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.
IN RE: ATTORNEYS WHO ARE IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW SECTION 468-a. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a, Respondents.
Section 468-a of the Judiciary Law requires every resident and nonresident attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York to file a biennial registration statement with the administrative office of the courts. A biennial registration fee must be paid at the time the statement is filed. This registration statement, which is mailed every two years by the Office of Court Administration to every attorney so admitted, must be timely filed and the fee paid regardless of whether the attorney is actually engaged in the practice of law in New York or elsewhere. Attorneys who certify to the Chief Administrator of the Courts that they have retired from the practice of law are exempt from paying the registration fee at the time the statement is filed. Subdivision (5) of the statute provides further that
“[n]oncompliance by an attorney with the provisions of this section and the rules promulgated hereunder shall constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and shall be referred to the appropriate appellate division of the supreme court for disciplinary action.”
Pursuant to this provision, petitioner Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order suspending from the practice of law certain attorneys who are in violation of the statute, in that they have failed to file the registration statement and pay the registration fee for one or more registration periods after due notification. This Court has previously held that failure to register, or reregister, and pay the biennial registration fee is professional misconduct warranting discipline (see, Matter of Horoshko, 218 A.D.2d 339, 341, 638 N.Y.S.2d 445). By orders entered April 24, 1997 (230 A.D.2d 366, 657 N.Y.S.2d 133), February 3, 1998 (240 A.D.2d 106, 676 N.Y.S.2d 1) and September 17, 1998 (247 A.D.2d 158, 678 N.Y.S.2d 47), this Court granted similar motions and suspended those attorneys whose names were enumerated on an attached schedule for such failure to register, or re-register, and pay the registration fee.
The attorneys in question have received notification of their noncompliance in the following manner. The Office of Court Administration mailed each of the defaulting attorneys two notices to their last known business address and one notice to their last known home address. Attorneys who remained in default following these three notices were referred to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, which mailed a notice of an imminent suspension motion to the last known business address of the subject attorney. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated November 25, 1998 (M-7578), which provided for service of the suspension motion by publication in the New York Law Journal for five consecutive days, a list of the defaulting attorneys along with their last known business addresses was so published commencing January 4, 1999. Following publication, the motion was called in open court on January 25, 1999. Those attorneys who remain in noncompliance with Judiciary Law § 468-a despite the notification and motion process described are the subject of petitioner's motion for suspension.
Accordingly, due to the continued failure to comply with the statute, petitioner's motion to suspend such attorneys shall be granted to the extent of suspending those attorneys whose names are enumerated in the attached schedule from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective thirty (30) days from the date of this order, until further order of this Court.
ATTACHMENT
Schedule of Attorneys Suspended for Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a(M-344)
PER CURIAM.
All concur.
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: May 06, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)