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: Lawrence A. SMITH (admitted as Lawrence Aron Smith), an attorney and counselor-at-law. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Lawrence A. Smith, Esq., Respondent.
Respondent Lawrence A. Smith was admitted to the practice of law in New York by the Second Judicial Department on March 20, 1963 as Lawrence Aron Smith. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
On or about June 22, 1999, respondent pleaded guilty to scheme to defraud in the first degree, a class E felony (Penal Law § 190.65[1][b] ). He admitted that he and his law firm had bribed adjusters so as to expedite the settling of numerous personal injury cases and had “kicked back” a portion of the insurance companies' settlement payments to the insurance adjusters who participated in the illegal scheme. Respondent was sentenced to an unconditional discharge and fined $15,000.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b). Respondent asks for a lesser sanction or permission to resign, stating that he is 61 years old and has no prior disciplinary record. He asserts that other attorneys who engaged in similar misconduct were permitted to plead to misdemeanors and allowed to continue practicing law. However, this court has no discretion to consider respondent's contentions (Matter of Kourland, 172 A.D.2d 77, 577 N.Y.S.2d 264). Having been convicted of a felony as defined in Judiciary Law § 90(4)(e), he was automatically disbarred by operation of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b) (Matter of Braunstein, 156 A.D.2d 109, 554 N.Y.S.2d 145).
Accordingly, the Committee's petition seeking an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys should be granted.
PER CURIAM.
All concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 18, 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)