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 Rodney W. JENNINGS, Jr., an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Fifth Judicial District, Petitioner.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 9, 1992, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Tully. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of professional misconduct arising from his misappropriation of retainer funds entrusted to him while he was employed by a law firm. Respondent filed an answer admitting the allegations of the petition, and appeared before this Court to submit matters in mitigation.
Respondent admits that, over a period of approximately three years, he collected legal fees from seven clients without notifying the firm. He further admits that he failed to deposit the fees in the law firm's accounts and used the funds for personal purposes.
We conclude that respondent 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)(7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][7] )-engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer; and
DR 9-102(a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46[a] )-misappropriating funds belonging to another person that are in his possession incident to his practice of law.
We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including that he suffered from depression during the period when the misconduct occurred. The proof submitted by respondent, however, fails to establish a causal connection between the depression and his multiple thefts. Additionally, we have considered that respondent has made partial restitution and that he has a previously unblemished record. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for two years and until further order of the Court (see Matter of Frank, 307 A.D.2d 142, 764 N.Y.S.2d 231; Matter of Trimboli, 304 A.D.2d 282, 762 N.Y.S.2d 192). Additionally, we direct respondent to make restitution in accordance with the order entered herewith.
Order of suspension entered.
PER CURIAM:
Thank you for your feedback!
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: April 29, 2005
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)