Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of Francis W. TESSEYMAN, Jr., An Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Eighth Judicial District, Petitioner.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on September 15, 1971 and maintains an office in the Town of West Seneca. The Grievance Committee has filed a petition charging respondent with two counts of misconduct. The petition alleges that respondent neglected an estate matter, made misrepresentations to the beneficiaries regarding the status of the estate, and failed to cooperate with the Grievance Committee during its investigation of the matter. Respondent has filed an answer admitting the allegations of the petition and setting forth matters in mitigation.
We conclude that respondent has 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;
DR 1-102(A)(5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][5] )-engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
DR 1-102(A)(8) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][8] )-engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law;
DR 6-101(A)(3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30[a][3] )-neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him; and
DR 7-101(A)(2) (22 NYCRR 1200.32[a][2] )-failing to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services.
In mitigation, we note that respondent has agreed to reimburse the beneficiaries of the estate involved for their financial losses caused by his neglect and that the misconduct occurred because of the inability of respondent to manage his office efficiently. We also note that respondent is currently being assisted by the Erie County Bar Foundation and has sought psychiatric assistance. Therefore, we conclude that respondent should be censured.
Order of censure entered.
MEMORANDUM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 14, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)