of a 1988 letter of admonition issued to respondent by petitioner which contained the condition that respondent's activities as an attorney be limited to his work with the New York State Legislature and as an associate or consultant with an Albany law firm. Since it appears r...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-A., PM–100–20
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 30 Julio 2020
    ...743, 743–744, 674 N.Y.S.2d 156 [1998] ; Matter of Ryan, 238 A.D.2d 713, 713–714, 656 N.Y.S.2d 444 [1997] ; Matter of Farley, 205 A.D.2d 874, 874–875, 613 N.Y.S.2d 458 [1994] ).AGC has put forth uncontroverted evidence of respondents' misconduct in the form of documentary proof that each res......
  • In re Creamer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 25 Mayo 2017
    ...743, 743–744, 674 N.Y.S.2d 156 [1998] ; Matter of Ryan, 238 A.D.2d 713, 713–714, 656 N.Y.S.2d 444 [1997] ; Matter of Farley, 205 A.D.2d 874, 874–875, 613 N.Y.S.2d 458 [1994] ), she is ineligible for nondisciplinary resignation and her application must be denied (see Matter of Cluff, 148 A.D......
  • In re Lee-Davis
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 26 Octubre 2017
    ...743, 743–744, 674 N.Y.S.2d 156 [1998] ; Matter of Ryan, 238 A.D.2d 713, 713–714, 656 N.Y.S.2d 444 [1997] ; Matter of Farley, 205 A.D.2d 874, 874–875, 613 N.Y.S.2d 458 [1994] ), she is ineligible for nondisciplinary resignation and her application must be denied (see Matter of Cluff, 148 A.D......
  • In re Wilson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 25 Mayo 2017
    ...743, 743–744, 674 N.Y.S.2d 156 [1998] ; Matter of Ryan, 238 A.D.2d 713, 713–714, 656 N.Y.S.2d 444 [1997] ; Matter of Farley, 205 A.D.2d 874, 874–875, 613 N.Y.S.2d 458 [1994] ), he is ineligible for nondisciplinary resignation and his application must be denied (see Matter of Cluff, 148 A.D.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT