Wolmer, Matter of

• Decision Date: 05 December 1996
• Citation: 226 A.D.2d 77,650 N.Y.S.2d 679
• Parties: In the Matter of Robert S. WOLMER (admitted as Robert Stewart Wolmer), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Robert S. Wolmer, Esq., Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 679

650 N.Y.S.2d 679

226 A.D.2d 77

In the Matter of Robert S. WOLMER (admitted as Robert

Stewart Wolmer), an attorney and counselor-at-law:

Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial

Department, Petitioner,

Robert S. Wolmer, Esq., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

Dec. 5, 1996.

Richard Supple, of counsel (Hal R. Lieberman, attorney) for petitioner.

Respondent, pro se.

Before ROSENBERGER, J.P., and WALLACH, TOM, MAZZARELLI and ANDRIAS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent, Robert S. Wolmer, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on May 22, 1990 as Robert Stewart Wolmer. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, he has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

In January 1994, respondent started working as an associate for the law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, and in February of 1995, seeking new employment, he submitted a misleading resume to the accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand. This resume exaggerated the amount of time he worked at prior legal and investment banking positions, including his tenure at Stroock, and omitted other positions, in an effort to present a more stable employment history. The respondent also falsified his dates of employment on a letter of reference. He was immediately terminated upon discovery of the misconduct. The respondent admitted that he had given an inaccurate resume to a potential employer on three prior occasions.

The Committee moves for an order pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 603.4(d), confirming the Hearing Panel's factual findings, legal conclusions and recommended sanction of a six-month suspension. The respondent cross-moves to disaffirm the Hearing Panel's report, arguing that public censure is an appropriate sanction for the misconduct at issue in this case.

We grant, in part, and deny, in part, the Committee's motion to confirm the Hearing Panel's report, and grant the respondent's cross-motion to the extent of directing that the respondent should be publicly censured. The respondent's misconduct was serious. It included fabricating a resume and forging a letter of recommendation, and the respondent admits that this is not the first time he has submitted a fraudulent transcript to a potential employer.

However, the respondent cooperated with staff counsel during the investigation, he testified candidly at the hearing, and his misconduct did not involve injury...