IN RE: James A. REAVES (admitted as James Andrew Reaves)

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

IN RE: James A. REAVES (admitted as James Andrew Reaves), a suspended attorney. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, James A. Reaves, Esq., Respondent.

Decided: May 25, 2000

ERNST H. ROSENBERGER, Justice Presiding, BETTY WEINBERG ELLERIN, RICHARD W. WALLACH, RICHARD T. ANDRIAS and DAVID B. SAXE, Justices. Jorge Dopico, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel), for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.

Respondent, James A. Reaves, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on March 24, 1974, as James Andrew Reaves.   At all times relevant to this proceeding, he maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

By decision and order entered October 22, 1998 (Matter of Reaves, 250 A.D.2d 37, 679 N.Y.S.2d 591), this court suspended respondent from the practice of law, pending further disciplinary investigation, based upon his willful failure to cooperate with the Departmental Disciplinary Committee's investigation of allegations that he had neglected a client's affairs.   That complaint was dismissed upon respondent's promise to turn over the file to his client.   However, the Committee reopened the investigation after discovering that respondent had caused the dismissal of his client's case by failing to appear for a deposition.   The Committee alleged that respondent had seriously neglected his client's case and that he had not been honest with the Committee about the consequences of his failure to appear.

During the course of the Committee's investigation, respondent failed to respond to two letters sent by the Committee and also failed to reschedule the deposition for which he was subpoenaed.   After repeatedly informing him that his continued lack of cooperation would lead to his suspension, the Committee moved to suspend respondent by motion dated July 8, 1998.   The notice of motion further stated that pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 603.4(g), an attorney who does not appear or apply in writing for a hearing or reinstatement within six months from the date of his suspension may be disbarred without further notice.   Respondent did not answer the motion.

Shortly after his suspension, respondent telephoned Committee staff to express his intention to seek reinstatement.   However, he has not applied in writing to the Committee or the court for a hearing or reinstatement.   Due to his failure to apply within six months from the date of his suspension, the Committee's motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 603.4(g) should be granted, and respondent's name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York, effective immediately (Matter of Tucker, 241 A.D.2d 250, 670 N.Y.S.2d 855).

Motion granted and respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective immediately, and until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Departmental Disciplinary Committee have been concluded, and until the further order of this Court.

PER CURIAM.

All concur.